"You can't know anything, there's nothing you can say with 100% certainty." I've had this sentiment quoted at me more times than I care to contemplate. It's one of the most annoying sentiments I know, because it usually only shows up at about the point in an argument where the facts I've pointed out irrevocably conflict with the beliefs the other person really doesn't want to stop holding.
But aside from the almost-ubiquitous hypocrisy in which context this argument is usually trotted out, it just occurred to me that there do, definitely, exist statements that are definitely true.
Not just statements in mathematical or logical abstraction, either. Statements about the real world, real people interacting with real things.
I can say, to 100% certainty, that no one, anywhere, has ever won a game of Tetris.
That's not, like, a thing that I could be wrong about. There isn't some potential mythical win condition for Tetris. If nobody exists, then no one has won Tetris. If Tetris is a mass delusion, then nobody has won Tetris. And, vitally, if someone has won a game that resembles Tetris, that game wasn't Tetris, because Tetris, by its very inherent nature, (Spoiler alert!) does not have a win condition. It just keeps going.
It's stuff like this that annoy me about the absolutist relativist argument. I've never seen it brought up in a conversation (apart from when it's brought up so we can all mock it) where it isn't being brought up to try and shut the conversation down. But if you take the premise seriously, you can build an argument from principles of near-unknowability and still come to conclusions that are relevant to the conversation.