Your theory of justification?

[Edwardo Piet]

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?

I don't claim to be able to determine it. It depends on what I'm aware of. If I'm aware of an illusion then I'm aware of an illusion. If I am aware of reality then I'm aware of reality.

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?

Assuming cause and effect exists and applies to myself, I must believe things for reasons.

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

If the probability that I am right is over 50% I'd call that at least somewhat justified belief. And I'd call tautologies to be 100% justified to be believed in.

We can certainly know in some cases, I know that there are no square circles. Why? Because it's necessarily true.

That's assuming we know for sure what "square" and "circle" mean and thereby know that they are contradictory. How do we know that every time we heard of or read their definitions we weren't hallucinating and in fact "square" really means "black" and "circles" means "swans"?

But yes, seriously. The things that "square" and "circle" refer to means that "square circles" are necessarily impossible.