When I try to set out my beliefs about any one area x (for instance, beliefs about morality, art, politics, or even beliefs about beliefs) , I find that each area falls mainly into one of three groups: (1) there are a handful of unquestioned "axioms" from which other beliefs are derived; or (2) my beliefs about x are disconnected, a potpourri, a grab bag -- or in other words, there are many axioms; or (3) the beliefs are ultimately circular in structure -- or, in other words, there is one big axiom that you can either buy or not buy. What I wanted to ask is: -- is it fair to think that this sort of categorisation is not just peculiar to me, but applies to anyone's beliefs about any x? And if so, is there a problem of arbitrariness? I mean, if beliefs about x reduce to one, a handful, or many axioms, and if axioms are things you simply have to accept and about which there can be no real discussion or argument, is any set of beliefs about x as well-founded as any other?

Read another response about Knowledge