I agree with what you say about objectivity and opinions. There is a slight bump I'm not understanding though, namely this thought:

There is no such a thing as an idea that exists outside of being already connected to you thinking it.

Going off of the sentences before it, it sounds like you're saying an idea cannot exist outside of a being. If so, that does not seem right to me.

Also, I'm still trying to grasp what you're saying about objectivity, truth, and reality. From my understanding, it sounds like you're saying not everyone may subscribe to the same worldviews, and thus

The consequence of all this is that the division that 'objectivity' tries to lay out, is an illusion.

For the most part, I agree. If it were raining outside, I could exclaim, "it is raining outside", and someone could still disagree because they do not subscribe to the empirical and do not perceive it to be raining.

However, I believe it is still possible to achieve objectivity. Logic, although largely empirical, can help us get there. For example, p = p (identity), p is p, is objectively true. Even outside of empirical bounds, I don't think it is possible to deny an identity statement. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

For this reason, I study logic. I believe in "scientific" and empirical truths because they are practical. But like you said, it is entirely possible for someone to throw practicality and empiricism out the window because of their worldview.