First, let's start with good old Kant. He wisely noted that we do not have absolute knowledge of things, but that we perceive things according to the structure of our minds. Now, he was a bit too radical in articulating the difference, insofar as the things in themselves contribute something, and therefore, we can presume that phenomena are manifestations of the things in themselves, and reflect some truths about those things, in however qualified a form.
Now, even though phenomena are partially constructed by the human mind in processing information from the things in themselves, Kant did not regard them as "subjective" per se. After all, the actual objects of consciousness are the phenomena, and statements made about them can conform more or less to the objects as they present themselves in consciousness. We experience, in intersubjective discourse, the ability to describe to a companion an object of consciousness in such a way that there is recognition of what we refer to, and agreement on its qualities. This is true even cross- culturally, so long as there is the ability to communicate intellibly. Thus, we see that we share a universe of phenomena independent of individual consciousness or group consciousness, and dependent solely on human rationality processing information from the things in themselves.
Now, even if there were a "tinge" of subjectivity in all or most statements, it would not matter, as long as objectivity is approachable by factoring out personal considerations from a given argument or investigation, so that we are capable of virtual objectivity.
Laying aside whether or not values can be objective, invoking importance is not an assertion of value per se. As I defined it, it refers to a particular quality within an identifiable context. It is a comparison of the magnitude of difference within a given scale, a scale established by progressive comparisons of difference (just as we say 8>5>3>1, to get an approximate idea of where something may be on the scale). The relative positions are fixed within the context. The context is whatever may allow such progressive comparisons, for example, taxonomical differences, or differences of historical magnitude. Sometimes the items may be subject to dispute in ranking, but generally no more than any other description that depends on the resolution of complex factors to come to a conclusion, as in the case of a matter at trial.
I define "importance" as referring to the magnitude of an objective trait, and have explained adequately the objective manner in which the criterion can be applied. That there are magnitudes of difference is obvious. Without the recognition of such things, we could not organize our perceptions into coherent and interrelated categories, for example, determining that some things are animal, some vegetable, and some mineral...... |
