What about skepticism?

[Agent Smith]

What about skepticism (re Agrippa's Trilemma)

[Age]

What about skepticism (re Agrippa's Trilemma)

What about 'it'?

The so-called 'agrippa's trilemma' is just ANOTHER CLAIM, which can be PROVEN False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

[attofishpi]

What about skepticism (re Agrippa's Trilemma)

What about 'it'?

The so-called 'agrippa's trilemma' is just ANOTHER CLAIM, which can be PROVEN False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

So go ahead and do that.

[Age]

What about skepticism (re Agrippa's Trilemma)

What about 'it'?

The so-called 'agrippa's trilemma' is just ANOTHER CLAIM, which can be PROVEN False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

So go ahead and do that.

Besides the Fact that that so-called 'trilemma' DISPROVES its own self, through self-refutation, the other way that 'it' is False, Wrong, and Incorrect is just through AGREEMENT. Just like how ALL Truth is FOUND, and UNCOVERED.

Now, if you would like to DELVE INTO this FURTHER, then just EXPLAIN what YOUR version of 'agrippa's trilemma' IS, EXACTLY.

[attofishpi]

What about 'it'?

The so-called 'agrippa's trilemma' is just ANOTHER CLAIM, which can be PROVEN False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

So go ahead and do that.

Besides the Fact that that so-called 'trilemma' DISPROVES its own self, through self-refutation, the other way that 'it' is False, Wrong, and Incorrect is just through AGREEMENT. Just like how ALL Truth is FOUND, and UNCOVERED.

Now, if you would like to DELVE INTO this FURTHER, then just EXPLAIN what YOUR version of 'agrippa's trilemma' IS, EXACTLY.

NO IDIOT. Will you ever acheive anything on this forum!!?

GO AHEAD AND SHOW HOW the trilemma "DIPROVES ITSELF THROUGH SELF REFUTATION."

[Agent Smith]

What about skepticism (re Agrippa's Trilemma)

What about 'it'?

The so-called 'agrippa's trilemma' is just ANOTHER CLAIM, which can be PROVEN False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

Agrippa's trilemma ... is not "just another claim" if you catch my drift mon ami.

[Agent Smith]

So go ahead and do that.

Besides the Fact that that so-called 'trilemma' DISPROVES its own self, through self-refutation, the other way that 'it' is False, Wrong, and Incorrect is just through AGREEMENT. Just like how ALL Truth is FOUND, and UNCOVERED.

Now, if you would like to DELVE INTO this FURTHER, then just EXPLAIN what YOUR version of 'agrippa's trilemma' IS, EXACTLY.

NO IDIOT. Will you ever acheive anything on this forum!!?

GO AHEAD AND SHOW HOW the trilemma "DIPROVES ITSELF THROUGH SELF REFUTATION."

Calm down.

[Agent Smith]

There seems to be at least two ways that we could stumble and fall in re philosophy.

1. There's nothing to talk about.
2. Agrippa.

[Age]

So go ahead and do that.

Besides the Fact that that so-called 'trilemma' DISPROVES its own self, through self-refutation, the other way that 'it' is False, Wrong, and Incorrect is just through AGREEMENT. Just like how ALL Truth is FOUND, and UNCOVERED.

Now, if you would like to DELVE INTO this FURTHER, then just EXPLAIN what YOUR version of 'agrippa's trilemma' IS, EXACTLY.

NO IDIOT.

This WAS the TYPICAL RESPONSE of the adult human being when they BELIEVED some 'thing' was true, but could NEVER back up and support that BELIEF.

If you do NOT even KNOW your OWN version of that 'trilemma', then I can NEVER PROVE HOW YOUR VERSION IS False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

Will you ever acheive anything on this forum!!?

LOL After years of EXPLAINING MY PURPOSE for being here, there were STILL SOME people who BELIEVED that their OWN VERSION for ME being here is the ONLY REAL VERSION.

LOOK, and LISTEN, I AM ACHIEVING EXACTLY what I came here TO ACHIEVE. So, YES I WILL and AM ACHIEVING the 'thing/s' that I WANT TO ACHIEVE on this forum.

Have you ACTUALLY achieved ANY thing on this forum?

If yes, then WHAT, EXACTLY?

As far as I am AWARE the ONLY REAL 'thing' that you have ACHIEVED on this forum is turning people AWAY from what you BELIEVE is WHOLEHEARTEDLY the Truth.

GO AHEAD AND SHOW HOW the trilemma "DIPROVES ITSELF THROUGH SELF REFUTATION."

READ the ACTUAL WORDS of that so-called 'trilemma'. What can be CLEARLY SEEN is that that 'trilemma' DISPROVES and REFUTES itself.

And, I could VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY SHOW this IF, and WHEN, you EVER SHOW the VERSION, or the WORDS, that you USE for that 'trilemma'. Will you EVER UNDERSTAND HOW this PROVING and DISPROVING works?

I COULD SHOW you HOW the words I USE for that 'trilemma' DISPROVE and REFUTE themselves, but THEN you COULD just SAY and CLAIM that 'that' is NOT the 'trilemma' AT ALL. So, this is WHY I WAIT, patiently, for 'you', human beings, to PROVIDE your OWN VERSIONS. After all there are SO MANY VERSIONS, how do ANY one of 'you' EXPECT me to KNOW which ONE 'you' are individually USING?

