In this essay, I aim to write a brief critique of “Architectural Theory is no Discipline” by Mark Linder. After engaging with his essay, my perspective on Kant’s relevance today has fundamentally shifted. I’ve come to see the limitations in our capacity to introduce new categories and systems of thought.

I’d like to start by drawing an analogy between the content of our last lecture and Linder’s essay. In our last session, during our discussion with Sait Ali Köknar, he contrasted “Folksonomy” with taxonomy. He argued that folksonomy expands the boundaries of taxonomy by adding more functions and facilitating the creation of multiple taxonomies from a single folksonomy, making it a superior approach.

Philosophical movements have historically opposed their predecessors, each new theory refining or challenging the last. Prior to 1924, architectural theory was mired in binary right-wrong judgments. However, Scott introduced a perspective that encouraged the analysis of architecture to discern its merits and faults based on evaluative reasoning.

“My contention is that ‘theory’—the attempt to decide right and wrong on purely intellectual grounds—is precisely one of the roots of our mischief.”

Sir Geoffrey Scott, The Architecture of Humanism, 1924

Scott’s approach to observing and analyzing architecture to determine its rights and wrongs was revolutionary in 1924. Today, we understand the importance of defining problems accurately before attempting to solve them, a principle reminiscent of Kant’s observation that without a clear definition of God, seeking metaphysical truths is less critical than other pursuits.

When problems are ill-defined, their solutions remain elusive. We are faced with a choice: halt our inquiry and seek personal fulfillment, or continue our research, focusing not on definitive answers but on understanding the process itself. This shift in focus can lead to a deeper understanding of issues by examining the processes that define outcomes, thereby offering a new lens through which to view problems.

“Architects could be architectural in their formulation of the theory, rather than the theory in their formalization of architecture.”

Richard Rorty, Architectural Theory is no Discipline

Rorty suggests that instead of defining what architecture is, we should explore its functions, methodologies, and impacts. This leads to questions about the nature and diversity of design approaches, the basis of design decisions, and the relationships between them, laying the groundwork for a new architectural theory.

In conclusion, the definition of architecture is constrained by its broad applicability, from computer architecture to philosophical movements. Mark Linder’s exploration resembles the sociological quest to understand human character, emphasizing the evolving nature of our subjects. Just as in sociology and psychology, where the process of categorization becomes more critical than the categories themselves, architecture should be viewed as a living entity, evolving alongside human tools and habitats. This perspective underscores the importance of focusing on processes to illuminate areas obscured by traditional approaches.

As Huseyin Kahvecioglu remarked in studio lessons, “Perhaps the collapse of a philosophical system is more significant than its existence.” This sentiment encapsulates the evolving nature of architectural theory, suggesting that its transformation could offer profound insights into the discipline and beyond.