What’s Not Wrong with Foundationalism

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (1):161–165 (2004)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

One thing all forms of foundationalism have in common is that they hold that a belief can be justified noninferentially--i.e., that its justification need not depend on its being inferred from some other justified (or unjustified) belief. In some recent publications, Peter Klein argues that in virtue of having this feature, all forms of foundationalism are infected with an unacceptable arbitrariness that makes it irrational to be a practicing foundationalist. In this paper, I will explain why his objections to foundationalism fail

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,031

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
223 (#94,043)

6 months
14 (#200,423)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Michael Bergmann
Purdue University

References found in this work

The structure of empirical knowledge.Laurence BonJour - 1985 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Warrant: The Current Debate.Warrant and Proper Function.Alvin Plantinga - 1993 - New York, US: Oxford University Press USA.
Knowledge and evidence.Paul K. Moser - 1989 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Replies to My Three Critics. [REVIEW]Richard Fumerton - 1998 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (4):927.

Add more references