The term "object of knowledge" is correct and can be used in written English.
It refers to the thing or concept that is being studied or understood. Example: "In order to fully understand human behavior, psychology focuses on the object of knowledge known as the mind."
To take these as the paradigmatic instances of knowledge invites a model of the knower as emotionally detached, impersonally oriented to things rather than persons, and oriented in an "objective" posture toward the object of knowledge.
Thus the species of a thing that is known is not itself an object of knowledge, though it can become an object of knowledge by being reflected upon.
The thing-in-itself, accordingly, indicates the limit and not the object of knowledge.
Nothing can be known of this self, because it is a condition, not an object, of knowledge.
Kierkegaard famously wrote that, although life is lived forwards, it can only be understood backwards: only the past can become an object of knowledge.
Hence, every phenomenon perceived became an object of knowledge, and saper vedere ("knowing how to see") became the great theme of his studies.
Unenlightened by Christian revelation, Aristotle mistook humankind's present fallen state, in which all knowledge comes through the senses, for its natural condition, in which the object of knowledge would be coextensive with all being, including the being of God.
The natural world was the immediate object of both perception and thought, but it was not long before God came to be considered an even more important object of knowledge.
Still another object of knowledge for the soul was the soul itself; its ability to take itself, reflexively, as the object of its own awareness has been cited as one of its most remarkable characteristics.
This paper asserts the epistemological function of these myths, showing how the English language arts use mythic techniques to transform eloquence into an object of knowledge in the sixteenth century.
They wanted to determine what the object of knowledge is.
