In this context, it refers: From the point of view of its philosophical-epistemological foundation, knowledge is presented as a relationship between two fundamental actors, namely the subject and the object, between which knowledge mediates.
In the relation of knowledge, each actor, of the two mentioned, has a very specific function in the possibility of that phenomenon actually occurring. The function of the subject is to capture the object, apprehend its properties. For its part, the function of the object is to be apprehensible and apprehended by the subject.
Well, in this relationship from which is defined, philosophically, knowledge there are different positions within which are those that question the possibility of knowledge, others accept it half, while there are those who do not see, in the absolute, any problem as regards the possibility of its existence.
Precisely, dogmatism is placed in the position of not appreciating any problem in terms of the possibility of knowledge since dogmatism gives as a fact, flatly, the existence of knowledge and does not question its possibility of event.
The etymologically speaking dogmatism means doctrine fixed, so for dogmatism the properties of objects are not given directly whether they are objects of perception or objects of thought, in this sense, for dogmatism there is no mediating function of knowledge , that is unnecessary because there is something or someone who has fixed what the thing is and, therefore, it does not make sense for the subject to think about the particular. Things, for dogmatism, are accepted without major reservations or criticism regardless of the type of thing in question.