[Age]

What about skepticism (re Agrippa's Trilemma)

What about 'it'?

The so-called 'agrippa's trilemma' is just ANOTHER CLAIM, which can be PROVEN False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect.

Agrippa's trilemma ... is not "just another claim" if you catch my drift mon ami.

WHY do you write some words in OTHER languages than 'english' in this forum?

Now, if 'it' is NOT 'just ANOTHER CLAIM', then what is 'it', EXACTLY?

Also, we are STILL WAITING for you to EXPLAIN, 'What about 'skepticism' regarding 'agrippa's trilemma', ALSO?

[Age]

There seems to be at least two ways that we could stumble and fall in re philosophy.

1. There's nothing to talk about.
2. Agrippa.

EVEN the word 'philosophy' MEANS SO MANY DIFFERENT 'things' to SO MANY DIFFERENT people.

To me,

1. Absolutely NO one could EVER stumble and fall regarding 'philosophy', itself.

2. 'Agrippa trilemma' is just a SELF-REFUTING set of words ANYWAY.

[Agent Smith]

There seems to be at least two ways that we could stumble and fall in re philosophy.

1. There's nothing to talk about.
2. Agrippa.

EVEN the word 'philosophy' MEANS SO MANY DIFFERENT 'things' to SO MANY DIFFERENT people.

To me,

1. Absolutely NO one could EVER stumble and fall regarding 'philosophy', itself.

2. 'Agrippa trilemma' is just a SELF-REFUTING set of words ANYWAY.

Agrippa's trilemma is self-refuting alright. What else is self-refuting? That, mon ami, is the million dollar question.

It all began with the claim that we can know things. How? If so then ... Agrippa's Trilemma

[Age]

There seems to be at least two ways that we could stumble and fall in re philosophy.

1. There's nothing to talk about.
2. Agrippa.

EVEN the word 'philosophy' MEANS SO MANY DIFFERENT 'things' to SO MANY DIFFERENT people.

To me,

1. Absolutely NO one could EVER stumble and fall regarding 'philosophy', itself.

2. 'Agrippa trilemma' is just a SELF-REFUTING set of words ANYWAY.

Agrippa's trilemma is self-refuting alright. What else is self-refuting? That, mon ami, is the million dollar question.

It all began with the claim that we can know things. How? If so then ... Agrippa's Trilemma

you appear to be OBVIOUSLY MISSING the WHOLE POINT here.

'agrippa's trilemma' ITSELF is CLAIMING to KNOW some 'thing'. Is this understood, by you?

And, HOW can 'agrippa's trilemma' PROVE that what 'it' CLAIMS TO KNOW is true, right, or incorrect?

SEE, EVERY time ANY 'thing' 'TRIES TO' CLAIM that A TRUTH can NOT BE KNOWN, then that is A SELF-REFUTING CLAIM, ITSELF.

Or, in other words, ANY time A 'thing' CLAIMS that 'it' KNOWS that NO 'thing' can be KNOWN, then that is just ANOTHER SELF-CONTRADICTION.

[Age]

There seems to be at least two ways that we could stumble and fall in re philosophy.

1. There's nothing to talk about.
2. Agrippa.

EVEN the word 'philosophy' MEANS SO MANY DIFFERENT 'things' to SO MANY DIFFERENT people.

To me,

1. Absolutely NO one could EVER stumble and fall regarding 'philosophy', itself.

2. 'Agrippa trilemma' is just a SELF-REFUTING set of words ANYWAY.

Agrippa's trilemma is self-refuting alright. What else is self-refuting? That, mon ami, is the million dollar question.

It all began with the claim that we can know things. How? If so then ... Agrippa's Trilemma

If you do NOT KNOW HOW 'you', human beings, come-to-KNOW 'things', and you REALLY DO WANT TO LEARN, and KNOW, then GREAT.

BUT, WHILE one MAINTAINS that 'you', human beings, can NEVER KNOW 'things', BECAUSE of some IMAGINED UP so-called 'agrippa's trilemma', then absolutely NO one can SHOW you the ACTUAL Truth here.

[Agent Smith]

EVEN the word 'philosophy' MEANS SO MANY DIFFERENT 'things' to SO MANY DIFFERENT people.

To me,

1. Absolutely NO one could EVER stumble and fall regarding 'philosophy', itself.

2. 'Agrippa trilemma' is just a SELF-REFUTING set of words ANYWAY.

Agrippa's trilemma is self-refuting alright. What else is self-refuting? That, mon ami, is the million dollar question.

It all began with the claim that we can know things. How? If so then ... Agrippa's Trilemma

you appear to be OBVIOUSLY MISSING the WHOLE POINT here.

'agrippa's trilemma' ITSELF is CLAIMING to KNOW some 'thing'. Is this understood, by you?

And, HOW can 'agrippa's trilemma' PROVE that what 'it' CLAIMS TO KNOW is true, right, or incorrect?

SEE, EVERY time ANY 'thing' 'TRIES TO' CLAIM that A TRUTH can NOT BE KNOWN, then that is A SELF-REFUTING CLAIM, ITSELF.

I intelligo mon ami. Blunder detected. However if skepticism is self-refuting, there's something else wrong with Descartes.