In order to arrive at any kind of knowledge that is useful - scientific knowledge for example - it is necessary to leave unanswered certain philosophical questions, questions that are probably ultimately intractable. Such questions would include the problems around understanding origins and consciousness.

What makes us think that these a-priori issues and our inability to be exhaustive with respect to them don’t affect every other attempt at knowledge in some fundamental way? It is often not understood that any knowledge that is held to be true is always provisional due to the contingent nature of consciousness. Even undisputed facts are subject to the possible inaccuracies of the senses generally. It is taken on trust that the senses report truthfully.

The only consolation is that it may not matter that much. What is important is to understand the limitations of knowledge in any absolute sense and even more importantly to be able to put that knowledge to use in a constructive way. Truth is not the thing. Usefulness is.