Does this help me?

There are roughly two major turns in epistomology (which roughly means theorizing about the possibilities of knowledge: "what can we know?"): the first was the so-called Kantian turn towards the subjectivity of it all: one can not overcome its own experience/perspective, and thus objective knowledge in the sense of knowledge from a neutral point of view wouldn't be possible. The second turn even took away that possibility of subjectivity: the contact with reality was being broken by all intermediating elements in the cultural world: the sign ruled our world and covered up what is underneath this sign: the real thing. Now what do we believe? Can we not ever view something pure, without all kinds of signals in our brains telling us what this is and would be according to connotations brought up by language? Well, does this even bother, this language? Is it really distorting reality? Isn't it simply what in the first turn was called 'subjectivity'? And if so, then what about this subjectivity anyway? So what if we constantly have this personal perspective. It is all there is. To say it is not objective knowledge would be like claiming there actually is a higher form of knowledge concerning these simple objects. Like God. And o boy did Kant believe in God. Well, I don't believe in his God, or His God's eye view for that matter. So where does that lead us. It leads us to subjective knowledge as the ULTIMATE knowledge. There may be other kinds of knowledge, but this is where it all comes from. Now what about that? Does this mean anything to you? Does this help?