The lure of TED Talks for many people lies in the recognition and acceptance its speakers get from the audience. I see this dependence on the audience in many forms. Some people want to be rich, so as to be thought of by others as rich. Some want to become a genius so as to be thought of by others as genius. There are people who want a car/costly gadget so that they can post pictures of it on Facebook. Can't values like wealth, intelligence or material goods/gadgets be used for one's own enjoyment without depending on an audience? No! That would be selfish they say. Yet, they hate and envy anyone who accidentally shows off such values OR seeks a warrant from other minds to enjoy such values. An year ago, I realized the philosophical precept that, that which is, is so, regardless of what/whether anybody thinks about it. The corollary of this was, nobody needs a warrant for being. I do not need other people to think of me as rich for me to experience my wealth. I do not need the recognition of another mind to validate the competency of mine. Doesn't that seem arrogant? Doesn't that fly at the face of peer reviewed process in Science? This is were the concept of Objectivity comes in to play. Objectivity pertains to the relationship of mind to the reality that exists independent of it. In matters related to the nature of that which is (i.e. metaphysics), Objectivity means the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s mind. In matters regarding the discovery of the proper methods of acquiring and validating knowledge (i.e. epistemology), Objectivity is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second. The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality.