I don't know if objective/subjective language is ill-fitting when talking about Kant, but there's an odd little hang-up I've come across recently. If we can't have knowledge of things in themselves, illustrated with the Copernican Revolution, it seems we could hastily say "everything's subjective," since every truth must pass through our sense experience in order to be known. But, I know that Kant is really famed for the a priori bit which seems that subjectivity is not where he's pointing. If we reason out an a priori truth, that seems to be something true objectively....at least how we usually mean objectively. But my hang-up is that our experience, or our articulation of that a priori truth to ourselves, must be subjective. Is all of this just satisfied by saying that there are objective truths that we don't perceive consciously?
Can anyone help me untangle this? Thanks! lol