Is it actually possible to assert anything?
A question asked for example here: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1eoe0w8/what_can_be_known_for_certain/[🡕]
The only objetive real thing seems to be a phenomenological and solipsistical perception of one’s own consciousness, which is particularly ironic since such thing is at the same time generally regarded as just an illusion.
Given this premise, is it actually possible to assert anything with a high enough degree of certainty?
In other words, I don’t see tangible fundamentals from which one would be able to consequently start reasoning.
Aren’t Wittgenstein and friends maybe ignored simply because they are no fun? In the same way that optimistic philosophies are generally preferred to pessimistic ones simply because they are less “sad”?
Is the genetic fallacy[🡕] really a fallacy? If we remember that any argument can have a counter-argument, the only true source of any argument must necessarily be the deterministic brain of this or that individual. How would one then proceed to determine the validity of the argument?
One would inevitably tend to fall into a scientific view of the issue: “Let’s just look at the data!” But isn’t data affected by the same problem? Because data needs to be interpreted to have any meaning, and any interpretation is basically an argument, so we start from square one: we still have to deal with the impossible task of determining the validity of that argument.
In general, language is a subset of existence, and as such we can play with it, but I don’t think we can use it to understand the whole system (existence) we’re in. And if you don’t understand the whole system, you can confidently assert mundane things about everyday life e.g. “This pizza is made with tomato sauce”, but you can’t say anything metaphysical, ontological, etc.