If we set out to discover the meaning of life objectively, we will fail to discover the meaning of life for the simple reason that everything in the objective depends on the meaning that we grant upon it as subjects.
Put another way, only the subject can reveal the meaning of the object. Without the subject, the object has no real meaning.
Any theory of knowledge which subordinates the subject to the object in terms of meaning dispossesses both the subject and the object of existence.
When the object is placed above the subject, it eclipses the existence at the interior of being. When the interior of being is eclipsed, being essentially disappears and becomes impossible to know.
Instead of knowing directly, we encounter objects of thought. Since these objects of thought do not emanate from or engage with our own existence at the interior of being, we experience them as something external, indirect, and unfamiliar.
When we fail to know directly, we can only know indirectly. This kind of knowledge is objectivized knowledge. The only way we -- as subjects -- can accept objectivized knowledge is to meet this kind of knowledge at its own level.
This involves sidestepping our own existence at the interior of being and projecting ourselves in the object world. In an effort to "know" the object, we become objects ourselves. Instead of the subjective conferring meaning onto the objective, the objective meets the object and confers nothing of meaning to being.
This sort of "knowledge" is often referred to as alienation.
Objective knowledge has its uses, but always at the cost of making things distant, foreign, and external to being.
Subjective knowledge -- more specifically, direct knowing -- brings things close, makes them familiar and internal to being.
Direct knowing relates to existence that which is revealed in the subject. It is the most concrete form of knowledge there is.
Note added: Paraphrased from thoughts expressed by Berdyaev, Kant, and -- believe it or not -- Charles Bukowski.