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

Foundationalism - Essay ExampleThis act 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 fittingly from researchers and former(a) works, to support its argument.As post be deduced form its very name, foundationalism, is a view that as states that, some beliefs become the foundation for others. It is worth patch to enter into a discussion of the theory of foundationalism, because, only if i 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 association is justified true belief (JTB). This means that all our companionship has to be based on some sort of justified belief that is true. This concept of a range of mountains of justified beliefs, one based on another and that based on another, leading to innumerable relapsing of justified beliefs, appeared unconvincing to some thinkers, and the foundationalists sought to solve this problem by introduction of introductory 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 mannikin 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, i f 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 cat 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 CriticismsDescartes may be cited as the prototype of a classical foundationalist (Fumerton, 1). Cla ssical 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