So what CAN we know?
Nothing
The dick
>>508041
Ourselves
A lot of things.
We just can't know if they're real.
>>508041
Descartes' cogito argument is pretty easy to argue against, Kierkegaard did a really good job actually in the sickness unto death. Descartes; method only works is you believe that humans have access to knowledge in the first place.
What pleases us.
Everything
That we exist. That's about it.
>>508054
Nothing important, anyway.
>>508041
That OP is a fag
philosophy is a waste of time
>>509588
That some thing exists*
>>510205
That this is a prussian card-board
that your mum was a cum-dumpster back in the day and probably still is now you nob-headed cunt.
>>510211
That such thing is I*
I can know that I exist*
>>510222
no bully pls
>>510230
I apologize
>>508054
Everything.
That we know nothing
>>508041
you accidentally posted descartes
>>508041
WE WUZ, THEREFORE KANGZ
Mathematics, and through them natural science. That was the point.
>>508078
Came here to make sure this was posted
Memes.
>>508041
Plenty of things. Don't overthink it. Just don't expect your knowledge to be timeless and perfect and stop caring about some wrongness.
>>510527
HAHAHAHAHAH ZOOOMGGGGGG SOOOOOO FUNNEEEEEH N ORIGNIAAALS XdXdXdXXDDDDD!!!!1!?!?!?
Nothing since we're all looking at it from our own sole point of view
How ebin and brofound the "can't know nuffin" philosophers are :DDD
>>508041
First answer "What is knowledge?" once we know what it is, then we can know if we can get it.
>>510478
descartes wanted to see if he could find any absolute truths (by first doubting everything)
>>508041
>cogito ergo cago
analytic truths, 1+1=2, all bachelors are unmarried men etc.
>>512614
sum* FTFY
>>512614
can you know YOUR doing the thinking? (there might just be a body-less ras cogitans) can you know your THINKING and not just having thoughts (no self)
>>512622
He changed it to "I think, I am" anyway
>>512626
you can do the thinking, even tho thinking generaly just happens any way, the two arent exclusive, and who knows a self might be a momentary emergence contingent on conditions or a universality appearing in all conscious systems, or fuck know what, but if you carefully read >>512614 whatever i say after that i allready disqulified my self
>>512428
Except we can know the pure concepts contained in our understanding of the empirical world.
>>510674
>Mathematics
Gödel would like to have a word with you.
>>512619
>1+1=2
Yeah?
We can "know" nothing.
Does this matter? No. It is enough to realize that everything that to us "seems" to be, in fact is close enough to be "known", for us. Absolute certainty is an unfathomable goal, and completely unnecessary.
>>510527
This statement has become equally tiresome and cancerous due to misuse, but you really need to either participate in 4chan's culture or go back to reddit. You are not funny.
>>508041
the phaneron
>>512579
>The answer seems obvious to me so I must be correct
>I'm too lazy to actually address these fundamental questions
>Throw in some smileys and an ebin, that'll show em
>>510197
/thread
>>515603
>as though I am not
All we can know is the Dick. The Dick is the ultimate arbiter of value. Obey the Dick.
>implying the first realization isn't that of Being in some form
>implying the "self" is a self-apparent concept and not extremely suspect
>>508054
He never said we can't know anything.
>>517615
now we're cooking with gas
>>515372
Gödel was a mathematical platonist. The incompleteness theorems don't entail anything you think they entail.
Ourselves
the rest doesn't really matter
>>517785
But they do. They debunked Hilbert's program and wish of making a contradiction-free mathematical system with provable endings. Read about it, it's really quite fascinating.
>>517820
This doesn't mean we don't 'know' maths, nor does it mean we can't ground our empirical inquiries with them.
Scio me omnia scire
>>517839
I think you mean logic then.
>>517850
No.
>>512428
But the fact that we each experience the world through and (mostly) from our own minds is precisely what allows us to know the world. Our consciousness can have knowledge of that which it constructs and structures, not in spite of its role in generating the world, but because of it.
>>513313
We don't strictly have knowledge of the pure, a priori concepts of our faculty of understanding; we think through those concepts, and it's only when those concepts are provided with material content from our faculty of sensibility that those concepts have something to think about, with knowledge being the result of such cooperation of faculties.
