Daily reminder that you cannot "know" anything until you've experienced it

Daily reminder that you cannot "know" anything until you've experienced it.

How do you know that?

Damn.

it's over guys, op is ko

...

define know

I don't know that. Thankfully, my not knowing it doesn't contradict the statement. If I knew it, then there would be a problem, but alas.

It does not contradict the statement, all right. It makes the premise false, though.

And how, may I ask, do you know it's a false premise?

Daily reminder that Kant's pic could be OP just as Locke's

>knowledge is subjective

I know it is a false premise because:

>The premise is that one cannot know anything until they have experienced it
>The very next post makes it obvious that there can be knowledge that can not be experienced
>Therefore, one can know things without experiencing them.

Yes, knowledge is unique to the individual.

How would I know that?

you don't
another example is me knowing you don't know, but you not knowing you don't know
In fact, everyboody else except for me in this thread who says he knows you don't know is a liar
And I know that too!

...

You can have a set of better or worse guesses though, as defined by internal consistency, elegance, verisimilitude, the amount they explain, and other such criteria.

Didn't like, that guy with telescope prove this wrong

>he hasn't read the first part of the phenomenology of spirit

Those guesses aren't always reliable, though. For example, you may think a certain meal looks like it tastes disgusting, but you cannot know it tastes disgusting until you've actually tasted it. It may indeed turn out that it is delicious.

Knowledge is subjective to the time it is in dude. All we know will be gone and replaced 1000 years down the line.

Imagine your chilling with Kant in Königsberg and he claims that it's an a priori synthetic truth that you can't cross all these bridges exactly once.

How would you prove him wrong?

I still don't understand what a priori means.

I just throw my hands in the air and agree with him as I can't be in two places at once.

walk across the river when it freezes.

>I just throw my hands in the air and agree with him as I can't be in two places at once.
How do you know this? Is it based on experience?

Based Kantposter

No since I have never experienced being on two places at same time. I just occupy one space and time at a given time so I guess it is in my head?

i would tell him the arrangement of the bridges is only given empirically

to which of course he would reply that empirical experience is the result of an a priori synthesis.

it don't matter nigga

Can someone tell me where this is from? Is this an actual puzzle? Why is it completeable then?

>crosses top left bridge twice
BRAINLET ALERT

THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON Veeky Forums

>>Can someone tell me where this is from?
It's a variation of that "connect the 7 houses with gas and water" riddle which can't be done

... no you can clearly see that I only cross it once. It's just that I crossed it after combining.

>posting a trivial graph theory problem on Veeky Forums
Wew boy

>tfw 2dumb to solve or know what's wrong with the puzzle other than that I can't be in two places at once

being a white trash is suffering

>graph theory is a posteriori

>dude just split yourself in two lmao

>mad that I solved his riddle

Cmon faggot, move along nothing to see here. It was meant to be completed, that's why it was a riddle.

Being unable to split yourself in two is an obvious implicit assumption in the problem. You can't just make whatever arbitrary assumptions you want, like being able to teleport, and trivialize the riddle.

I really wonder how old you are

I really wonder what your IQ is.

I would like myself a posteriori right about now if you know what I mean

>radical empiricism
>2018
Ew.

21 years. Can't be any older.

Is that some sort of pasta?

Only 21 IQ points? That's nothing to be proud of, user.

I said years. For a reason.

what was the reason

this statement is not an empirical observation therefore its false

Because I literally said years and you still tried to say I said points. That doesn't even make sense. You are assblasted I foresaw how your brain works. And it doesn't.

In the first case, the picture I posted was a troll post, and you responded seriously because you thought I was still being serious. Clearly just fucking around, as you can see by the other replies.

Joke's on you... I was being ironic too. ;)

>"you"
>im not the guy you were originally responding to
this is why you cant say you know something until you have empirical evidence for it (i dont actually believe this dont hate)

actually everything I said was serious except for that post

Actually, that post you responded to was ALSO ironic!

YOU CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN - Philosophy collectively

Thanks, navel gazing!

epistemology will always play second fiddle to metaphysics, get over it

haha this^
FUCK philosophy!! I fucking love science!! XD

yeah FUCK metaphysics materialism and scientific realism are correct xD yay reddit

...

Hegel agrees. Reason itself is not known until it has been experienced.

WOOOOOAAAAAH MINDFUCK!! XD