perhaps this is baby-level philosophy, but I hope /lit/ will indulge me.I admit that there's a lot out there I haven't yet read or considered, but it seems to me like ultimately we can't ground our epistemology in something absolutely solid without appealing to something we don't actually understand - at least partially if not wholly. honestly, I don't even see how someone can rule out solipsism beyond a shadow of a doubt. it can be annoying, sure, but it seems like you could always say to any given fundamental epistemic/metaphysical claim:>but how do you know that it merely *seems* that way to you, but in reality it's something different?I'm sure others have articulated the idea much better than I, but hypothetically getting past solipsism, how could we 100% verify not merely that our perception as humans is so flawed that we can only have incomplete knowledge of divinity, logic, necessity, etc., but that anything we reason about it will never come close to what the reality of it is - even for the smartest among us. I also realize that radical skepticism is a difficult position where any statement can be questioned infinitely, but that still doesn't leave me with answers to these questions. so I'm just left with my hands up in the air.
>but how do you know that it merely *seems* that way to you, but in reality it's something different?doesn't merely seem*
There is no way to confirm absolutely anything, basically; something is always left to faith. For practical reasons, we assume that e.g. first-order logic is possible and leads to correct deductions, but all metaphysical and epistemic questions are completely intractable.
