For philosophy, that's pretty damn short.

Have you read The Critique of Pure Reason?

Most of it.

How am I wrong? He attack Identity and Consciousness

He called them imperfect or flawed

Maybe they are dude.

Then the left has taken more steps than you

He seperated a Priori knowledge and Empirical knowledge

Good on him.

Causing reason and reality to go to war

Hardly.

Now, the step the left takes is well a Priori is experience but that has no attachment to Empirical knowledge

So now that they have separated those two, they say you cant know anything

Empericist nonsense.

Yes?

Read the Hoppe book. You'll probably enjoy it.

I will, probably

But am I wrong?

About the left's rejection of a prior knowledge being able to describe reality, yes, if that's what you meant

So now you tell me, whats the right answer?

To what question?

Why do you reject the left's premises?

What premises?

They reject logic.

Premises can be illogical

But, what I discussed

Alogical really.

What did they get wrong?

The left is too broad a term. If I'm criticising empericists, then I would simply point out that if only empirically testable claims can be true, then the claim that only empirically testable claims can be true can't be true because it is not empirically testable.

I shouldve used a posteriori knowledge instead of empirical

They refer to both

The former refers specifically to Kant's terms

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?