Philosophy has three grand divisions.

The Slow as Molasses Press
Drawn from the writings of Charles Sanders Peirce  
121. Philosophy has three grand divisions. The first is Phenomenology, which simply contemplates the Universal Phenomenon and discerns its ubiquitous elements, Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness, together perhaps with other series of categories. The second grand division is Normative Science, which investigates the universal and necessary laws of the relation of Phenomena to Ends, that is, perhaps, to Truth, Right, and Beauty. The third grand division is Metaphysics, which endeavors to comprehend the Reality of Phenomena. Now Reality is an affair of Thirdness as Thirdness, that is, in its mediation between Secondness and Firstness. Most, if not all of you, are, I doubt not, Nominalists; and I beg you will not take offence at a truth which is just as plain and undeniable to me as is the truth that children do not understand human life. To be a nominalist consists in the undeveloped state in one's mind of the apprehension of Thirdness as Thirdness. The remedy for it consists in allowing ideas of human life to play a greater part in one's philosophy. Metaphysics is the science of Reality. Reality consists in regularity. Real regularity is active law. Active law is efficient reasonableness, or in other words is truly reasonable reasonableness. Reasonable reasonableness is Thirdness as Thirdness. Peirce: CP 5.121 Cross-Ref:††

97. Possibly at this point somebody may raise an objection and say: You admit, that is one thing really to be and another to be represented; and you further admit that it is of the nature of the law of nature to be represented. Then it follows that it has not the mode of being of a reality. My answer to this would be that it rests upon an ambiguity. When I say that the general proposition as to what will happen, whenever a certain condition may be fulfilled, is of the nature of a representation, I mean that it refers to experiences in futuro, which I do not know are all of them experienced and never can know have been all experienced. But when I say that really to be is different from being represented, I mean that what really is, ultimately consists in what shall be forced upon us in experience, that there is an element of brute compulsion in fact and that fact is not a mere question of reasonableness. Thus, if I say, "I shall wind up my watch every day as long as I live," I never can have a positive experience which certainly covers all that is here promised, because I never shall know for certain that my last day has come. But what the real fact will be does not depend upon what I represent, but upon what the experiential reactions shall be. My assertion that I shall wind up my watch every day of my life may turn out to accord with facts, even though I be the most irregular of persons, by my dying before nightfall. Peirce: CP 5.97 Cross-Ref:††
If we call that being true by chance, here is a case of a general proposition being entirely true in all its generality by chance. Peirce: CP 5.98 Cross-Ref:††

On Knowing Nothing

The Slow as Molasses Press
I know nothing of how anything works I do not understand motion Motion is a mystery What makes things go is not on my dance card I do not know
I know nothing of how anything is Even of love by which I live and breathe It is a mystery

What all this says to me is nothing but this That I do not know That knowledge itself is a presumption that should produce skads of laughter hidden for the sake of being recondite
Being recondite now that is something that I know It is the art of getting by when someone does not know and thinks he does Except that I get by not knowing anything at all