They reject that a priori knowledge is possible, so I don't see a difference.

How are you different?

Do you believe contradictions exist?

No.

The cosmos is a tautology, bruh.

Let me play devil advocate

So we know that the sun exists but how do we know it will rise tomorrow?

The sun existing is factually true

How do we know the sun exists?

No, that it will rise tomorrow

How do we know it will rise tomorrow?

Yes

What's your point?

Just answer

We have good reason to believe it will, but we can't know with absolute certainty.

is the russian thing really over?

What Russian thing?

@halfthink How do you know the sun exists?

Our mind is flawed right?

For example hallucinations

Its our own subjective experience

Sure.

So?

So what?

Then how do we know things posses an identity?

They are intersubjectively verifiable.

How?

We can understand each other through language can't we?

But why is that?

Logic is universal.

How do you know that?

Its your own subjective experience

Experience is filtered through logically derived a priori knowledge. Logic does not depend on experience.

Our understanding of experience depends on logic.

Based

Well, I guess you arent a Skeptic

If you think logic is an absolute?

The only absolute.

Not exactly

Heres the Objectivist view

"Any theory that propounds an opposition between the logical and the empirical, represents a failure to grasp the nature of logic and its role in human cognition. Man’s knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience or by experience apart from logic, but by the application of logic to experience. All truths are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience."