If the regress argument depends on treating all epistemic warrants as propositional premises subject to further justification, it begs the question against non-propositional foundationalism.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Epistemic warrant(in logic and knowledge): The amount of evidence, reasoning, or justification you actually have to believe something is true—basically, how much proof or support backs up a claim.
Non-propositional foundationalism(in epistemology): A theory of knowledge saying that some basic beliefs don't need to be proven because they're grounded in direct experiences or intuitions (not just statements).
Premise: A premise is a statement or fact that you assume to be true as a starting point for reasoning or making an argument. Think of it as the foundation or building block you use to reach a conclusion—for example, "All dogs are animals" and "My pet is a dog" are premises that lead to the conclusion "My pet is an animal." Premises are essentially the evidence or claims you offer before drawing a final conclusion.
Propositional(as used in logic and philosophy): Referring to statements or claims that express an idea and can be either true or false.

Based on where you are in your exploration