I think the minds behind epistemology (‘the theory of knowledge’- James
Ferrier) are in search of a paradox; an intellectual platform that
elevates said minds beyond the  misrepresentations of knowledge, but
simultaneously thrusts these minds into the realm of these perceptions,
to enable them analyze truth, and untruth alike. But as far as I know,
(or I’ve been led to believe, certain ranks may contend), human
intellect may never be so graced. Why then should this branch of
philosophy exist? What tools would one use to analyze a body of
knowledge that is potentially flawed, if not potentially flawed ‘basic’
knowledge as well? Like an enthusiastic young lumberjack, who chops his
own neck off, while at work; epistemology presents itself to me as a
self-nullifying concept. It can’t be entirely impure of the system of
knowledge it would decry in other concepts.

Yet, whatever faults the concept possesses, it can't be blamed. Our
senses, our assumptions, our language, in fact, ourselves, we're
guilty. We rely on these imperfect tools to build a perfect theory.
Epistemology (from Greek,’ episteme’, knowledge), requires, at least, a
different approach to acquiring knowledge. This becomes a challenge,
since it would entail questioning some of the things we consider most
apparent.