An Analogy on The Subjectivity of the Objective

I was 3D modeling in a cafe and I just happened to use Adobe Substance Painter in which the brush size does not depend on how close or further away you are from the object but instead has an unchanged ratio with the object size — I am assuming — essentially its point of reference is the object and not the user (myself), in comparison to Blender's brushes which have a fixed screen to brush ratio (which u scale up and down as needed) and so if you're further away from the object the impact of the brush is bigger, but if you're closer, it's less. Whereas for Substance Painter, whether you are closer or further away from the object will not affect any more or less vertices. Which made me think, in the realm of objectivity and subjectivity, which software follows an objective system? 

Blender's screen-constant brush, which maintains a fixed screen-to-brush ratio regardless of distance from the object, may initially appear objective. The brush seems unaffected by the viewer's position relative to the object.

On the other hand, Adobe's vertex-constant brush, which maintains a fixed ratio with a set of vertices also appears objective because the painting remains unaffected by the user's distance from the object.

Which essentially rebuts their objectiveness, rendering it subjective. This might also imply that objectivity is a theoretical concept that is reliant on the point of reference, meaning pure objectiveness does not exist. Meaning no absolutes, as a wise Jedi once said. 

But it could also mean that Blender's brush is objective whereas Adobe's act of painting is objective. 

In the end, it's essential to consider the context and the point of reference when evaluating objectivity and subjectivity. In 3D modeling, these concepts may not have clear-cut boundaries and can depend solely on context. Therefore, they may or may not be applicable or even necessary.