#openeye

I think humans seek absolute metaphysical truths because they fear ceasing. There's this thing called Münchhausen Trilemma that resume pretty well how humans can't find that metaphysical truth.

But that's not to say faith or skepticism are bad. I think saying "this exists/doesn't exist", or "we can't know, so we tend to the present" is fine. If only curiosity received more love. When we can’t imagine alternatives, falling into the Münchhausen trilemma again, that frustrates me.

I'll try propose an idea that escapes the trilemma as an example.

For context, the exact patterns are:

1- The circular argument, in which we assume something in order to justify that same thing. So it needs a belief to justify a belief. Eg: X is true because Y, and Y is true because X.

2- The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof. Eg: X is true because Y, Y is true because Z, Z is true because...

3- The dogmatic argument, in which we assert something without justification. Eg: X exists because I say so.

So for example if I say "possibility as autocatalytic": Negation, doubt, or contrast presuppose possibility (thus it's not circular), to deny possibility you assume possibility (thus it's not infinite regress nor a dogmatic argument). Possibility is a transcendental condition.