DOCSLIB.ORG

20 Foundationalism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
20 Foundationalism Foundationalism: Dead or Alive? Millard J. Erickson Millard J. Erickson is the Distin- Introduction foundationalism is said to be dead, clas- guished Professor of Theology at One of the most prominent terms in sical foundationalism is usually meant. George W. Truett Theological Seminary, recent characterizations of the differences However, since about 1975, significantly Baylor University. In addition to teach- between modern and postmodern is different versions of foundationism have ing at a number of institutions during foundationalism. Modernism made a been proposed. These make more mod- his career, Dr. Erickson also served as strong appeal to foundationalism, but est claims about their effectiveness. the Vice President and Dean at Bethel postmodernists are virtually unanimous Triplett comments, “It is not clear that the Theological Seminary. He is the author in the opinion that foundationalism must standard arguments against foundation- of numerous books and articles, includ- be rejected. Indeed, James McClendon and alism will work against these newer, more ing the recently published Making Sense Nancey Murphy regard holism rather modest theories. Indeed, these theories of the Trinity (Baker) and a forthcom- than foundationalism as one of the crite- were by and large designed with the pur- ing work titled Truth or Consequences: ria of postmodernism.1 The purpose of pose of overcoming standard objections.”2 The Promise and Perils of Postmod- this article will be to examine the nature An accurate discussion of foundation- ernism (IVP). of this dispute to determine whether alism must take into account these devel- foundationalism is indeed untenable as a opments. William Alston speaks of two means of justifying theological doctrine. types of foundationalism,3 while Triplett has a much more elaborate morphology. Definition of the Issue He separates varieties of foundationalism In general, classical foundationalism is into two large groups, in terms of their the contention that in the knowing pro- “specifications of the nature of basic cess, there are certain unshakeable start- propositions,” and “accounts of the rela- ing points that are not justified by any tion between basic and nonbasic proposi- other propositions. They are immediately tions.” Within each of these two major justified because they possess a character groups are subgroups, with two or more such that they are indubitable (i.e., can- varieties of each, leading to no fewer than not be doubted) or incorrigible (i.e., it is twenty labels for foundationalist views.4 not possible to be mistaken about them). In addition, Reformed epistemology, In the rationalist form of foundationalism, which is the most sustained critique of found in Descartes, such a foundation is classical foundationalism, constructs its known rationally, or by pure thought. For own type of foundationalism. Thus it is an empiricist like Locke, the foundation extremely important to identify the exact is sense data. The second element of character of the foundationalism we are foundationalism is that these foundations discussing. serve as justification for other beliefs, Awareness of this variety does not which are therefore mediately justified. always translate into discrimination in Usually, postmodernists have concen- discussion, however. So, for example, trated their attacks on a model of classi- Rodney Clapp acknowledges that “the cal foundationalism, often singling out word foundationalism hardly has a single, Descartes. In some ways that has pre- univocal meaning. Thus there are some sented a relatively easy target. When important Christian thinkers, perhaps 20 most notably Alvin Plantinga and William I believe this, and would probably give Alston, who call themselves foundation- some answer such as, “because I see it alists but are certainly not foundationalists there,” or “I am having a sensory percep- of the sort worried over through these tion of it.” Suppose, however, that I am pages.”5 Yet this distinction does not seem asked, “How do you know that your sen- to enter into his discussion of such evan- sory perception is accurate?” I may give gelical theologians as Ronald Nash and some further justification for this belief, Kenneth Kantzer, whom he finds guilty but then I am faced with justifying that of slipping back into quasi-foundationalist justification, and so am involved in a language and thought.6 Clapp’s failure to vicious infinite regress. Furthermore, distinguish these theologians from the Plantinga points out that foundationalism sort of foundationalism he is describing, does not fulfill its own criterion: In classi- as he did with Plantinga, is particularly cal foundationalism, a belief must be curious, since he closely identifies evan- either foundational or derivative in order gelical foundationalism with the common to be rational. Foundational beliefs are sense realism of Thomas Reid.7 He does (a) self-evident (e.g., mathematical state- not comment on the fact that Plantinga has ments like 2+2=4 and definitional or