My Model Dissolves the Agrippa Trilemma
My model, called the Gageian Epistemic Model (GEM), dissolves the Agrippa Trilemma because it transcends it. By “transcends it,” I don’t mean that it refutes the logic of the Trilemma—its logic is still sound and applies to all systems that seek Absolute Truth—I mean that the Trilemma does not apply to my model because the GEM avoids all three horns, proving that the Trilemma is a false trichotomy.
Certainly, this is a bold claim, but the reason it dissolves the Trilemma is not because it is a new school of thought, but because it is a meta-epistemological description of how human beings acquire warranted beliefs.
Some critics I have showed it to said that the GEM is just another description of the Scientific Method. But actually, it is a model which gives it its first-ever epistemic justification. The GEM has proven that science is no longer dogma, but the necessary and only reliable method to obtain extrinsic knowledge.
Other critics have said that my rejection of the JTB definition is “cheating” or “giving up” on obtaining gnosis. But redefining knowledge was not an arbitrary choice or semantic trick by me; it was a necessary structural correction mandated by the GEM’s core axioms. In fact, the GEM, the Agrippa Trilemma, and the Gettier Problem all prove that Absolute Truth cannot be obtained by human beings. Moreover, I think calling something that we can never know, “knowledge,” is absurd.
The JTB definition is simply a dogmatic assertion that has paralyzed philosophy for 2,000 years. The GEM rejects that JTB is knowledge, and instead, redefines it by giving two distinct definitions: Justified Coherent Beliefs (JCB) for intrinsic knowledge, and Justified Reliable Beliefs (JRB) for extrinsic knowledge, to cover the two kinds of knowledge that exist. This frees philosophy from Agrippa’s unnecessary and arbitrary trap, allowing epistemology to move forward.
We cannot know the Abolute Truth; we can only know analytic truths within the known boundaries of a system: 2+2=4, and all men are unmarried bachelors, are both true because we defined them to be true. However, when it comes to knowledge about the external world, we can only know if something is coherent or reliable.
The GEM dissolves the Agrippa Trilemma because the latter made the fatal mistake of claiming that any system that tries to justify a belief will fall on its horns, which the GEM proves to be false. Had it stated that the only systems that would fall on its horns are ones seeking Absolute Truth, then it would not be a false trichotomy.
The PIE Syllogism
The GEM is defined by the PIE Syllogism. “PIE” is a mnemonic for the three-step structural procedure that we all engage in when trying to obtain knowledge: (P)erception, (I)nquiry, (E)xternal validation, which are laid out in the following five premises:
P1: Every conscious agent has a Subject State (S).
P2: A Mental Event (E) occurs within S, triggering Inquiry (I).
P3: The act of Inquiry (I) necessitates the Goal (G) of resolution.
P4: To achieve G, the agent must use coherent, non-contradictory Logic (L) (JCB)
P5: L achieves G if and only if it is tested against reality, consistently showing itself to be reliable. (JRB)
C: Knowledge (K) is a Justified Coherent Belief or Justified Reliable Belief.
I will explain each premise in more detail:
P1: Every conscious agent has a Subject State (S).
Although P1 seems like traditional Foundationalism, it’s not chosen dogmatically, but rather forced by structural necessity. It’s also not the same as the Cogito; in fact, the Cogito exists within this state. S is the pre-logical, inner subjectivity that is what I call the Self-Vindicating Precondition—the first-ever, necessary, axiomatic, nonarbitrary starting point in Epistemology—which defeats the infinite regress horn.
P2: A Mental Event (E) occurs within S, triggering Inquiry (I).
The occurrence of mental events is inevitable in a conscious agent, whether they are thoughts, feelings, or sensory inputs from the external world. If the agent wants to gain knowledge of E, they will continue to process of inquiry.
P3: The act of Inquiry (I) necessitates the Goal (G) of resolution.
The Goal (G) of any Inquiry (I) is to find an answer; thus, G is nonarbitrary and avoids dogmatism.
P4: To achieve G, the agent must use coherent, non-contradictory Logic (L)
It is impossible to acquire knowledge of E if the agent’s Logic (L) is incoherent. This internal check not only acts as a filter, but is also what allows the agent to develop a strategy to test their knowledge.
If the belief is coherent, then it warranted as JCB.
P5: L achieves G if and only if it is tested against reality, consistently showing itself to be reliable.
This is an external test which defeats circularity because the agent must check their belief against the ultimate, nonarbitrary judge: reality. This test includes immediate testing, intersubjectivity, and experimentation, and the result must be consistent and reliable over time, so their belief is not obtained by luck.
If the belief passes P5’s external test, the warrant is transitioned to JRB.
C: Knowledge (K) is a Justified Coherent Belief or Justified Reliable Belief.
The Gage Pentalemma
Anyone who claims they can avoid following P1 through P5 to warrant their beliefs will fall on one of the five horns of the Gage Pentalemma.
If you attack P1, you fall on the horn of Performative Contradiction.
If you attack P2, claiming that consciousness can remain static without any mental events, you fall on the horn of Functional Contradiction.
If you attack P3, claiming the Goal of Inquiry is not to find answers, you fall on the horn of the Arbitrariness.
If you attack P4, you claim that one can achieve a goal with incoherent logic and fall on the horn of the Incoherence. (internal contradiction).
If you attack P5, you claim external testing is unnecessary for acquiring extrinsic knowledge and fall on the horn of Circularity.
In other words, in order for an agent to refute PIE, they would have to demonstrate that a human being can acquire knowledge without being conscious; that mental events do not occur in their subjective state; that the goal of inquiry is not to find answers; that one can use incoherent logic to gain knowledge intrinsically; and that one can learn about the external world without testing their beliefs against reality.
As you can see, this is impossible.
Why? Because the GEM is not just another school of epistemology; it is the structural law that describes the necessary process to warrant all knowledge.
I've always solved agrippas trilemma by the impossibility of the contrary.
Agrippa’s Trilemma shows that all systems of thought ultimately come to a halt at one of three dead ends:
1. Infinite regress (justifying a belief by another belief ad infinitum)
2. Arbitrariness (a belief held with no justification)
3. Vicious circularity (a belief justified by itself)
However, this trilemma itself assumes a truth structure that it cannot justify. It makes a universal claim about justification—yet cannot justify its own authority in doing so. In other words, Agrippa’s Trilemma falls prey to its own trilemma.
If a worldview cannot account for the very categories it appeals to, then it must forfeit its right to use them in argument. If it does not, it defaults into relativism, where truth becomes preference, and all claims lose their normative force.
So the trillemma cannot make the claim it's making if truth is relative. It would be stuck in a determined box.