It doesnt really matter if Pragmatism is 'Truth'. Its useful. If its useful, use it. If its not useful, don't use it. There is no knowledge claim here.

It does matter if Platonic Realists are claiming circles are special properties that exist outside our universe. There is a knowledge claim here.

>I don't think knowledge is divine.

You are going to have the existential crisis. Your ontological and epistemological beliefs are about to converge on anti-realism.

I recommend again that book Pragmatism. You will personally benefit from learning about the flaws of Platonic Realism, Monism, and Universals. You will be able to answer questions more accurately.

I know I get book recommendations and I generally ignore them, but I will challenge you to read for ~5-10 minutes. I think you will be hooked:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5116/5116-h/5116-h.htm

Wow. That left me baffled. You're filtering your philosophy according to what affects you, really?

I mean there are some interesting ideas in there, but no elaborate argument matters when it is circular and refusing the very base it stand on.

The claim is that circles are a property of the universe. That's not a knowledge claim, that's a claim about truth.

> exist outside our universe

I never said that. When you monomorph a C++-template, it exists in the final binary. It of course won't be a single thing, it's existing among multiple things. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

> Your ontological and epistemological beliefs are about to converge on anti-realism.

Based on Wikipedia about Anti-Realism: no. Something must be logical AND exist to true, otherwise it's merely logical imagination.

> It doesn't really matter if Pragmatism is 'Truth'.

That sounds like you bend your perception of reality to match your belief. And when it's inconvenient you say it doesn't matter.

I really think there is a fallacy here, can you please refute that?