ana- in his later writings indicated a consider- lytic matters, like all cows are mammals), able affinity for the thought of Reid.8 (b) evident to the senses (i.e., reporting In the last quarter-century, not only immediate experiences), or incorrigible postmodernists but also most philoso- (i.e., matters about which it is impossible phers have asserted or assumed that to be wrong, usually one’s immediate sub- foundationalism, having been refuted, is jective states). Derivative beliefs are those dead. Sometimes the rhetoric has been beliefs that one can infer by logical prin- almost moral in tone: “Suddenly ‘anti- ciples from these foundational beliefs. foundationalist’ is a good thing to be,” The question, according to Plantinga, said Simpson;9 and Levi pronounced that is whether classical foundationalism is “opposition to foundationalism ought to rational. Which of the two criteria of be the philosophical equivalent of resis- rationality does the contention that these tance to sin.”10 are the criteria of rationality fulfill? It would appear that it does not meet either The Rejection of Foundationalism of these. In other words, foundationalism A major problem for most forms of is self-referentially inconsistent.11 hard foundationalism is the epistemic A further problem with foundation- regress problem. This is the question of alism, according to Plantinga, is that many how we justify some item of belief or of the common beliefs of ordinary life, on knowledge, and then, how we justify the which we base our living, are clearly jus- justifier. If I say that I believe j, and then tified beliefs, yet they are excluded by the am asked why, my answer is that I believe criteria of classical foundationalism. These j because of k. The further question may are matters that are not evident to the then be pressed, however, as to why I con- senses, self-evident, or incorrigible. Con- sider k to be adequate justification for j. sequently, they must be justified by a For example, if I assert that there is a yel- demonstration of their relationship to low table in the room, I may be asked why foundational or properly basic beliefs. No 21 one, however, has ever produced such lish theology without recourse to the demonstration. Plantinga says, “Consider foundationalist methodology. all those propositions that entail, say, that Van Huysteen is concerned with the there are enduring physical objects, or that question of the reality of the Christian there are persons distinct from myself, or faith, its validity or credibility. Are theo- that the world has existed for more than logians indeed saying anything credible five minutes: none of these propositions, about God? He says that the task of sys- I think, is more probable than not with tematic theology is “to demonstrate respect to what is self-evident or incorri- through creative reflection that the Chris- gible for me; at any rate no one has given tian faith has its own integrity: an integ- good reason to think any of them is.”12 rity and uniqueness that may integrate the Clark comments: “Any philosophical divergent dimensions of our modern principle that excludes cases of obviously experience, to give it the maximum degree rational beliefs ought to be rejected.”13 of meaning and significance.”14 Van This latter criticism appears less Huysteen intends to formulate a theologi- impressive than the first. While these may cal method that will not draw a sharp dis- well be rational beliefs, and may in some tinction between what is usually termed sense be inescapable if one is to function fundamental theology and systematic in ordinary daily affairs, “obviously ratio- theology. By that he means that the ques- nal” is a bit too strong. Whether such are tion of a confessional theology grappling rational, and on what basis, is what is at with contextual issues is not to be sepa- issue here. Certainly George Berkeley did rated from an apologetic theology that sets not think some of them obvious. None- forth its discourse to those outside the theless, the first objection indicates the Christian faith.15 problem of epistemic regress. From a prac- In so doing, van Huysteen has a spe- tical standpoint, one must stop the pro- cific definition of Christian theology in cess of justification at some point, but mind: “Accounting critically for their faith where and why? This is the dilemma that presupposes that theologians must be faces any epistemology. prepared to reflect on their own thought processes, and this places upon them the An Attempted fundamental task of relating the essence Postfoundationalist Theology of their faith to the question of the very In light of these problems, a wide- nature of rationality, as posed in contem- spread conviction has arisen among both porary philosophy of science.”16 Thus, the philosophers and theologians that if the- treatment of theology in relationship to ology is to be done, it cannot be done on a philosophy of science will be a major part foundationalist basis.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Studia Philosophiae Religionis 21
