Talk:Foundationalism
| WikiProject Philosophy / Epistemology | (Rated Start-class, High-importance) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Isn't this a typo? "...while some contemporary rationalism asserts..." It should read 1) "while some contemporary rationalists assert..." or 2) "while contemporary rationalism asserts...". The first suggestion is preferable.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglasorme (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Not knowing much about this subject, it would be very helpful to have some accounting of the history of foundationalism. Who coined the term, who came up with it, who are some of the more notable proponents of it, etc.
I've given this article, which let's just say didn't reflect the state of the art on the topic (and actually, it still doesn't), a quick going-over. It needs to be augmented with some points made in the regress argument in epistemology and perhaps other articles linked from epistemology. Please, before you start writing articles on a subject for Wikipedia, look around for related articles. You can adapt text from those other articles. --LMS
I'm embarassed to say I'm not very familar with the Babylon 5 TV series, but I believe a religion called "Foundationalism" appeared there (Dr. Franklin?). We may want to make a note of this.
- Is this a jest? Seriously though, disambiguation will sort this out - religion is not philosophy.--Knucmo2 12:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
If anything there should be a link to Babylon 5/Foundationalism since that term is not used with that meaning anywhere ouside of the show. And there is a common philisophical meaning, which unless the language changes, is priamary, and should be treated as such. MRC BTW, Larry, this is getting to be quite a good article.
I had a discussion with some members of various philosophical communities, and a few of them were convinced that "basic beliefs" didn't require any justification whatsoever.
Questioning this, I went to Mr. Ernest Sosa himself and inquired as to whether this group, as well as those who do justify "basic beliefs" on non-beliefs were both foundationalists, and he said that they were. Similarly, Patrick Rysiew was in agreement. I think it is better to take the word of these two philosophers than less knowledgable philosophers, so I have changed the text back. - 24.80.226.183
It's probably unhelpful (because inaccurate) to say that infinite regresses, "dogmatic" stopping points, and circular arguments are not "logically valid." Circular arguments, for instance, are actually deductively valid arguments, and it's not obvious that the other two cases admit of some problem of logical validity. Usually we (rightly) find all three things objectionable - but not because they fail to be "logically valid." They are unconvincing, or question-begging, or dialectically inappropriate, or demand further explanation, but in none of the cases is it necessary that we have some violation of logical inference. I would not use the phrase "logically valid," since that has a rather narrow application in philosophy and logic (or at least narrower than is being used here).
I think there should be some mention of this connection to analytic philosophy, especially that of Wittgenstein's because it his deals with "basic facts" that construct in states-of-affairs and so on.
Isn't fallibilism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism an alternative to foundationalism?
The "alternatives" are alternative theories of justification, but it should be said that there are also alternatives to justification.
I removed the "Arguments for... F"[edit]
Because:
It did not present an argument for F.
It contained the error that circular arguments are invalid, they are not. They are unconvincing.
It had some questionable use of 'dogmatic'.
--Deleet (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
'Reformed epistemology'?[edit]
Under Alternatives to..., 'reformed epistemology' is listed. Seems to me reformed epistemology is merely a type of foundationalism, with specific foundationalist 'basic beliefs', etc. Can anyone explain how R.E. is not F? Foggg (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I believe it's incompatibility with foundationalism has to do with it's adherence to divine command theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Reformed epistemology, which I hold in such low regard that bile rises in my throat as I say the words so I may not be the most unbiased commentator, seems to be incompatible with foundationalism in that it seems to fail to distinguish between basic beliefs and externally justified beliefs, making all beliefs basic. No part of it is questionable, as the Reformed worldview according to the Reformed epistemology, is a precondition for intelligibility. This is of course taking stupid to whole new levels of low, but it's what they say. --BenMcLean (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- One could argue that all of Western Christianity is foundationalist, both Protestantism with its "sola scriptura" and post-Tridentine Catholicism with its papal/magisterial authority. They just disagree about what the foundation is. In contrast, Eastern Christianity is more like an complex ecosystem than a house built on a foundation; hence it is more coherentist (with a healthy dose of mysticism thrown in). Authority is viewed as internal and pneumatic rather than external and dogmatic, and so there isn't a need for a "foundation" per se. This could be because Western Christians accepted Aristotle's ideas (via scholasticism) and Easterners didn't. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
No comments:
Post a Comment