The Legendary Dragon Alephwyr, named Alephwyr, BA

This is not tightly reasoned. First assertion wrong, second assertion pointless (almost everything is "nihilistic" from some vantage point, authorianism is a bullet I'm willing to bite in this context), last assertion depends on a circular definition of personhood.

try to unpack that so i can see your reasoning

1. Everyone accuses anything reductionist of being nihilistic. But reductionism is a matter of degrees. Believing in one less "thing" than someone else doesn't make you a full blown nihilist any more than believing in one less god than someone else makes you an atheist.

2. Human nature contains whatever the source of meaning is but not everything in human nature is necessary to whatever the source of meaning is

3. These problems are innate to humans, not people. There are potentially infinite variations of persons that are non-human and some of these don't have these intrinsic problems.

oh, so some people will be infallible? they will never disagree with each other? are you sure you're not mistaking "people" for a "person"?

There are subjective and objective domains and they are seperate.

which is which, tho are you saying that fallibility isn't a fundamental, objective problem, or different willing isn't a fundamental, objective problem