    STUDIA PHILOSOPHIAE RELIGIONIS 21 Editores: Catharina Stenqvist et Eberhard Herrmann Ulf Zackariasson Forces by Which We Live Religion and Religious Experience from the Perspective of a Pragmatic Philosophical Anthropology UPPSALA 2002 Doctoral Dissertation in Philosophy of Religion for the Degree of Doctor of Theology at Uppsala University 2002. ABSTRACT Zackariasson, Ulf. 2002. Forces by which We Live. Religion and Religious Experience from the Perspective of a Pragmatic Philosophical Anthropology. Studia Philosophiae Religionis 21. 254 pp. ISBN 91–628–5169–1. ISSN 0346–5446. This study argues that a pragmatic conception of religion would enable philosophers to make important contributions to our ability to handle concrete problems involving religion. The term ’philosophical anthropology’, referring to different interpretative frameworks, which philosophers draw on to develop conceptions of human phenomena, is introduced. It is argued that the classical pragmatists embraced a philosophical anthro- pology significantly different from that embraced by most philosophers of religion; accordingly, pragmatism offers an alternative conception of religion. It is suggested that a conception of religion is superior to another if it makes more promising contributions to our ability to handle extra-philosophical problems of religion. A pragmatic philosophical anthropology urges us to view human practices as taking shape as responses to shared experienced needs. Religious practices develop to resolve tensions in our views of life. The pictures of human flourishing they present reconstruct our views of life, thereby allowing more significant interaction with the environment, and a more significant life. A modified version of reflective equilibrium is developed to show how we, on a pragmatic conception of religion, are able to supply resources for criticism and reform of religious practices, so the extra-philosophical problems of religion can be handled.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conversion of Skepticism in Augustine's Against the Academics the Conversion of Skepticism in Augustine"S Against the Academics
    THE CONVERSION OF SKEPTICISM IN AUGUSTINE'S AGAINST THE ACADEMICS THE CONVERSION OF SKEPTICISM IN AUGUSTINE"S AGAINST THE ACADEMICS BY BERNARD NEWMAN WILLS, B.A., M.A. A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor ofPhilosophy McMaster University C Copyright by Bernard Newman Wills DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (2003) McMaster University (Religious Studies) Hamilton, Ontario TITLE: The Conversion of Skepticism in Augustine's Against the Academics AUTHOR: Bernard Newman Wills, B.A., M.A. SUPERVISOR: Dr. P. Travis Kroeker NUMBER OF PAGES: v, 322 ABSTRACT This thesis examines Augustine's relation to Academic Skepticism through a detailed commentary on the dialogue Against the Academics. In it is demonstrated the significance of epistemological themes for Augustine and their inseparability from practical and religious concerns. It is also shown how these issues unfold within the logic ofAugustine's trinitarianism, which informs the argument even ofhis earliest works. This, in turn, demonstrates the depth of the young Augustine's engagement with Christian categories in works often thought to be determined wholly, or almost wholly, by the logic of Plotinian Neo-Platonism. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Travis Kroeker for his advice and considerable patience: my readers Dr. Peter Widdicome and Dr. Zdravko Planinc: Dr. David Peddle for several useful suggestions and general encouragement: Dr. Dennis House for teaching me the art of reading dialogues: Mr. Danny Howlett for his editorial assistance: Grad Students and Colleagues at Memorial University of Newfoundland and, in a category all their own, my longsuffering wife Jean and three boisterous children Kristin, Jeremy and Thomas.
    [Show full text]
  • Theories of Justification: Foundationalism Versus Coherentism Part 3
    Philosophy 5340 – Epistemology Topic 6: Theories of Justification: Foundationalism versus Coherentism Part 3: Foundationalism Versus Foundherentism Introductory Remarks Comparing foundationalism with Susan Haack’s ‘foundherentism’ is a slightly tricky matter. First of all, foundationalism comes in significantly different varieties. In particular, there are some very significant differences between the type of foundationalism associated with indirect realism, and the type of foundationalism that Mike Huemer advances in his defense of direct realism. Secondly, Haack’s account of foundherentism is not as clear and precise at crucial points as it could be. To handle the first problem, I shall compare foundherentism with both types of foundationalism whenever necessary. 1. Is there a Privileged Class of Beliefs that Can Be Non-Inferentially Justified? Foundherentism 1. Haack says that foundherentism does not involve any privileged class of beliefs that can be non-inferentially justified. 2. The reason for this denial is that certain states are part of a person’s experiential S- evidence – namely, one’s present perceptual experiences, introspective awareness of one’s own mental goings-on, and memory traces of one’s earlier perceptual and introspective states – and their being part of one’s experiential S-evidence does not depend upon one’s having any beliefs about those states. Because of this, any propositions that are sufficiently supported by such propositions to be justified will be non-inferentially justified, since there will be no justified beliefs at earlier stages in the causal process that leads to the beliefs in question. Foundationalism – Indirect Realist Version 1. There is a privileged class of beliefs that can be non-inferentially justified.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundationalism and Non-Foundationalism in Entrepreneurship Research: Beyond the Quantitative/Qualitative Divide
