What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.
What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.
We suggest you install the latest version of one of these browsers:
Kongregate is a community-driven browser games portal with an open platform for all web games.
Get your games in front of thousands of users while monetizing through ads and virtual goods.
Learn more »
I’ve been skim reading through some topics here at the serious discussion forum, and you all seem to talk a lot about whether this or that is proven or can only be believed in.
Well, I feel that from a somewhat unbiased point of view I must unfortunately say that there is no evidence, there is no certainty, there is no proof, there is nothing you can be absolutely sure of, you can put “maybe” or “perhaps” behind every claim. There are many ways to put it, but in the end, everything you think you know is just everything you believe in.
We’ve had that argument presented before, Risbolla. Beleiving in nothing other than yourself is the only truly provable theory, but considering things are always (seemingly) acting the same way, our arguments are based on axioms, or accepted truths.
Here’s a protip: almost every deep and profound revelation you come up with before you’re 60 has been thoroughly discussed, rehashed, deconstructed and reconstructed by philosophers who died before you were a glimmer in your father’s eye.
Living in an entirely unknowable world must suck. “Boxers or briefs? I cannot know which is better.”
Here’s a curve ball: How do you know you can’t know anything if you can’t know anything? If you are certain you can’t know anything, then you can be certain you know that, breaking the original statement. If you say “Some things can be known, but most things are unknowable” you leave yourself open to what can be knowable, and then Religious people get right in there with knowing it in their heart. Then you’re right back where you started.
It makes one assumption, that the ‘thinking’ is indeed ‘thinking’ and not just ‘thought’ which is the only certainty. Thought is occurring, to extend that to ‘thinking’ is to assume and suppose the very self that you are trying to prove. It’s not certain that you are thinking, it’s just certain that there is thought. Whether or not you extend the ‘self’ to possibly being a temporary collision of thought is the uncertainty.