The short (if unsatisfying) answer here is that objectivity is an aspiration, not an actualization.

To go around the long way, let's start with the idea of the world-as-such. Most philosophical perspectives hold that a world-as-such exists, and that the human problem is perceptual: how thoroughly, how well, and how accurately we perceive the world as such. To make that concrete, say we are all siting in a circle looking at a flower. Whatever our philosophical leanings, we are all likely to agree that there is something there at the focus of our perception. We may not all agree what it is, we may all perceive it somewhat differently, we may have different words for it, but there is (for lack of a better phrase) some semi-stable confluence of energy we interact with that our minds translate as an object in the world at that position. Some philosophies tend to be very object-oriented, asserting that there is a close correspondence between what we perceive and what exists in the world-as-such; others are more mentalistic, holding perceived objects to be human mental constructions imposed on a largely holistic and undifferentiated world-as-such. It's just a question of how much translation and interpretation the mind is doing when it converts perceptions of the world-as-such into internal (mental) representations.

It's rare to find any philosophy that discards the world-as-such entirely, because such positions have a hard time explaining the non-arbitrariness of the world. Even Descartes postulated a demon who fed us delusions which were consistent, persistent, and coherent; that demon is his world-as-such.

The fact is that the notion of 'objectivity' is natural (almost unavoidable) because our perceptions are consistent, persistent, and coherent. If we see a fireplug in front of our house, we will always see that fireplug when we go home, unless someone removes it or a car hits it or something. If we lived in a universe where sometimes we saw a fireplug, sometimes a tree, sometimes a statue of Taylor Swift, and sometimes nothing at all, then we'd have no reason to believe there was an 'object', and thus no reason to think about that aspect of the world objectively. But that's not the universe we have. And by the same token, this consistency, persistence, and coherence allows us to have common language. You an I can talk about the fireplug in front of the house because it's always there and always the same. We may not see the same thing, mind you — what looks like a fireplug to me might look like a statue of Taylor Swift to you — but we'll use the same word for it because we can both point at it and agree on a word.

This obviously gets a bit more tangled when we talk about concepts, but the same principle applies. Terms like 'love' and 'beauty' point to consistent, persistent, and coherent sociocultural phenomena.

So the upshot is that as long as we carry this sense that the world-as-such exists (whether or not we think we can 'know' it in any complete sense), we will harbor an aspiration for objectivity: for a fair and accurate representation of that world-as-such.

The short (if unsatisfying) answer here is that objectivity is an aspiration, not an actualization.

To go around the long way, let's start with the idea of the world-as-such. Most philosophical perspectives hold that a world-as-such exists, and that the human problem is perceptual: how thoroughly, how well, and how accurately we perceive the world-as-such. To make that concrete, say we are all siting in a circle looking at a flower. Whatever our philosophical leanings, we are all likely to agree that there is something there at the focus of our perception. We may not all agree what it is, we may all perceive it somewhat differently, we may have different words for it, but there is (for lack of a better phrase) some semi-stable confluence of energy we interact with that our minds translate as an object in the world at that position. Some philosophies tend to be very object-oriented, asserting that there is a close correspondence between what we perceive and what exists in the world-as-such; others are more mentalistic, holding perceived objects to be human mental constructions imposed on a largely holistic and undifferentiated world-as-such. It's just a question of how much translation and interpretation the mind is doing when it converts perceptions of the world-as-such into internal (mental) representations.

It's rare to find any philosophy that discards the world-as-such entirely, because such positions have a hard time explaining the non-arbitrariness of the world. Even Descartes postulated a demon who fed us delusions which were consistent, persistent, and coherent; that demon is his world-as-such.

The fact is that the notion of 'objectivity' is natural (almost unavoidable) because our perceptions are consistent, persistent, and coherent. If we see a fireplug in front of our house, we will always see that fireplug when we go home, unless someone removes it or a car hits it or something. If we lived in a universe where sometimes we saw a fireplug, sometimes a tree, sometimes a statue of Taylor Swift, and sometimes nothing at all, then we'd have no reason to believe there was an 'object', and thus no reason to think about that aspect of the world objectively. But that's not the universe we have. And by the same token, this consistency, persistence, and coherence allows us to have common language. You and I can talk about the fireplug in front of the house because it's always there and always the same. We may not see the same thing, mind you — what looks like a fireplug to me might look like a statue of Taylor Swift to you — but we'll use the same word for it because we can both point at it and agree on a word.

This obviously gets a bit more tangled when we talk about concepts, but the same principle applies. Terms like 'love' and 'beauty' point to consistent, persistent, and coherent sociocultural phenomena.

So the upshot is that as long as we carry this sense that the world-as-such exists (whether or not we think we can 'know' it in any complete sense), we will harbor an aspiration for objectivity: for a fair and accurate representation of that world-as-such.