    AGSE 2009 FOUNDATIONALISM AND NON-FOUNDATIONALISM IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP RESEARCH: BEYOND THE QUANTITATIVE/QUALITATIVE DIVIDE Richard Harrison: Queen’S University Management School, Belfast, United Kingdom Claire Leitch: Queen’S University Management School, Belfast, United Kingdom Frances Hill: Queen’S University Management School, Belfast, United Kingdom ∼ Contact: Richard Harrison, Queen’s University Management School, Queen’s University Belfast, 25 University Square, BT7 1NN Belfast, UK, (T) +44-2890-973621, Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT This article reviews the role of qualitative research in entrepreneurship. We argue that a strong commitment to non-foundationalist qualitative research, and the methodological pluralism this implies, should be a feature of the field as it matures. However, there are a number of widely reported problems with qualitative research in terms of the validity, reliability, rigor, robustness and communicability of its results that militate against more widespread adoption of these methods. We explain how these requisites can be assured by describing the research process followed in a recent qualitative study employing the critical incident technique (CIT). INTRODUCTION While Aldrich & Baker (1997) have recognised that entrepreneurship research may adopt multiple paradigms, reflecting competing interests and approaches and demonstrating a concern with practical relevance, from a normal science point of view progress has been limited. This is the case both in comparison with past research in the field and with more general high quality organizational research. Specifically, they have argued that convergence in entrepreneurship research, “the idea that as an intellectual field matures, it becomes increasingly characterized by a set of codified theories, models, methods, and/or measures” (Grégoire, Nöel, Déry & Béchard, 2006), should in part focus on the research designs, samples and methods used.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant, Rawls, and the Moral Foundations of the Political Nythamar De Oliveira Porto Alegre, Brazil In
    Kant, Rawls, and the Moral Foundations of the Political Nythamar de Oliveira Porto Alegre, Brazil In: Kant und die Berliner Aufklärung: Akten des IX Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, ed. Volker Gerhardt, Rolf-Peter Horstmann und Ralph Schumacher, Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2001, 286-295. Abstract: This paper recasts the problematic of the moral foundations of the political in light of John Rawls's critical appropriation of Immanuel Kant's practical philosophy (GMS, KpV, MdS, and political writings). It is shown to what extent one may succeed nowadays in preserving the normative principle of universalizability without falling back into moral foundationalism and in accounting for the stability of a "well-ordered society" in the very terms of an unsociable sociability combining morality and legality (articulation of the universal principle of justice and the categorical imperative). By recasting a theory of justice as fairness, starting from the "fact of pluralism" and from a conception of a "public political culture", Rawlsian contractarianism not only corrects its own inconsistencies but reiterates its Kantian-inspired proceduralism. Despite its shift from a comprehensive doctrine of justice in his 1971 masterpiece (A Theory of Justice), Rawls’s later political conception of justice (esp. Political Liberalism) recasts Kant’s procedural device of self-determination and autonomy insofar as social agency is inevitably caught in reflective equilibrium. In lieu of celebrating a shift from the moral foundations of the political towards a specifically political theory of justice, Rawls’s constructivism recasts some of the very problems inherent in a Kantian critique of moral realism and intuitionism in ethics and political philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis, J. J. Hardes
