What is the draw to the claim that we can't know things

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 6
Thread images: 1

Anonymous
2017-07-12 05:17:53 Post No. 9747106
[Report] Image search: [Google]

File: 111111111111.png (601KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

601KB, 1920x1080px

Anonymous 2017-07-12 05:17:53 Post No. 9747106 [Report]

What is the draw to the claim that we can't know things in of themselves when we can directly reproduce things synthetically?

Anonymous 2017-07-12 05:22:56 Post No.9747125
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-07-12 05:22:56 Post No.9747125 [Report]

>>9747106
Read Kant

Anonymous 2017-07-12 05:25:54 Post No.9747132
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-07-12 05:25:54 Post No.9747132 [Report]

>>9747125
Kant dodges the issue, just like PoMos did. Cognitive skepticism loses its appeal in in light of the functioning of bridges and synthetic insulin etc.

Anonymous 2017-07-12 05:31:30 Post No.9747152
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-07-12 05:31:30 Post No.9747152 [Report]

>>9747132
Because...?

Anonymous 2017-07-12 05:33:24 Post No.9747157
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-07-12 05:33:24 Post No.9747157 [Report]

>>9747132
Put simply, I think their idealism becomes pure eschatology, as a kind of rhetorical refuge, to deal with the objective failure of anti-enlightenment epistemology and its predictions.

Anonymous 2017-07-12 05:35:33 Post No.9747162
[Report]

Anonymous 2017-07-12 05:35:33 Post No.9747162 [Report]

It would be helpful if someone could actually answer the OP, rather than dodge it.