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.
The Trilemma is using the JTB standard of Knowledge, so any system that defines Knowledge that way, certainly falls on the horns. Its logic is still sound with that requirement. But the flaw it made was claiming "any system that tries to justify a belief" was its fatal flaw. The Trielmma is a boundary, but not the law.
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.
The Trilemma is using the JTB standard of Knowledge, so any system that defines Knowledge that way, certainly falls on the horns. Its logic is still sound with that requirement. But the flaw it made was claiming "any system that tries to justify a belief" was its fatal flaw. The Trielmma is a boundary, but not the law.