I’m mostly just a skeptic

Though I’ve tried very hard, I am unable to arrive at sufficient reasons for any philosophy.
I can see failure in any philosophical position I have tried to adopt.
This, however, is not a justification for any other (especially religious) position.
Religion (faith that is) is irrational.
I seek to be rational and learn from experience.
I think irrational belief, overall, does harm.
Practically, one must make great simplifications to get through life.
Some of the simplifications may be called “fictions”.
I think almost every word must be fictitious.
So there is not a simple “correspondence” theory of truth that is adequate.
But I still believe truth is based on correspondence.
It is discovered mostly practically – by what works.
Also it is dependent on psychological facts.
There is no truth without intelligence.
And the existence of intelligence is not necessary.
I have separate parts of a philosophy – all of which are simplifications – & which involve fictions. But they work in their separate areas – & are based on reason & experience.
I am unable to fit them all together.
It may be that they don’t fit together because they are simplifications.
Each only valid is some domains.
The whole truth is just too complex for human (or at least my) comprehension.

Knowledge necessarily uses fictions!

I’m about on third of the way through Hans Vaihinger’s Philosophy of As If. I believe he is overall correct. I may differ on some details. E.g. even in Principia Mathematica classes are logical fictions. I suspect beyond even that Predicates (including relations) are also fictions. As is anything that can be named or described! Mind & Matter are both fictions. Only instances of immediate experience are real – but they cannot be named or described!