Epistemology: Do we really know what objects are in themselves, or do we merely give categories and labels to objects

[IWantGod]

Do we really know what objects are in themselves, or do we merely give categories and labels to objects. For example we know there is a thing we call “the universe”, but do we actually know what it is, and is it possible to know?

Is an object knowable by what it does, or is there more to it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Do we really know what objects are in themselves, or do we merely give categories and labels to objects. For example we know there is a thing we call “the universe”, but do we actually know what it is, and is it possible to know?

Is an object knowable by what it does, or is there more to it.

The only thing we know in itself (per se) is our own consciousness. From our self knowledge we can deduce other second-hand knowledge. Of ourselves alone we can be absolutely certain; everything else is relatively certain in varying degrees of certainty.

An object can be knowable by what it does, or by what it appears to do.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

Do we really know what objects are in themselves, or do we merely give categories and labels to objects. For example we know there is a thing we call “the universe”, but do we actually know what it is, and is it possible to know?

Is an object knowable by what it does, or is there more to it.

There is objective truth in the semblance of an object. However, we cannot experience the form of that object. We can know something of what an object is, however, we cannot say, “this is what this object is like within its experience”. Our experience with the objects function, for instance, becomes subjective experience.

A change in perception of said object changes our experience of said object. We can know that a chair is a chair, however, we cannot perceive ‘chair’ as an experience. We can connect with the chair, saying, “this is what it is like to sit down in a chair”, however, we cannot know the reality of experience as a chair.

To objectively know the universe, one must know one’s place within said universe. But all this falls upon subjective experience; as one’s opinion/knowledge of one’s “place in a universe” is different from another’s perception of experience within a universe. To actually experience the universe, one must have all knowledge of a universe, since the perception of what lacks within one’s own knowledge, changes when we know more.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Do we really know what objects are in themselves, or do we merely give categories and labels to objects. For example we know there is a thing we call “the universe”, but do we actually know what it is, and is it possible to know?

Is an object knowable by what it does, or is there more to it.

Go read Kant.

 

[Rhubarb]

Do we really know what objects are in themselves, or do we merely give categories and labels to objects.

Depends what you say it means to know something, and what amounts to knowledge. And that’s a huge kettle of fish.

 

[IWantGod]

Depends what you say it means to know something, and what amounts to knowledge. And that’s a huge kettle of fish.

What is an atom. Is it merely what it is doing, or is there more to its identity.

 

[IWantGod]

There is objective truth in the semblance of an object. However, we cannot experience the form of that object. We can know something of what an object is, however, we cannot say, “this is what this object is like within its experience”. Our experience with the objects function, for instance, becomes subjective experience.

A change in perception of said object changes our experience of said object. We can know that a chair is a chair, however, we cannot perceive ‘chair’ as an experience. We can connect with the chair, saying, “this is what it is like to sit down in a chair”, however, we cannot know the reality of experience as a chair.

To objectively know the universe, one must know one’s place within said universe. But all this falls upon subjective experience; as one’s opinion/knowledge of one’s “place in a universe” is different from another’s perception of experience within a universe. To actually experience the universe, one must have all knowledge of a universe, since the perception of what lacks within one’s own knowledge, changes when we know more.

Yes. I don’t think we can really know what things are.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Do we really know what objects are in themselves, or do we merely give categories and labels to objects. For example we know there is a thing we call “the universe”, but do we actually know what it is, and is it possible to know?

Is an object knowable by what it does, or is there more to it.

We must know something about it in order to label it.

 

[lemondiesel]

A change in perception of said object changes our experience of said object. We can know that a chair is a chair, however, we cannot perceive ‘chair’ as an experience. We can connect with the chair, saying, “this is what it is like to sit down in a chair”, however, we cannot know the reality of experience as a chair.

What?

 

[IWantGod]

We must know something about it in order to label it.

We know it has an act. But we don’t actually know it is in and of itself.