Thank you very much,
One more question: the problem of induction asks where the justification comes from for generalizing from a single case or a few particular cases, right?
And in effect it undermines our experience / the senses as things we can rely on.
As a rational person, do I need to agree with this intuition of generalization?
And is it only as a skeptic that I should have a problem?
I know it’s a bit unrelated, but I’d still be happy if you answered.

We do have such an intuition. Of course, one can cast doubt on it.

What happens the moment I cast doubt on it?
I’ll take the famous example of the sun and ask:
How do we know the sun will rise tomorrow?
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow because of the knowledge we have today and from my past experience and that of others.
Is there a problem here?

Nothing happens. If you cast doubt, then you have a doubt. But the very fact that this is an intuition does not obligate casting doubt on it.

Got it. Yesterday I asked you about the parable of the stones, and I understood from your answer that its purpose is that of a revealing argument.
The question that came up after that is: how do we know the senses really aren’t an illusion?
The question is whether we have a way to know that (from empirical findings),
or whether it’s simply a “healthy” intuition.

Sorry for going on and on haha

Each person has his own way of knowing that. A revealing argument only shows you that this is what you think.
In my view, the way to know it is through intuition. There is also the argument that appears in my article on Occam’s Razor.