TangerineSteve17
Well-Known Member
A reasonable stance or not?
The syllogism goes:
1. Nothing exists.
2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it.
3. Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.
Can it be completely refuted? I'm not sure how many "for" arguments for this we'll get, but I'm interested in hearing all views.
One for the philosophers of the forum, cos I find all this stuff fascinating. Come at it at any angle you want. Religious, Epistemological, Metaphysical, whatever.
The syllogism goes:
1. Nothing exists.
2. Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it.
3. Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.
Can it be completely refuted? I'm not sure how many "for" arguments for this we'll get, but I'm interested in hearing all views.
One for the philosophers of the forum, cos I find all this stuff fascinating. Come at it at any angle you want. Religious, Epistemological, Metaphysical, whatever.
