Your theory of justification?

[theVOID]

Circular, that's akin to "I know things by knowing them".

Well, all I meant was that there are times I am aware of things. I have awareness, I am aware of this - I think therefore I am. Therefore there are times when I know of things. Because I don't see any difference between knowledge and awareness.

And the difference between assumed awareness and actual awareness are also present to the same extent that assumed knowledge and actual knowledge are, how do you determine that your awareness is genuine and not an illusion of your mind?

And my point was that I don't see how any of my knowledge can be justified. How can I know why am aware of things?

Knowledge isn't important here it clouds the issue at hand, let's just drop it and talk about justification, the topic of this thread.

You believe certain things for certain reasons, you disbelieve things that you do not find to have a certain level of reason behind them, you'd agree with that?

This level of reason is justification, propositions require a certain standard be met before we have positive belief in the proposition.

You must have some concept of what it takes for a belief to count a knowledge?

If I am aware of the thing that I believe in, then that belief counts as knowledge.

That is again completely circular, the same as saying "If I know what I believe then that counts as knowledge" you've entirely skipped the standards a belief has to meet for you to reasonably consider it knowledge.

Anyway, this isn't about knowledge, This exercise is about making sure that we are free from error and bias in our judgements about what we should and should not believe, all in the name of becoming more rational.

My above point isn't meant to justify itself, that would be circular reasoning. My above point is simply that we're either aware of something or we're not. And if we are, then it's knowledge. Maybe I can't know when I know something?

We can certainly know in some cases, I know that there are no square circles. Why? Because it's necessarily true. Do I know that evolution occurred? I don't think so. Am I justified in believing in evolution? Absolutely, it more than meets my standards of justification and I believe these standards to be self-consistent and immune from parallel refutation.