Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Mir sets properties for objects. Properties exist as specified by the cognizing observer.
The world we are dealing with is organized in some way. It's not just chaos. In chaos, it would be impossible to think and exist, but we think and exist. At least I did. But reality is accessible to me only through perception, not directly. I build models of the world in my head, test them for adequacy, but these are just models. Not every model would fit this world. But it's not the only one.
So there are also properties and we only set them – they are just different properties and it is unlikely that they will ever completely coincide.
We can say that phenomena exist, have certain properties, etc. – and that's it. But as soon as we begin to say exactly what properties an object has, and what exactly to refer to this object and what not, this is already the result of that triad – “a thing for us”, or rather – “a thing relative to us”, since we are talking not only about perception, but about interaction, correlation. In fact, we can only describe specifically our interaction, our relationship with the object.