Kumārila's regress argument against extrinsic justification proves too much: it equally undermines the possibility of error-detection, since recognizing a cognition as false also requires a subsequent cognition.

?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.

Kumārila(as the philosopher whose argument is being discussed): An influential Indian philosopher from the 7th century who developed important theories about how we know things are true and how we can justify our beliefs.
cognition(Interpretation of Kant's use of 'cognition' (Erkenntnis) as pertaining to meaning/intelligibility rather than merely knowledge): A semantic notion (on the interpretation described)
error-detection(as a parallel problem that the regress argument creates): The ability to recognize or figure out when you've made a mistake or when something you believed is actually false.
extrinsic justification(as what the regress argument targets): The idea that a belief is proven true by something outside or separate from itself—for example, proving your memory is correct by checking it against written records.

Based on where you are in your exploration