Proving What We Already "Know"

[Belacqua]

It also seems careless to me if we just assume that "objective" equals "real," and "subjective" equals "illusion." 

It's not so simple.

Indeed. One of the reasons I admire Scholastic philosophy is their inordinate concern for the percise distinctions and definitions. Lately I been thinking a lot about the term "objective". I am reasonably certain a physicalist, such as @polymath, would consider himself objective. However, without an ontology that addresses the problem of universals there can be no true objects, just heaps. What I am saying is that SINCE physicialism cannot escape meteorological nihilism, AND since in meteorological nihilsm heaps never truly become objects (there are not objects); THEREFORE, physicalism cannot be objective.

Here's something to puzzle us further:

https://alioshabielenberg.com/objectivit...-and-marx/