We obsessively strive for objectivity. We say that objectivity is the guarantee of the most accurate definitions, findings, and conclusions. How true is this?
Science is so obsessive with objectivity that if you are not absolutely objective, you are directly labeled unscientific, in other words, an unreliable and unserious liar.
Whence this objectivity-issue? For long centuries, Western thought was strongly biased, and excessively subjective. Whatever we thought, concluded, or said, was filtered through the current doctrines of Christianity. Whatever did not fit into the Christian notion had to be altered in order to fit into the official framework or “truth.” When we realized how wrong we had been, we rejected Christianity, and with it, every trace of subjectivity. We turned towards the pseudo-objectivity of scientism and believe that what is not objective is not true and has no reason to exist. We believe that finding the truth is possible only through objectivity. Consequently, contemporary scientists are afraid of not being objective, that is, not finding the truth.
Except that subjectivity is part of truth, too. Subjectivity exists and is reality, therefore, it is part of the truth. Everything that exists is true, and everything that is true must be part of an ultimate truth. Excluding subjectivity from the toolbar of our researches and investigations causes biases and shows us only a partial facet of the whole.
While sleeping, we dream. Is the content our dreams objective? It is not. Yet the existence of our dreams is an objective fact. Therefore, the existence of subjectivity is objective, and as such, it must be included in the realm of truth and reality.
We examine man, and we try to exclude man’s most human aspect, his subjectivity. By doing so, we won’t examine man, but something that we arbitrarily call man.