Epistemology in 2 lines (plus commentary)

"What should be our method for deciding that?"
Iterate.

of course, no one reading this blog could possibly believe that I could make a 2-line blog post, so...

The real deep issue with epistemology that I've run into is that after Hume...no one has successfully iterated their way through "What is true?" in a way that is intelligible to the common person.  Rather...Critiques have come in 5 forms:

• Rationalism(Kant):  There's this category called Synthetic A Priori....and that escapes Hume's dilemma.
• Common Sense (Reid):  Hume violates common sense...though I don't see HOW Hume is wrong, he must be.
• So What (Neitzche):  So what?  Beauty, Power...Why are you hung up on truth?
• Redefine Truth:  Can't tag a philosopher...but common meaning of truth disappears.
• Orthogonal (Hegel, Positivist, Quine, Wittgenstein):  Wrong question.  You should ask some other question instead, that basically takes the Humean insight into account.

I agree with the orthogonal approach.

The question "What is true?" or "What can we know?" is epistemologically thoroughly unanswerable, once one tries to iterate backwards AND to maintain anything resembling a common-sense meaning of truth.

Therefore...the deep epistemological meta-question is:

"What question CAN we ask that has these 2 features:

1. It has a similar meaning to "What is true?"  Of course not the same, but hopefully in the same league.
2. It can be addressed decently."

I claim that the (only?) correct answer to the above question is "What should we believe?"
Of course, that places purpose AHEAD of reason, which is a quintessentially Humean, and as importantly anti-Aristotelian line.  Reason cannot generate purpose.  Reason is instrumental.

Note..."We should believe what is true" iterates it's way into oblivion (known unanswerables) in one step.