/lit/ - Literature

>>15214053
t.

>>14772866
>First, let’s ask the question “What do can we know?” We can only ever know what has been processed by our brains. The signals that come from our eyes, ears, taste buds, skin, the brain itself, and so on are the only things that we can know.
>[...]
>Another is that without perceiving something yourself, you can never truly be sure that it exists.
>[...]
>One thing that can always know without a shadow of a doubt, would be your own experience. This is exemplified in the age-old adage:
>I think therefore I am
>You think therefore you exist, in the same way, you experience therefore you know.
This is where you unveil that this is an elaborate ruse, right?
r-right?

>>14328383
oh sorry, i didn't notice haha. Did Carlyle write any formal treatises? or is his philosophy embedded in his works of history and novels?

>>13969027
I know, i was just shitposting

haha, yeah, it was all one big ruse

What are some books in which the author gives you this sort of plot twist?