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?

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.