complete knowledge of a simple thing

[rantal]

What would it be to have all knowledge of a simple object, say a chair or even something simpler like a single crystal? Even to behold an object before me, to rotate it and view it from every side, still my presentation is adumbrational.

So, this is not really just an epistemic question but also an existential one. What I would like to hear are your ideas, however fanciful or far-flung, as to what total knowledge of a simple object be like and what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to have such knowledge?

all the best, rantal

[The Voice of Time]

definitely not an existential question. You are in the right forum all right. But the answer is really a counter-question: doesn't all knowledge of a single thing presuppose knowledge of everything since the one thing is connected to everything else (part of the whole of existence) ?

[rantal]

Total knowledge of a single thing does indeed presuppose partial knowledge of the world in general. Given that, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to have such knowledge?

All the best, rantal

[Impenitent]

a secondary quality is in the observer not the observed...

-Imp

[rantal]

But here I am not talking about secondary qualities nor Russel's view of sense data

all the best, rantal

[pharaoh]

It doesn't directly concern your question but as you allowed much space for the answers, I see no essential difference between what you call secondary quality and primary quality. If you are going to claim that colours are different from mass, on that presumption, I would say that they are both perceived through the same procedure (whatever it might be) then, why should they be treated differently?

[rantal]

It doesn't directly concern your question but as you allowed much space for the answers, I see no essential difference between what you call secondary quality and primary quality. If you are going to claim that colours are different from mass, on that presumption, I would say that they are both perceived through the same procedure (whatever it might be) then, why should they be treated differently?

I see a table and say it is brown I then come back into the room and the sunlight is shining through the window, the table looks silver. Shape, I call the table square but it actually appears to be a rhomboid. Thus secondrly properties are dependant on the observer

all the best, urban

[The Voice of Time]

a secondary quality is in the observer not the observed...

-Imp

and you have observed that?

[pharaoh]

I see a table and say it is brown I then come back into the room and the sunlight is shining through the window, the table looks silver. Shape, I call the table square but it actually appears to be a rhomboid. Thus secondrly properties are dependant on the observer

all the best, urban

Could you please mention some primary properties of the table, as well?

[rantal]

I see a table and say it is brown I then come back into the room and the sunlight is shining through the window, the table looks silver. Shape, I call the table square but it actually appears to be a rhomboid. Thus secondary properties are dependent on the observer

all the best, urban

Could you please mention some primary properties of the table, as well?

I will but this is not a theory I am defending or relying upon.

Primary properties are generally taken to include solidity, extension, motion, number and figure.

all the best, rantal

[pharaoh]

I will but this is not a theory I am defending or relying upon.

Primary properties are generally taken to include solidity, extension, motion, number and figure.

all the best, rantal[/i][/color]

Although you're saying that you are not defending the notion of primary and secondary properties, but I suppose we need to know whether such distinction really exists or not. You argued that as you change your position(or the table's position), the shape of the table, which you consider to be a secondary property, changes. Supposedly, you are saying, that change is the reason we call that property a secondary property. What if some other changes in you or the table, causes a change in those allegedly primary properties you just mentioned? For example, if you raise the temperature of the table, its extension will increase. If you can observe such a change in an object, how could extention be a primary property? This could happen to all those primary properties you mentioned. So what is really a firm definition of a primary property?

[rantal]

Although you're saying that you are not defending the notion of primary and secondary properties, but I suppose we need to know whether such distinction really exists or not. You argued that as you change your position(or the table's position), the shape of the table, which you consider to be a secondary property, changes. Supposedly, you are saying, that change is the reason we call that property a secondary property. What if some other changes in you or the table, causes a change in those allegedly primary properties you just mentioned? For example, if you raise the temperature of the table, its extension will increase. If you can observe such a change in an object, how could extension be a primary property? This could happen to all those primary properties you mentioned. So what is really a firm definition of a primary property?

I agree with you that it is a bad theory or let us say an incomplete one. The reason it is mentioned here is solely because impenitent bought it up as an objection to my post and I explained I was not relying on such a theory. If you want to discuss this matter I suggest you broach a new topic in the same, it is not of sufficient interest to me to debate

all the best, rantal

[pharaoh]

I agree with you that it is a bad theory or let us say an incomplete one. The reason it is mentioned here is solely because impenitent bought it up as an objection to my post and I explained I was not relying on such a theory. If you want to discuss this matter I suggest you broach a new topic in the same, it is not of sufficient interest to me to debate

all the best, rantal

Thank you for responding, anyway.

[HegelsBagels]

Aristotle discussed this, you're 2500 years late.

[Sappho]

In order to have complete knowledge of any object, it seems one would first have to brake free from the human senses. Are there not things out there that humans cannot sense in themselves but that we know to exist because of the effects they have (gravity) or by way of machines that we have created (the invisible light spectrum)? There appears to be things out there that humans are incapable of sensing, and if that is the case then it would be impossible for us to have complete knowledge of anything unless we could first step outside of the human senses.