The breed called philosophers!

In philosophy there is this rather round-winding debate about the possibility of looking at the world objectively, namely as getting out of oneself and looking at it from a distance. It is like this: I can take a stand point, as distinct from the laptop I'm using, and thus speak about it.  Can I do the same about the world itself?  Not getting onto the moon or space and then speaking about it.  Because everytime I speak of the world, I'm included in it. Is there another perspective possible? And even if it is possible, how justified is one in asserting it as true?  What proofs or reasons can one have to assert that view of the world-as-distinct-from-me?

When Kant said that there are things-in-themselves and that nothing can be really known about it, everyone in his times was amazed about this.  Today this notion is criticized.  Some say that there is something called 'thing-in-itself', others deny such an existence at all. Some agree to its existence but refuse to say anything about it. Others agree and try to enumerate it.  Some agree with Kant but for entirely a different set of reasons.

Some philosophers try to solve philosophical problems, others spend time pin-pointing the 'actual' problem, some try to solve it, some only propose methods to overcome it, some try to merely understand it, some try to change it.  Some say it is only theoretically possible but not actually realistic. Others take the opposite stand.

Gosh, what a breed!