And this is why knowledge and ideas are something that goes with the flow of time, what I just said earlier would've killed me 3 centuries ago, but there were men at the time who would consequentially build these ideas, people who left us something else than scholastic and nominalism, not entirely sure what you mean by critical in this context, as a mere foreigner, but if you're saying that it is not the preferred theory amongst the population is absolutely unquestionable, but the literature on the question is not that simple, since it was indeed an importance subject of phenomenology, which is certainly modern, but not contemporary.

I kindly disagree with the statement that the paradigm's order we go after because we were blessed with reason is something we don't follow for our own personal gain, therefore, if it could be said to be objective, we do not have a grasp on it. Aristotle's dialectic has a great example for it with the paint as a false representation of the truth (not going through the whole experimentation, because it's long), meaning that what we find and think of objective is a possible fallacy, and we have no possibility to acknowledge it besides theorizing it, there's a complete and vast differential between what we see, and what's to be seen, and that is not a recent thought, Spinoza talked a lot about it in his Ethics around his idea of god.

(And please, refrain from making assumptions of what I believe or state as evident, since neither I or you knows a pinch of what is obviously accurate in this world, in this particular matter)