None of those things are objectively real. Everything that you cite (bolded above) is either a subjective state or a subjective evaluation.
All of those things, while subjectively experienced, have an objective reality in that they can be observed, measured, and experienced. Love is both subjective and objective, as are our thoughts and ideas. Think of it in terms of culture, for instance.
Culture is an intersubjective reality, something experienced in the interiors of individuals in a shared space. But it also has an objective, exterior side as well which can be seen, touched, felt, and evaluated. Think art, architecture, literature, and systems of norms, rules, and laws. Infrastructure, in other words, is the objective reality of an internal intersubjective reality.
Same thing with love. Point being, these subjective realities, have actual existence. They aren't just imaginary. They have an objective reality which can be seen and talked about and measured through 3rd party objectivity, even though the direct felt experience of them is subjective.
The world (current and historical) is full of societies were persons or groups, through no faults of their own, must engage in deceit to survive or avoid persecution. Where it is best to be selectively honest.
All of which are objectively real things.
Love is our label for a subjective experience. It has no objective existence. Nor does pain.
That is untrue, as I explain above. It has an impact on ones very life, mentally, emotionally and physically. It is not 'nothing'. It has both an interior reality, and exterior objective, physical aspect of it. It produces effects that can be seen and felt objectively.
I think the real question is not is it objective, but is it actually real. And the answer to both is a definite yes.
I agree that myths are not lies. But they are not truths either. They are the stories that cultures tell about themselves to preserve and persist their values and sense of identity.
So, they are stories that tell the truths of the cultures that tell them then, right? That is the argument I made, and you are agreeing with in defense of your objection to my argument.
They are useful for study and evaluation, but they are not authoritative and they are certainly not any type of objective good.
Authoritative in what sense though? Scientifically authoritative? Of course not. But they do speak with the authority of group consensus. If the group decides, or votes that these are the truths of the group, or the rules they are to believe, practice, and join themselves to, then they are authorities. Context matters when we are talking about these things.
Could it be that you are still looking for a voice Absolute Authority on all matters, such as many Christians do in claiming the Bible as "God's Word" to settle all matters of questions? I know a lot of former fundamentalists simply transfer that very expectation from scripture to science, thinking that's a better more reliable source for that Absolute Authority that they've hoped for.
But is that expectation itself even valid to have in the first place? Or is it just a misguided, unexamined leftover from religion? I think it is.