    SPORT, POLITICS, AND THE 2008 BEIJING OLYMPIC GAMES: SYNTHESIZING IDENTITY POLITICS AND GLOBAL EMANCIPATION THROUGH NEO-PRAGMATIC RADICAL DEMOCRATIC THEORY THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Arts Degree in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jennifer J. Hardes, BA (Hons). The Ohio State University * * * * Master’s Thesis Committee: Dr Melvin L. Adelman, Advisor Approved by: Dr Sarah K. Fields ____________________________ Advisor College of Education ABSTRACT This thesis examines a shift in sport sociology toward post-structurally underpinned identity-based politics. As a result, sport sociologists fail to reflect on macro level political issues such as human rights, due in large measure to the epistemological rejection of metanarratives of post-structurally oriented scholars. Implicit in this thesis is a tension between foundationalism and anti-foundationalism, which I synthesize through a Hegelian dialectical argument. I use the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games as an empirical example of the implications that rejecting metanarratives entails, and I argue that reconciliation of micro and macro level politics is essential through means of pragmatic radical democratic theory, in order to provide a moral purchase for scholars when dealing with issues requiring wide-scale emancipation, while, concomitantly, pertaining to sport sociology's calls for micro level identity-based work. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank my advisor Dr Melvin Adelman for his support over the duration of my studies at Ohio State, and Dr Sarah Fields for her invaluable feedback on this work. It also goes without saying that I owe tremendous thanks to Dr Earle Zeigler for his patience and invaluable help, feedback, critique and advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Radical Capitalism As a Coherentist Philosophy by Andreas Lind
    Athens Journal of Humanities & Arts - Volume 4, Issue 3 – Pages 183-198 Radical Capitalism as a Coherentist Philosophy By Andreas Lind Analyzing the connection between nominalism and capitalism, Radical Orthodoxyʼs authors see Nietzsche as the one who gave the operative principle to the liberal nominalist tradition: the will-to- power. In their point of view, capitalism is based on the principle that each individual who operates in the free market, attempts to impose by power his own will against others. Thus, nominalism affirms that different individuals have contradictory wills. Based on the subprime crisis in 2007, one could argue that the nominalist philosophy played a role in contemporary capitalism, not only in the matter of individual will, but also by being focused on the logical coherence of the system, rather than focusing on any kind of realistic foundation. By rejecting ontology, nominalism made validity, that is, logical coherence, the main criterion for accepting a system. The massive practice of subprime credits, which brought about a global financial crisis, was only possible within this nominalist perspective of validity. This perspective allowed the granting of credit based only on the speculative increase of house prices, the practice at the origin of the present global financial crisis. Introduction Since the subprime crisis of 2007, there has been much literature across many fields criticizing "neo-liberalism" (i.e. the radically deregulated free market economy as first proposed in the 1970s). For many, the 2007 crisis vindicated critics of the FEDʼs and IMFʼs policy of deregulation in the 1980s and 1990s. According to these critics, such as Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz,1 the policy of deregulation was too narrowly focused on inflation.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defense of Radical Empiricism
    In Defense of Radical Empiricism A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Ryan D. Ross May 2015 © 2015 Ryan D. Ross. All Rights Reserved. 2 This thesis titled In Defense of Radical Empiricism by RYAN D. ROSS has been approved for the Department of Philosophy and the College of Arts and Sciences by John W. Bender Professor of Philosophy Robert Frank Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 Abstract ROSS, RYAN D., M. A., May 2015, Philosophy In Defense of Radical Empiricism Director of Thesis: John W. Bender Laurence BonJour defends a moderate version of rationalism against rivaling empiricist epistemologies. His moderate rationalism maintains that some beliefs are justified a priori in a way that does not reduce to mere analyticity, but he tempers this strong claim by saying that such justification is both fallible and empirically defeasible. With the aim of ruling out radical empiricism (the form of empiricism that repudiates the a priori), BonJour puts forth what he calls the “master argument.” According to this argument, the resources available to radical empiricists are too slender to allow for justified empirical beliefs that go beyond what is immediately available to sense- perception, e.g., what we see, hear, and taste. If so, then radical empiricists are committed to a severe form of skepticism, one in which it is impossible to have justified beliefs about the distant past, the future, unobserved aspects of the present, etc. Worse, radical empiricists, who pride themselves on their scientific worldview, would be unable to account for justified beliefs about the abstract, theoretical claims of science itself! Clearly, the master argument is intended to hit the radical empiricist where it hurts.
