Is objectivity arguably the mos important Field of philosophy / ontology?

Answer 1

What is the alternative?

"The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man's consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man's consciousness, independent of of reality.

The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of 'things in themselves' nor of man's emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man's consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man - and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or 'concept-stealing'; it does not permit the separation of 'value' from 'purpose,' of the good from the beneficiaries, and of man's action from reason."

Answer 2

you can't define objectivity without being completely subjective. read some foucault and derrida. even if you find them a bit silly it is hard to argue that anyone can really be objective -- way to many things get in the way.

Answer 3

If you arrive at a better place or build a better mouse trap, do you throw it out for nostalgia of hardship? No and it is better than solipsism.

Answer 4

It's all a dream, and write the script. How can we be objective?

Answer 5

um...
I don't really see any reason why it would be.
By definition a person who was completely objective all the time wouldn't really do very much.

Answer 6

No