Within the past few decades post-modernists, whom I fail to distinguish from nihilists, have raped the definition of knowledge to such an extent as to cause epistemicl despair about, causing people to doubt their very EXISTENTCE, leading to viscious circles which turn leads such individuals no where. These developments, as I see them, are a perversion of what the post-modern theory SHOULD have been: namely, a re-examanition of one's axioms and the realization of how they relate to other systems while keeping in mind the pragmatic aspects, and hence, the value of many axioms which skeptics have now thrown into question.
What I mean by this PRECISELY is that post-mdoernists have a tendancy to, despite their claim that they make no definative claim on any sort of topic, jump to conclusions that consist of assuming the NEGATIVE of two propositions; for example, skeptics will often assert the scenario of one being locked in a simulacron, or perhaps merely existing as a brain in a vat. Two points these individuals miss are, as I stated before, the pragmatic benefits of assuming such axioms and the relative meaninglessness of assuming otherwise, and that such do not invalidate the concept that what axioms we perceive to be true are just that: true.
I recognize the possibility of such scenarios, and I also recognize the philosophical ground upon which their arguments are made; what I don't understand is why they insist on persisting going into circles in a matter which cannot be resolved. I would even claim that the axioms we assume to be true will, inevitably, allow us to results that WOULD be true within the system in which the axiom is assumed to be true; one need not work with true permises in order to come to conclusions that would be true if the premises themselves were true.
Then there are the moral relativists, who are absurd in my opinion, who claim that morals are SUBJECTIVE and not ABSOLUTE. I would first contest if any sort of concept could EVER be a subjective one: would not one oftwo individuals whom come to opposite conclusion upon a matter be considered false? How can both of them have the authority to hold both as truths and be equally correct at the same time? Does that not seem the least bit nonsensical to you? Moral nihilists will go so far to claim that morals don't exist, without any conclusive evidence needed to back up this statement; they forget that the epistemic default value on whether or not a matter is true is NOT negative but neutral, and thus fail to recognize the possibility that moral absolutes exist, regardless of our ability to perceive that they do.
The most absurd are the ones who try to challenge logic itself; they attempt to challenge logic by USING logic; does that not seem a bit odd to you?
My epistemological platform is as so: systems can be true insofar that that their conclusions do not conflict one another, although the validity of said systems is not assumed. I handle the matter of "proof" as denoting proof to be that which its own system claims it to be; something may be "proof" to one person but not proof to another; a mystic may hold that spiritual intuition is a proof of their posited insights of the spiritual realm, while others of a more reductionistic philosophy would claim that such evidence is flawed on the erred ground that their conclusion rests on a circular premise, though their particular definition of what is circular is that which is not its own system's axioms and that which does not have any "evidnece."
Criticisms of this short rant are welcomed; perhaps I will finally be able to put this issue to rest within my mind.