Axioms as Invulnerable
There are three fundamental axioms in metaphysics
Critics of axioms as an objective starting point for any discussion often claim roughly the following:
"People disagree about axioms"
"What may be a self-evident to you is different from me and others"
"How can we ever be sure what is right or true, what is the evidence that truth exists"
Concisely, they deny that axioms are valid and there are objective truths / starting point.
But this attack starts from the concept of disagreement and we can show that it too adheres to the core axioms — thus validating them.
Rejecting disagreement:
A: "It is impossible to disagree since there isn't anything to disagree about or have an opinion on — nothing exists"
B: "Of course I can disagree since I am able to express it to you, for the very least I exist"
A: "It is still impossible to disagree though, since disagreement is no different than agreement to me, both are agreement to me, therefore you agree with me"
B: "That's not true, they have different meanings. they are distinct from each other, they are literally opposites so they can't be the same thing that's a contradiction"
A: "It is still impossible for you to disagree since no one possesses the ability to be aware of disagreement and perceive anything at all, we're just objects"
B: "No we are conscious beings that can form ideas as you and I are doing now else it would be impossible if we weren't"
In the act of voicing his objection, therefore, the objector has conceded the case. In any act of challenging or denying the three axioms, man reaffirms them, no matter what the particular content of his challenge. The axioms are invulnerable.