When we examine any particular belief or particular line of reasoning, we need to compare it with some accepted standard to test whether or not it is sound. But herein lies a problem, for this accepted standard must itself be examined for its validity; and the standard used to examine that standard also examined, and so on, and so on. In attempting to justify a means of examination of ideas, evidently one is led to a potential infinite regress, since every examination apparently involves an accepted standard, but every accepted standard requires an examination of its own validity to justify its own use… Is there any foundation upon which we might properly examine our ideas?
Please read further this article at Philosophy Now link
Picture: Hegel and Heidegger by Darren McAndrew