ipl-logo

Arguments Against Foundationalism

1193 Words5 Pages

Examination of Foundationalism: As I have mentioned in the introduction that foundationalism is a so influential theory of justification that all other competing theories of justification are described in terms of their relation to or divergence from it. That feature makes it a common target of all other relevant theories. Thus, a number of criticisms are made against it. In this paper I will examine five of them which I take to be the most common criticisms against foundationalism. These are: 1. Problems of infallibility 2. The myth of the given 3. Basic beliefs make no sense 4. Basic beliefs cannot support useful belief-set 5. Basic beliefs are arbitrary 1. Problems of infallibility: Classical foundationalism requires that justified basic …show more content…

The myth of the given: This is an influential criticism made by Wilfrid Sellars. It is applicable to all types of foundationalism since the idea of the basic belief depends on the idea of the given. The argument runs in this way: the idea of the given in traditional epistemology contains irreconcilable tensions. Foundationalists want to make sure that basic beliefs do not involve any other beliefs. That is why they want the given to be untainted by the application of concepts. But their theories are designed in a way that the non-basic beliefs can be inferred from the given in order to be justified. That is the way by which foundationalists avoid regress problem. But to make sense of inference from the given, we must ensure that what is given to us has a truth value. But anything that has a truth value involves the application of concepts. “But to apply a concept is to make a judgment about class membership, and to make a judgment about a class membership always involves relating the thing about which the judgment is made to other paradigm members of the class. These judgments of relevant similarity will minimally involve beliefs about the past and thus be inferential in character.” So, the idea of basic beliefs is …show more content…

Minimal foundationalism claims that the basic beliefs are non-doxastically justified. And to keep them non-doxastic, minimal foundationalists must ensure that basic beliefs do not involve the application of concepts because if they involve application of concepts, they will be tainted by other beliefs and, consequently, will turn into doxastically justified beliefs. Thus, they will lose the status of basic beliefs. I believe that this criticism is disastrous for all types of foundationalism. It ultimately reveals the fact that foundationalism is unable to bridge the gap between the object-belief and the very object of belief. So, it needs to allow the application of concept which in turn not only create a new infinite conceptual-regress, but also destroy the very foundation of foundationalism by eliminating the idea of basic belief. Of course, a foundationalist may urge that just as one needs to end epistemic-regress by endorsing basic beliefs which do not require other beliefs for their justification, in the same way one needs to end conceptual-regress by endorsing the idea that the truth value of the given can be known without making any judgment that involve the application of concepts. But this reply may not satisfy the critics because the context of the epistemic-regress

Show More
Related
757 Words | 4 Pages

The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God, Thomas B. Warren, Ramer, TN, National Christian Press, 2004, 5th ed. 253 pp. The book “The Warren-Flew Debate was written by Thomas B. Warren and the National Christian Press publisher and has an almost word for word account of a well-known debate between two of the most intellectual minds of their times though Flew did not look it at this debate. Flew was known for blowing his debaters out of the water.

Read More
1347 Words | 6 Pages

In Lara Buchak’s essay, Can It Be Rational to Have Faith? , she asserts that everyday faith statements and religious faith statements share the same attributes. She later states that in order to truly have faith, a person ceases to search for more evidence for their claim, and that having faith can be rational. Although she makes compelling arguments in favor of faith in God, this essay is more hearsay and assumption than actual fact. In this paper, you will see that looking for further evidence would constitute not having faith, but that having faith, at least in the religious sense, is irrational.

