What is the regress argument for Foundationalism?

1. Regress Arguments for Foundationalism. A foundational or noninferentially justified belief is one that does not depend on any other beliefs for its justification. According to foundationalism, any justified belief must either be foundational or depend for its justification, ultimately, on foundational beliefs.

Is Foundationalism possible without regress?

Foundationalism is false; after all, foundational beliefs are arbitrary, they do not solve the epistemic regress problem, and they cannot exist without other (justified) beliefs. Or so some people say.

What is the skeptical regress argument?

1. In order to know something, it’s not enough just to believe it – you have to have a good reason to believe it. For any proposition p, if S knows that p, then S has a good reason to believe that p (S is justified in believing that p).

What is a statistical regress argument?

In epistemology, the regress argument is the argument that any proposition requires a justification. However, any justification itself requires support. This means that any proposition whatsoever can be endlessly (infinitely) questioned, resulting in infinite regress.

Is Kant A Foundationalist?

Several other philosophers of the early modern period, including John Locke, G. W. Leibniz, George Berkeley, David Hume, and Thomas Reid, all accepted foundationalism as well. Immanuel Kant’s foundationalism rests on his theory of categories.

Is infinite regress a fallacy?

It’s a fallacy because it is begging the question that is to say that it is a circular argument. Whether referring to the origins of the universe or any other regressive context, the answer simply moves the question back into infinite regress rather than answering it.

What is the problem with foundationalism?

The major problem of foundationalism is the claim that some beliefs are self evident and infallible. What the foundationalist is trying to say here is that those beliefs that are infallible and self-evident are possible to exist without being justified.

Is Kant A foundationalist?

What is the infinite regress fallacy?

The fallacy of Infinite Regress occurs when this habit lulls us into accepting an explanation that turns out to be itterative, that is, the mechanism involved depends upon itself for its own explanation.

Why infinite regress is possible?

According to the recursive principle, this is only possible if there is a distinct Y that is also F. But in order to account for the fact that Y is F, we need to posit a Z that is F and so on. An infinite regress argument is an argument against a theory based on the fact that this theory leads to an infinite regress.

How do I stop infinite regress?

Once the regress has started, there is no way of stopping it since a new entity has to be introduced at each step in order to make the previous step possible. An infinite regress argument is an argument against a theory based on the fact that this theory leads to an infinite regress.

What makes Descartes a foundationalist?

Arguably, the most well known foundationalist is Descartes, who takes as the foundation the allegedly indubitable knowledge of his own existence and the content of his ideas. Every other justified belief must be grounded ultimately in this knowledge.

How does foundationalism escape the regress argument?

Foundationalism seeks to escape the regress argument by claiming that there are some beliefs for which it is improper to ask for a justification. (See also a priori .) This would be a claim that some things (basic beliefs) are true in and of themselves.

How are beliefs justified by the regress argument?

Such beliefs are called basic beliefs. In this solution, which is called foundationalism, all beliefs are justified by basic beliefs. Foundationalism seeks to escape the regress argument by claiming that there are some beliefs for which it is improper to ask for a justification. (See also a priori .)

How are infinite regress arguments used in real life?

Usually such arguments take the form of objections to a theory, with the fact that the theory implies an infinite regress being taken to be objectionable. There are two ways in which a theory’s resulting in an infinite regress can form an objection to that theory.

Is the regress argument a problem in epistemology?

It is a problem in epistemology and in any general situation where a statement has to be justified. The argument is also known as diallelus ( Latin) or diallelon, from Greek di allelon “through or by means of one another” and as the epistemic regress problem.