Self-Validating Empirical Epistemology?

[Edwardo Piet]

Thus, reason (or math) is on no firmer footing even -if- empiricism is taken as axiomatic or argued to -be- axiomatic.  There are no absolutes, no assurances, to be found anywhere.  Reason cannot reasonably support itself - it self describes the polar opposite.  It too, ultimately, hinges upon practicality.  It's simply a way of organizing our thoughts to achieve an effect.

Yep, I agree. But reason (including math) doesn't need to prove itself... That really would be unreasonable.

2+2 being identical to 4, bachelors being unmarried and all other tautologies, both mathematical and semantical, is as sound a premise as you can get.

If someone tells me I have no proof of the truth of the premise that 2+2 is 4, that bachelors are unmarried or that existence is existent I respond to them with simply "If you think any alternative to the truth of these premises is possible then I don't know what on earth you are talking about."

2+2 being 4, bachelors being unmarried, existence being existent -- these are all things that are so absolutely 100% true and known by definition that to ask proof of them doesn't even make any sense. It's like asking to prove that A=A.

There is one kind of premise only, both mathematically and logically, that is 100% sound: And that is a premise that is a tautology/true by definition. The only way anyone can even try to disagree (and always fail) with tautologies is by equivocating: meaning they aren't actually talking about the same thing, and they aren't actually disagreeing, they are just talking about something else and thinking they are disagreeing

E.G. The only way to disagree with the statement that "All light things are light" is if one person is meaning "all light things are not dark" and the other person is meaning "all light things are not heavy" but then both people are talking about two different things, so it is not even a disagreement of logic, it is just a disagreement of semantics: A misunderstanding.