I'm also an autodidact and my understanding is that radically agnostic epistemology (such as you suggest) is not very useful. the idea of a delusion presupposes

I'm also an autodidact and my understanding is that radically agnostic epistemology (such as you suggest) is not very useful. the idea of a delusion presupposes that one could have a correct understanding of reality, at least in theory. the most basic assertion we can make about reality is identity, that is, a thing is itself. the purpose of a logical syllogism is to reduce an apparently complicated chain of identities to a tautology. [0] rejection of the principle of identity leaves one at the point where no further intersubjective dialogue is meaningful. which is why Avicenna said that anyone who denies the identity should be beaten until he acknowledges that "to be beaten" is not the same as "to not be beaten" and he should be burned until he acknowledges that "being burned" is not the same as "not being burned." [1] I'm very interested in any corrections, comments, or other replies. I'm also aware that there are other approaches to logic besides the aristotelian approach I have tried to convey above. an example of a non-aristotelian attempt at communicating would be e-prime [2]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction#Avicenna https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction#Avicen... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime