On the question of universal rationality in the face of relativism

The article shows that the debatableness of the internalist regulative idea of the universal rationality leads to its understanding as a dogma, which can be a fiction or a polemical position, but without evidence based on extreme evidence or principles, which are problematic themselves, any claim to the universality of rationality is destroyed even without the use of relativized externalistic arguments. Unobvious per se universal rationality has to justify itself, which leads to the regressive argument, the axiomatic argument, and the circular argument. Regression is infinite, and therefore unfeasible, whereas the circular and axiomatic arguments are based on the unconditional beginning, which is obvious in itself, whether it is an obvious object, a logical connection, or their identity. The problem of the beginning makes a cognizant person questionable. It also reveals the questions of imitation, self-deception, disclosure, and self-disclosure, ideology, the status of the author, and the subjectivity of thought. The latter issue is, in its extreme form, existential. However, the practical significance of the problem remains - the need for a platform for understanding. Yet, even in the process of understanding the supposed universal rationality acts as one of the sides of this process, which can be understood as a conflict, that is, does not fulfill its role of the basis or the universal mediator at least.