Kripke once laid out the skeptic’s conclusion in an argument about foundations:

There was [and is] no fact about me that constituted my having meant [or meaning].... — As quoted by Stanley Cavell in The Argument of the Ordinary, p. 76.--emphasis in original, brackets in Cavell's quote

Cavell reads this not as a devastating discovery ("is anything real!"), but as a truth: Yes! There is no fact about you which constitutes your actions and speech. Your authority is not based on, say, your "thought" or "intention" that you feel is the "meaning" represented in what you say (Wittgenstein shows that actions have individual criteria categorizing each type of act). Cavell says “…the state, of your (inner) life cannot take its importance from anything special in it.” Claim of Reason, p. 361.

We can be distinguished, have differences, be unequal, but we are not singular in a given way, as if we have a unique relation to the world (say, causal), or others (having "knowledge" of them), not even in our position to ourselves (imagined as direct), say, our "consciousness", or in having our meaning--something unpossessable by any other. (Of course we can have individual experiences outside of language--like seeing a sunset that leaves us speechless--but those instances don't structure our relation to ourselves and others.)

So we also have more in common than we want to admit—what is common is prior to you (history, culture, language). Id. We should not start divided unless there is a need for a distinction. It's true that in starting with each other, we do have our assumptions, generalizations, and dichotomies; we do feel we need to be personally individuated by our opinions, labels, and camps. And understanding the other is harder than seeing words we know and coming to a quick conclusion from our anxiety to be distinct (superior, clever, unique, etc.), and it's harder to remain puzzled than simplifying the other to maintain our sense of "me". (PI, p. 212)

We want (require) certainty (some fact, as if mathematical, "objective") in the world and/or ourselves to avoid being responsible to others' judgment of us outside our control, either wishing to be mysterious or wanting sole power over the effects of what we say and do instead of taking on the continuing responsibility of owning up to the outcomes of our acts and words. There is nothing you know (even, about yourself) or have or are, that removes that human condition of accepting (or rejecting) the other; that is to say, these are the categorical mechanics of our relation to others, not each of us having some individual fact about us, but each of us being separate yet responsive to the other.