Proving What We Already "Know"

[Neo-Scholastic]

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/

I Kant take it anymore! You are like the 3rd person this week to invoke Kant. And frankly I really hate reading or trying to interpret Kant...even if he was probabley second only to Aristotle as the GOAT philospher. Serendipity compels me to face my fear.