Read More
996 Words | 4 Pages

The primary issue with this essay, however, is that several of these premises either lack evidence all together or are backed up by irrelevant or weak evidence. Several pieces of evidence are illogically connected to their premises, which places the conclusion’s soundness at jeopardy. An argument that properly appeals to logos has strong reasoning, avoids logical fallacies, provides reliable data, cites reputable sources, and provides a methodology or theoretical framework. Carr’s article fails on all these

Read More
1302 Words | 6 Pages

Through these perspectives, Whitmarsh emphasizes the significance of atheism in classical history, with a clear intention of opposing the frequent neglect atheists and atheist history receive from influential historians and educators. To this end, Whitmarsh aims to disprove the misconception that religion is inherently natural in humans, thus recognizing and acknowledging atheist history as equally significant to religious history. Such a platform is consistent

Read More
1031 Words | 5 Pages

Rags to Riches In the story “Grades and Money”. Steven Vogel, a college professor teaching philosophy at a small private college in the Midwest talks about students worrying about getting better grades, rather than learning the material. He discusses how back when he was in school students never talked about what their grade was in a class, and now that’s all kids talk about. He gives many examples of students being open about their grades.

Read More
608 Words | 3 Pages

Notable exclusivists in the philosophical world believe there is no need for exclusivists to acknowledge they are in direct disagreement with epistemic peers. This belief is grounded in the idea that in order for an exclusivist to designate someone as a true epistemic peer, he or she must have aligning beliefs (Basinger 46). This conclusion can be drawn from the definition of exclusivism given by Basinger. If someone is a true exclusivist they believe that their perspective in a given situation is superior to all other beliefs.

Read More
675 Words | 3 Pages

David Dalfonso Prof. Thomas Teufel Philosophy 1500 BMWA October 22, 2015 In the Republic, by Plato an ancient philosopher. Gluacon presents an argument concerning “the nature and origin of justice.” Gluacon uses the four premises to expand on “justice.”

Read More
826 Words | 4 Pages

To start off one of the characteristics of human nature is belief. This

Read More
933 Words | 4 Pages

The question that is asked time and time again is whether or not god exists. It is evident that people hold different beliefs. It is evident that through some of the beliefs of J.L. Mackie that it could be argued that God does not actually exist. I find this argument to be more agreeable. In Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, he argues many points to support why it should be believed that god does not exist.

Read More
1261 Words | 6 Pages

Second, he proposes that for any p, if s is justified in believing p and s deduces some q

Read More
1730 Words | 7 Pages

Depending on the perspective of the fact can change comprehension of the belief, to justify a different

Read More
2349 Words | 10 Pages

This paper will discuss the problem of evil. In the first part, I will discuss Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheist stance and William Lane Craig’s theist stance on the problem of evil. In the final part of this paper, I will argue that Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s argument is stronger. The Problem of Evil

Read More
1797 Words | 8 Pages

In this essay, I will set out to prove that Thomas Aquinas’ First Cause Argument does not show that God exists and the conclusion that God exists does not follow from the premises of the first cause argument. I do think that the conclusion is valid and could be sound/or has the potential to be, but the premises fail to provide the basis upon which to reach such a conclusion. Hence, I will be raising some objections to the premises and will try to disprove any counter-arguments that could be raised in its defense. This would be done by examining Aquinas’ First Cause Argument and trying to disprove it whilst countering arguments in its defense.

Read More
1089 Words | 5 Pages

The existence of God has been presented by a multitude of philosophers. However, this has led to profound criticism and arguments of God’s inexistence. The strongest argument in contradiction to God’s existence is the Problem of Evil, presented by J.L Mackie. In this paper, I aim to describe the problem of evil, analyse the objection of the Paradox of Omnipotence and provide rebuttals to this objection. Thus, highlighting my support for Mackie’s Problem of evil.

Read More
1279 Words | 6 Pages

In this paper, I will begin by stating the Problem of Evil. Following this I will include two objections to the argument and why I find the argument to not be convincing. The Problem of Evil is an argument concerning the existence of God and why God cannot exist because of the presence of evil in the world. The argument begins by saying that God is both all-powerful and wholly good, and that evil exists in the world. However, these statements contradict each other, so all three cannot be true.

Read More

More about Arguments Against Foundationalism

Related Topics

Open Document