    [Show full text]
  • Hegel After Augustine, an Essay on Political Theology Geoffrey J.D
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects Transcending Subjects: Hegel After Augustine, an Essay on Political Theology Geoffrey J.D. Holsclaw Marquette University Recommended Citation Holsclaw, Geoffrey J.D., "Transcending Subjects: Hegel After Augustine, an Essay on Political Theology" (2013). Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 303. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/303 TRANSCENDING SUBJECTS: HEGEL AFTER AUGUSTINE, AN ESSAY ON POLITICAL THEOLOGY by Geoffrey J. D. Holsclaw, B.A., M.Div. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Milwaukee, Wisconsin December 2013 ABSTRACT TRANSCENDING SUBJECTS: HEGEL AFTER AUGUSTINE, AN ESSAY ON POLITICAL THEOLOGY Geoffrey J. D. Holsclaw, B.A., M.Div. Marquette University, 2013 From where do political reformers and radicals come who are willing and prepared to challenge the status quo? Where are people formed who are capable of initiating change within a political system? Some worry belief in transcendence closes off authentic political engagement and processes of transformation. Others think that a transcendent orientation is the only means to protect and promote a more free and just society. Some see a positive commitment to transcendence as inimical to democratic practices, while others see such a commitment as indispensible for such a project. These general issues concern transcendence, immanence, and subjectivity as they bear on the question of political transformation. Explaining the differences between these fundamental orientations prompts an investigation of the philosophical and theological systems of Hegel and Augustine. Examining Hegel and Augustine around the issues of transcendence and freedom offers a way to understand these more localized disagreements between political philosophers and theologians, and even between theologians.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a New Foundationalism
    Toward a New Foundationalism Toward a New Foundationalism: From Carnap to Kripke, and from Husserl to Sallis By Bernard Freydberg Toward a New Foundationalism: From Carnap to Kripke, and from Husserl to Sallis By Bernard Freydberg This book first published 2021 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2021 by Bernard Freydberg All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-6205-0 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-6205-9 For Akiko, Forever. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ................................................................................... ix Foreword .................................................................................................... x Prelude ..................................................................................................... xiii On the Way to Ruling Image: Rethinking two Canonical Platonic Tropes A Note on the Unusual Tone of this Book ............................................... xvi Rudolph Carnap .......................................................................................... 1 William James ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • APPRAISING the PROBLEM of FOUNDATIONALISM in CARTESIAN EPISTEMOLOGY Linus Clifford Chinda Department of Educational Foundation
    IGWEBUIKE : An African Journal of Arts and Humanities Vol. 4 No 4, October 2018 . ISSN: 2488-9210(Online) 2504-9038(Print) APPRAISING THE PROBLEM OF FOUNDATIONALISM IN CARTESIAN EPISTEMOLOGY Linus Clifford Chinda Department of Educational Foundation, Adamawa State College of Education Hong- Adamawa State [email protected] Abstract A critical look at the history of philosophy reveals that philosophers are not in agreement regarding the criterion and method of acquiring knowledge. While the rationalists elevates and argues for the primacy of reason in that regard, the empiricists on the other divide argues for the infallibility of sense experience. As opposed to the rationalist and the empiricist is the position of the skeptics who questioned and doubted the possibility of knowledge. This position stands at the background of the thoughts of Rene Descartes and agitated his philosophising about knowledge. In his attempt to purge philosophy of all uncertainties, Descartes sought to ground philosophy on a foundation that is indubitable as that of mathematics. This led to his postulation of epistemological foundationalism. This paper seeks to appraise Rene Descartes’ foundationalism and brings to the fore, its implications for knowledge acquisition. The work employed the qualitative research design where data were sourced from books, journals and periodicals. In line with the above, the expository method was employed to establish Descartes’ thoughts on foundationalism, while the evaluative method was adopted to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses of Descartes’ thoughts before bringing to the fore, its implications for knowledge acquisition. The paper found out that as plausible as Descartes’ foundationalism may seem, it is not without flaws.
    [Show full text]
  • Phil. 159: Epistemology Nov. 8, 2018 Lecture 19: Modest Foundationalism I. Modest Foundationalism Explicated Following Feldman (Pp
    Phil. 159: Epistemology Nov. 8, 2018 Lecture 19: Modest Foundationalism I. Modest Foundationalism Explicated Following Feldman (pp. 71-75), modest foundationalism can be formulated as follows: modest foundationalism: i. Spontaneously formed beliefs can be immediately justified. Typically, these include beliefs about the external world (for example, a belief that there is a chair to one’s right) and beliefs about one’s own mental states (for example, a belief that one has a headache right now). ii. A spontaneously formed belief is immediately justified provided it is a proper response to one’s experiences, and provided it is not defeated by other evidence that one has. iii. All other justified beliefs are justified because they follow from one’s immediately justified beliefs via deductive inference, inductive inference, or inference to the best explanation. Pryor’s way of formulating the central modest foundationalist thesis about perceptual justification: Whenever you have an experience as of P’s being the case, you thereby have immediate prima facie justification for believing P. Prima facie justification is justification that can be defeated by other evidence that one possesses. Examples of defeating evidence for your prima facie justification in believing P via perception could include: • Stronger evidence in favor of ¬P. • Evidence that P’s truth in these circumstances is not ascertainable by perception. • Evidence that your senses are malfunctioning. • Evidence that “explains away” its seeming to you as if P is the case. (Note: modest foundationalists do not hold that beliefs formed spontaneously on the basis of perception are prima facie justified because perceptual experiences tend to be reliable.) II.
    [Show full text]