I am currently working through Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. As I do so, I intend to share thoughts, ideas, questions, general responses/ramblings etc. I do not require from myself a certain format for sharing my interaction with the text, so I will simply post snippets I write down.
Because empirical knowledge is so immediate, we mistake our understanding of it for the empiricism itself. It is not; our interpretation of the empirical data is an interpretation and occurs on a more basic level than we tend to note. Even in the certainty that the empirical data is true, we show an a priori preference for empiricism. This certainty cannot itself come from empiricism, but from intuition. Intuition cannot come from the object but from ourselves.
So, this calls into question the objective nature of science; if the certainty of the validity of science itself is so thoroughly unscientific, how can science be pure? And if it were, how could it be anything more than an agnostic set of questions about the universe?
Science requires matter to exist, and ultimately for knowledge of matter to exist. But the matter does exist no matter how fully, if at all, the knowledge of it exists. Thus the objects science seeks to understand are themselves entirely objective, but once they become observed they exist as human knowledge, and human knowledge of a thing can (and tends) to fall short of the thing itself. (Oh wow, does that sound like Kant?) In this sense, it seems that knowledge of objective things is always, to a degree, subjective.