How to evaluate Acknowledging that you can know the world, but not acknowledging that you can transf

Man can not only know the world, but also transform it. There is something wrong with your words in themselves.

Say: Man cannot know the world. It is because of the limitations of some objective conditions, but it cannot negate the possibility of understanding the world, because human understanding is infinitely developing.

Man can transform the objective world, but the exertion of man's subjective initiative must be restricted by objective laws. Therefore, on the basis of respecting the law, people should give full play to their subjective initiative in order to succeed in the process of transforming the objective world.

The world can be recognized, and recognition is understood as a summary of practice, and knowledge comes from practice.

However, practice is limited by subjective ability and objective conditions, and cannot be comprehensive, complete, and absolutely correct, and it is necessary to carry out new practice in its one-sided or lacking aspects, and the practice of people who give full play to their subjective initiative can transform the world and further improve their understanding.

Acknowledging means that you have accepted it, and not acknowledging it means that you do not accept it or do not understand, and if you want to understand it, then you have to know it, and you have to know it through practice, and the practice that has never been done before can be understood as transformation.

I'm in favor!

Human beings are just a form of the world, we have brains, we have thoughts, we have the right to imagine, we have the right to know everything, but we are not great, our power is only enough to change ourselves, we can't change the world, and we don't have the power to change the world.

Replacing the word "world" with words such as truth, law, etc., makes more sense in terms of reason. The world is constantly being changed by human beings every day, and what remains unchanged is the truth of the universe at sunrise and sunset.

Man can both know and transform the world. For example, the discovery of penicillin has an antibacterial effect, which is to understand the world, and to use penicillin to cure diseases, this is to transform the natural world.

This statement is against constitutist rationalism and advocates bounded rationality to prevent utopianism in various ideas.

An unyielding feeling of fighting with the sky and having endless fun.

Recognition = Acceptance.

Unscientific.

1. Transforming the world is practice (action), and knowing the world is knowing (knowing).

2. The unity of knowledge and action, but it is more important not to say that it is action.

Practice is the goal of knowing, but it does not mean that it is more important than knowing. Correct understanding (knowledge) has a guiding role in practice (transforming the world). Please refer to it.

I think this is a paradox, because only by knowing and understanding the world can we use appropriate and reasonable methods to transform the world. Of course, this is a point of view. In this sentence, the author wants to express the meaning that we must not only understand the world, but also use wisdom to change the world, and not let human thought stagnate.

Understanding the world is the premise of transforming the world, and transforming the world is the purpose of understanding the world. Why we need to know the world is to transform the world. To transform the world in this way, we must first understand the laws of the world.

To transform the world without knowing the world is blind action, and to know the world without transforming the world is empty talk.

Personally, I don't think it's right, but only by understanding the world can we transform the world correctly.

Any remarks have the background of his time.

Marx put forward that the problem lies in the transformation of the world's ......Only when it is clear that the purpose of understanding is to transform can we have a better understanding.

Again, the previous philosophy emphasized only knowledge;

As far as pure theory is concerned, understanding and practice are two sides of the same coin, and it does not matter which is more important than the other.

"Philosophers just interpret the world in different ways, and the problem is to transform the world. "Marx's famous quote. He argues that we can only know objects in practice.

Without social practice, not only is it impossible for human cognition to happen, but it is also impossible to prove whether it is correct or not.

Because everything that is conscious must be transformed into a "material thing" in order for it to manifest its value.

It is also possible to use matter to determine consciousness, to practice the only truth ...

Hello, no, it is more important to know and ** the origin of the world, but the world does not necessarily have to be transformed! Nature is beauty!