# Knowledge by description&Knowledge by aquaintance
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/knowledge-by-description-knowledge-by-aquaintance/17460
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [August 22, 2007, 9:30am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/knowledge-by-description-knowledge-by-aquaintance/17460 "2007-08-22T09:30:14Z")
**Posts on this page:** 7
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@goosehenry](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/goosehenry)
#### Post date: [September 2, 2007, 8:00pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/knowledge-by-description-knowledge-by-aquaintance/17460/21 "2007-09-02T20:00:39Z")
> [@Smears](#):
>
> Does this have something to do with the de re/de dicto distinction? I think I read something about that once…
It started out as a discussion on Russells epistemological problems in his book “Problems of Philosophy”.
Justification of a priori knowledge… is that an oxymoron?
---
### Author:  [@Mr\_Reasonable](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Mr_Reasonable)
#### Post date: [September 3, 2007, 7:10pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/knowledge-by-description-knowledge-by-aquaintance/17460/22 "2007-09-03T19:10:14Z")
Well if you’re justifying it empirically for someone who denies that it exists for the purpose of pointing out the incompleteness of their thinking which would make them see that it was necessary then I don’t think it’s an oxymoron. But it is kinda funny that you have to use might have to use empirical evidence to show someone that empiricism doesn’t give us a complete understanding.
---
### Author:  [@Impenitent](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Impenitent)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2007, 12:45am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/knowledge-by-description-knowledge-by-aquaintance/17460/23 "2007-09-04T00:45:37Z")
> [@goosehenry](#):
>
> About logic…
>
> they are never validated
>
> I thought about this. Consider the following experiment. Let’s say i believe that if A is bigger than B, and B is bigger than C then A must necessarily be bigger than C.
>
> Then i try it out. I put three rocks of differing size next to each other and realize that the formula applies to reality! Voila. logic validated!
>
> you are no more validated in your claim that a is bigger than c by visualizing rocks. validity is a property of syllogisms, not rocks.
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > it never validates them in the first place. the burden of demonstration falls to you for making the claim
>
> Well, we then see these patterns everywhere and realize that they must apply to reality, othewise everything would be absurd.
>
> Solved 🙂
solved? what exactly is solved? you think you have found the underlying pattern behind things? from what point of view? your singular one? not enough…
-Imp
---
### Author:  [@goosehenry](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/goosehenry)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2007, 4:43am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/knowledge-by-description-knowledge-by-aquaintance/17460/24 "2007-09-04T04:43:51Z")
> [@](#):
>
> solved? what exactly is solved? you think you have found the underlying pattern behind things? from what point of view? your singular one? not enough…
>
> -Imp
What was wrong with the experiment? Can yuo point it out for me?
---
### Author:  [@Impenitent](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Impenitent)
#### Post date: [September 4, 2007, 11:55am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/knowledge-by-description-knowledge-by-aquaintance/17460/25 "2007-09-04T11:55:40Z")
it considers these 3 rocks, nothing more
-Imp
---
### Author:  [@Mach](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Mach)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2007, 2:09am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/knowledge-by-description-knowledge-by-aquaintance/17460/26 "2007-09-05T02:09:55Z")
> [@goosehenry](#):
>
> I read Russells problems of philosophy
>
> In one chapter he means that we never know physical objects in themselves, we know physical objects by description. The description in turn includes universal terms, with which we always are aquainted.
>
> But also, he means that the objects of our direct apprehensions are simple qualities like shape, colour and temperature. Later on, he talks about universals such as brotherhood and justice.
Sounds like he has problems alright.
How can Russell possibly “know” that we can never “know” physical objects in themselves?
How did he arrive at such knowledge…drugs?
-Mach
---
### Author:  [@Impenitent](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Impenitent)
#### Post date: [September 5, 2007, 3:47am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/knowledge-by-description-knowledge-by-aquaintance/17460/27 "2007-09-05T03:47:37Z")
> [@Mach](#):
>
> > [@goosehenry](#):
> >
> > I read Russells problems of philosophy
> >
> > In one chapter he means that we never know physical objects in themselves, we know physical objects by description. The description in turn includes universal terms, with which we always are aquainted.
> >
> > But also, he means that the objects of our direct apprehensions are simple qualities like shape, colour and temperature. Later on, he talks about universals such as brotherhood and justice.
>
> Sounds like he has problems alright.
>
> How can Russell possibly “know” that we can never “know” physical objects in themselves?
>
> How did he arrive at such knowledge…drugs?
>
> -Mach
he read kant
-Imp
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/knowledge-by-description-knowledge-by-aquaintance/17460.md?page=1)