A HUMEAN SOLUTION TO AGRIPPA'S TRILEMMA --AND AN INTERNALIST SCAPE TO BERGMANN'S DILEMMA.

In this paper, I analyse Agrippa's trilemma, an old skeptical argument that questions the possibility of justifying any arbitrary belief p and its paradox about justification. Assuming that neither infinitism nor skepticism are satisfactory positions, the main alternatives available to face the problem (foundationism, coherentism and epistemic externalism) are outlined, as well as some central arguments that show the serious difficulties they face. In the case of foundationalism, these problems arise from two dilemmas, which work together with the trilemma to make our philosophical life even more difficult: the so-called Sellar's dilemma and Bergmann's dilemma--although the latter is a very general attack on internalism. The former calls into question the intelligibility of a key idea of standard foundationalism: the notion of justified basic belief. The second casts doubt on the rational sustainability of epistemic internalism, which is a usual presupposition of the presentation of the trilemma. I explore a Humean way out of the trilemma that also manages to escape such dilemmas. Like any position in this difficult territory the way out has costs. However, they do not seem unaffordable. Here I only intend to tentatively present the idea, as a possible way out of our difficulties, which deserves to be seriously discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]