I've encountered opinion like your own before and I could say that perhaps a younger version of myself would have shared that outlook, all I can do is to encourage you to consider more carefully what you are talking about and do your own research. You're not liable to be persuaded by anything anyone has to say on an internet forum for a variety of reasons but not least of which is the impression I have that you see yourself as a standard bearer and want to defend that standard.
Just this paragraph alone contains a number of assumptions and misconceptions. You assume first that I have not considered my views with care or done my own research. Without commandeering this thread to report my results, I can assure you I have done both. My views have evolved over many years of study and contemplation, and I am sure will continue to evolve as I learn and experience more. Perhaps that is responsible for the level of confidence in my remarks. The only standard I will carry is that of critical analysis.
I do not believe it is irrationality, ignorance and oppression which are legacies but which are threatened by much supposed "enlightenment", "forgetting" and repression, there are many historical examples to examine of the wake or aftermath of every "shock treatment" delivered by modernism and often only delivering dividends to particular ascendent elites, perhaps the best quote to that effect is one from Marx in which he suggested that the people of France had fought for liberty, equality, fraternity and had got infantry, calvary and artillary.
The sorts of attitudes which you share towards history and social change would be totally absurd if transposed upon an individual, it is impossible to function, thrive and exist without memory but liberals, athiests and modernists of every stripe (neo-cons or cultural liberals) seem to think none of that matters. The jury isnt out on that any longer. The evidence and verdict of history is in. Its not favourable to anyone who wants to abandon and disown and reinvent constantly.
To suggest that objectivity is synoymous with homogenuity of a negative kind, of groupthink, is alarmist and emotive in the extreme and perhaps a good indication of how weak your argument is. Think about and why you hold that opinion. I suspect its for some personal reason and less to do with a fair and balanced examination of the facts.
My post made several points, which you have somehow convoluted. I know you too little even to speculate on what is driving your substantial misconceptions. To deconvolve: I am contrasting diversity of opinion with homogeneity of opinion; and in a separate comparison, objective and subjective matters. I am making no connection between objectivity and homogeneity of thought, or between subjectivity and diversity. I also said nothing about forgetting the past, only discarding what is counterproductive or outright harmful. This is beneficial and even necessary for growth, whether for an individual or a society. To do this effectively we must indeed remember the past, lest we return to those patterns and forget the hard lessons learned. Remembering, however, does not require repeating. (As people often say about the Holocaust: never again.)
Well, I would argue with you then that a human can be objective. Affect precedes cognition, so our rationalizations are always colored by emotion (ie whether you care to admit it or not your baseline levels of neurotransmitters, whether or not you have had enough sleep, your social relationships [or lack thereof], the actions you take, whether or not you have proper nutrition, your activity level, etc all have an effect on your cognition) even in things that would seemingly be unrelated. For example, humans tend to assign gender to every object including abstract concepts. There is no rational reason to do this, but we do and our interactions with each gender probably have an effect on how we interact with our environment because of this and that is just one very small example. It has to do with a much bigger problem of sorting of experience. We create meaning by organizing experiences, but the same information can be organized in a myriad of ways without necessarily leading to contradiction, which is why humans argue so much about what "truth" is.
I am not sure where even to start with this. It is an unusual combination of assumptions and tautologies. To begin, of course all humans experience emotions, which affect our perceptions. We (some of us, at least) recognize this, and learn to calibrate our perceptions, and especially our reactions accordingly. We can't remove all error, but we can maintain enough distance from these effects to make reasonable observations and sound decisions. Second, I am not sure where you get the idea of humans automatically assigning gender to things, especially those of us whose native language (like English) reserves grammatical gender for things with actual gender. Humans so often argue over "truth" not because of this, but because so many are unable to accept that subjective truth is just that - subjective, and will be different for different people.
What I was trying to get at with my original comment about intjs was that they tend to compartmentalize their experiences and create categories or dichotomies in which they are free to play. Imo this often is due to increased levels of testosterone in utero (part of why intj is 6 times more frequent among males [however, I must admit this is just a guess]) which leads to greater hemispheric cleavages. Combine that with intjs largely being left brain dominant and the brain is not as integrated and doesn't "talk" to itself as much unless they also have higher levels of dopamine 1 and is not as prone to "look at the whole" in the same way that P types tend to. This is why intjs can have a whole breadth of knowledge in a range of fields, but they tend to see them as separate well defined spaces (ime) and while they recognize it is part of a larger integrative whole and may even try to conceptually find ways to translate between systems, they are more comfortable than other types with just allowing them to be two separate systems in two non-overlapping domains.
I don't know how you formed your impression of INTJs, but this has not been my experience, either for myself, or for other INTJs I have known. We (I) do tend to compartmentalize social experiences, but not other types of experience. In fact, I am constantly struck by how the different areas in which I engage reinforce and overlap each other. Not only do I view myself as an integrated whole, but human knowledge and ability, through the perspective of my various fields of interest. The type of brain compartmentalization you mention may relate to how we separate rational and emotional, or objective and subjective information, but I know too little about this topic to do more than speculate. In any case, this would reinforce my initial comment about INTJs being able (and willing) to separate beliefs from objective explanations, thereby maintaining both without conflict.