3 edited tags
| link
2 edited tags; edited title
| link

Why do some philosophers argue that we do not know, a priori, that something thinks?

1
source | link

Why do some philosophers argue that we do not know, a priori, that something thinks

The Cartesian argument seems to explicate the fact that I necessarily know that something thinks, and that I necessarily know that something thinks even if I don't checking the world to verify whether something thinks.

Nevertheless, some philosophers deny that we can know anything a priori. What counter-Cartesian arguments have those philosophers propounded?