Much of the confusion over the terms objective and subjective stem from the fact that there are, in fact, two senses of both terms.
These senses are the ontological and the epistemic. A simple way of describing these are our commitments to what, in fact, exists and to how we know it, respectively.
John Searle, Mills Professor of the Philosophy of Mind and Language, UC Berkeley, in
What Philosopher’s Think (Continuum, 2003):
There is the ontological sense where, for an example, mountains have an objective mode of existence and pains have a subjective mode of existence. [That is, pain cannot exist independently of a (live) body.] That’s ontological subjectivity and objectivity. But also there’s an epistemic distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. For example, I think that Wittgenstein was a better philosopher than Russell. Well, there’s a subjective element in that. I think that Wittgenstein died in England, that’s epistemically objective. So in addition to the distinction between ontological subjectivity and objectivity you have an epistemic distinction, epistemic objectivity and subjectivity (189-90).
Searle’s point is in regards to understanding institutional reality. The "key element" is that "there’s a class of objectively existing facts in the world that are only the facts they are because we collectively recognize them as such…" (189).
Money is one example. It is historically contingent and only by virtue of social agreement that certain bits of paper and metal are money. This is ontologically subjective. But it certainly the case that what does officially serve as money in a society is epistemically objective.
These distinctions between the two senses of objective and subjective are especially important in the social, or "institutional reality." Other examples are "prime ministers, governments, marriage, private property, universities, professorships, conferences and the English language [or any other language]" (189).
The next time you encounter some blog screed invoking either of the terms objective or subjective, or even yourself in an intrasubjective calm moment, try to disambiguate the ontological from the subjective sense. It is one way to maintain your own individual mastery over language, and to not allow others to define your world for you.
