I'm arguing my point of view with a good man, a nice man, a man who feels like he knows where it's at.
But he seems to think that he's not just bandying words when he says, "I can't 'really' know anything at all!", then I point out that he is not being truthfull here because he obviously 'knows' that he is right about that. Then he goes on, "Oh no, YOU'RE being disingenuous because now YOU'RE using words in a way to mean what you want."
I admit that words are easy to twist. One of my main objections to philosophy, especially the theistic philosophy of Plato on through Descartes IS that the things they say, the conclusions that they come to don't mean a damned thing although they sound reasonable because they take both sides of the argument.
I think therefore I am, could mean that consciousness is like a first cause kind of thing, that it had to be before space and matter could exist OR it could just mean that the only way you can know that you exist is that you are a thinking being and thinking beings are the only 'things' that can think this.
I'm skeptical of this first view because saying that it is 'correct' seems to imply the supremacy of consciousness much as religion needs to and seems to be tending to confrim religious thinking. Having the second view of this statement seems to deem the statement unnecessary. So what if we are the only things in existence that 'know' we exist? Doesn't mean a damned thing right?
Still, convincing me that you 'can't know anything' seems silly because there doesn't seem to be nowhere to go there but to slyly take that all back then convince me that you know a helluva lot more that you're claiming in that 'first philosophy' of yours, yes?
Then if you start getting into 'first causes' and/or 'quantum physics'.. then you're REALLY calling yourself a total bullshitter, if you TRULY believe that you can't KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL.