‘Where’s Wally?’, The Value of Circular Arguments and the Münchhausen Trilemma

The Munchhausen trilemma poses a pickle for philosophers, especially those who fancy knowing something at some point. A brief examination of Wikipedia alone shows the catch-22. It says that, to know if knowledge is true, you must provide a proof. However, this leaves three options which are not satisfying. I will show why these options are not appealing, but then why circular arguments do have a use in understanding some key concepts and axioms. If you have somewhere to be[1] you can cut to the chase and go to the Where’s Wally? section straight away.

Continue reading “‘Where’s Wally?’, The Value of Circular Arguments and the Münchhausen Trilemma”