In Anglo-American Postmodernity, Nancey Murphy lists three characteristics of modern philosophy: foundationalism, referentialism, and reductionism.
Murphy gives a concise, easily understandable definition of foundationalism:
When we seek to justify a belief, we do so by relating it to (basing it on, deriving it from) other beliefs. If these other beliefs are called into question, then they, too, must be justified. Foundationalists insist that this chain of justifications must stop somewhere; it must not be circular, nor must it constitute an infinite regress. Thus, the regress must end in a 'foundation' of beliefs that cannot themselves be called into question. (p. 9)
Murphy cites the Thirty Years' War as a driving force behind the desire of modern philosophers to find "universal agreement" among human beings. (p. 10) The desire of many was to forge a path to this agreement based on a foundation of scientific reason instead of religious tradition.
I have trouble seeing how foundationalism is plausible. No matter what belief you or I have, there will always be some reason that led us to hold to that belief. Am I wrong?
I agree with you Bill. That "foundation" of beliefs is still justified by other beliefs. I think it has to be circular.
Posted by: Jennie | December 14, 2005 at 01:58 PM