Vino ueritas. I’m drunk enough to be honest.

Holy fuck philosophy in the Tips Fedora Enlightenment times was so fucking full of shit.

One position – which is often attributed to rationalists like René Descartes– considers our rational thinking as the source of all knowledge. Our senses might betray us, but our rational mind is reliable. Perhaps because it was created by a higher power. […] An opposing view – usually associated with empiricists like David Hume – suggests that our minds are somewhat empty. Everything we know must have entered through our senses first.

Both are making shit up.

He [Kant] says it’s not our mind that adjusts to the world; the world adjusts to our mind.

Kant, if you weren’t dead already, you could test this hypothesis by jumping off a bridge. While firmly believing that gravity doesn’t exist. Let’s see how much the world and its laws will adjust themselves to your “mind” (whatever this esoteric concept means).

According to Kant, we don’t know whether space and time are properties of the outside world, but they sure are part of our mind.

What’s subjective cannot be shared. The fact that I can say “this is 1m large” or “this took 1h” and you can agree or disagree with me, on a true/false basis (epistemic), shows that both space and time are part of a reality “out there”.

We can take this even further: When we see many objects with similar properties, we can name them, for example, as ‘cup’.

You know who solves this shit? Not a philosopher, but a linguist: Ferdinand de Saussure. The association between the name and the object is pretty much arbitrary, including its boundaries; and it’s defined by the contrast with other names. A cup is whatever a plate is not.

Socrates got it right, we don’t fucking know shit.