Also, your argument (including what you have said in the comments) is something like this:
Every argument is based on premises. There may be additional arguments for the premises, but those are arguments will themselves have premises. Therefore either 1) you have an infinite regress of premises; or 2) you have premises that you do not have arguments for; or 3) your arguments are circular.
Assuming (as you seem to) that we do not have an infinite regress of premises, that means either that some premises do not have arguments for them, or that the arguments are circular. Either way, you say, that means we have unjustified beliefs which are not known to be true.
This may be true, given a particular arbitrary definition of knowledge that there is no reason for anyone to accept. But if knowledge is defined in such a way as to be a contradiction, who would want it anyway? It would be like wanting a round square.
Also, your argument (including what you have said in the comments) is something like this:
Every argument is based on premises. There may be additional arguments for the premises, but those are arguments will themselves have premises. Therefore either 1) you have an infinite regress of premises; or 2) you have premises that you do not have arguments for; or 3) your arguments are circular.
Assuming (as you seem to) that we do not have an infinite regress of premises, that means either that some premises do not have arguments for them, or that the arguments are circular. Either way, you say, that means we have unjustified beliefs which are not known to be true.
This may be true, given a particular arbitrary definition of knowledge that there is no reason for anyone to accept. But if knowledge is defined in such a way as to be a contradiction, who would want it anyway? It would be like wanting a round square.