Challenge the Philosophy - we cannot [more reasonably] truly know

Further explanation of "we cannot [more reasonably] truly know":

"We cannot [more reasonably] truly know" refers to our inability to more reasonably show how we can know something entirety. The important point is that true knowledge or the lack of, in the context of the Competition, is contingent on more reasonably showing how we can know or not know something in entirety. More reasonableness refers to the consistency and soundness of a position in comparison to known antagonistic positions.

"We cannot [more reasonably] know" refers to our inability to more reasonably show how we can know something. The notion of know refers to the more reasonable correlation of conscious meaning between thought and (external or internal) objects.

Hence, to overcome the proposition it must be more reasonably shown how we can truly know who we are (i.e. know who we are in entirety). For instance, if it can be more reasonably shown how the human hand is truly part of who we are, the proposition would be overcome. (To argue this position, you need to more reasonably show how you can know the human hand in entirety. It would likely entail a theory of truth. Also, you would have to establish more reasonable true knowledge of who you are as well. (Viz., you cannot more reasonably show that something is truly part of who you are without more reasonably truly knowing who you are as a whole.))

(True knowledge of one part of who we are appears nonsensical, because in order to truly know one part of ourselves, we need to know who we are in entirety, otherwise we would have no true way of knowing that the part is truly part of who we are. Therefore, to overcome the proposition, you need to show how we can more reasonably know who we are in entirety, whether it be by a single individual in less than a millisecond of his or her lifetime. (Note, there are other possible ways to overcome the proposition like more reasonably showing that there is no who we are.))