Foundationalism Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Foundationalism - Essay Example This essay shall briefly state the concept of 'foundationalism' with an example, and analyze some criticisms against foundationalism. The essay shall argue that foundationalism presents itself as a very weak and debate-able theory of epistemic justification for it to be accepted as plausible. The essay shall cite appropriately from researchers and other works, to support its argument. As can be deduced form its very name, 'foundationalism,' is a view that as states that, some beliefs become the foundation for others. It is worthwhile to enter into a discussion of the theory of foundationalism, because, only if one understands clearly what foundationalism is, can one understand why it presents a weak and debate-able theory for plausible epistemic justification. As stated earlier, is rooted in the idea that knowledge is 'justified true belief' (JTB). This means that all our knowledge has to be based on some sort of justified belief that is true. This concept of a chain of justified beliefs, one based on another and that based on another, leading to innumerable regress of justified beliefs, appeared unconvincing to some thinkers, and the foundationalists sought to solve this problem by introduction of basic beliefs and non-basic beliefs or 'inferentially justified beliefs'. For example, one knows that 1) plants are living things and 2) all living things need oxygen, then one can deduce from this, that 3) plants need oxygen. Statement three (plants need oxygen) then becomes the new, justified belief, which is inferred from the justified beliefs of the statements 1) and 2). This is called 'inferentially justified belief' while the first two are 'non-inferentially justified beliefs' and foundationalists hold "that there must be a kind of justification that does not depend on the having of other justified beliefs" which then becomes the foundation of all our beliefs and knowledge (Fumerton, 1). In other words, "if one has a non-basic belief, then-at rock bottom-it owes its justification to at least one basic belief" (Howard-Snyder, 1). Interestingly, foundationalists state that some beliefs need no further explanation; for example, when one is in pain, or feels a sense of pleasure - this needs no further justification because one knows that it is true. It is based on personal knowledge or empiricism. Similarly, there may be another belief that one cannot sleep because of the pain. This is derived form the belief that one is in pain, or derived belief. Relationships like the one mentioned, between basic and derived beliefs, in terms of justification, are more basic than others, since in "they cannot be justified by reference to other beliefs (call them the 'Derived Beliefs') whereas derived beliefs can be justified by reference to basic beliefs" (Fumerton, 1). Types of Foundationalism and Their Criticisms Descartes may be cited as "the paradigm of a classical foundationalist" (Fumerton, 1). Classical foundationalism holds that the basics or the 'foundations of knowledge' must be absolutely protected, and that they must be invulnerable to skepticism (University of Reading, Foundationalism