Foundationalism And Epistemology: The Study Of Knowledge

For hundreds of years, philosophy has attempted to answer the question: what is knowledge? Although philosophers have come and go, the question still remains. Consequently, epistemology, the study of knowledge, became the focus for many famous philosophers in their search for defining knowledge as a justified true belief. However, along the way, a philosophical problem arose because of two opposing views as to how justification of knowledge is structured: foundationalism and coherentism. The former, foundationalism, is the view of the organization of justified knowledge that consists of basic, foundational beliefs that are self-justified and non-inferential, and all other beliefs are in the end justified through these basic beliefs (Fumerton).

There are two types of beliefs: basic and non-basic. Basic beliefs do not require justification because they are non-inferential and self-justified. Moreover, this self-justification is achieved because basic beliefs are infallible, indubitable, and incorrigible (Steup). On the other hand, non-basic beliefs are inferential and require justification from basic beliefs in order to be considered knowledge. To take a case in point, foundationalism is often times demonstrated through a tower illustration. For example, basic beliefs are the foundation of the tower, and they sustain non-basic beliefs. Non-basic beliefs are also known as superstructural beliefs because they are supported and justified by the foundational beliefs. To continue, foundationalism can be divided into two forms: privilege foundationalism and experiential foundationalism. The first argues that basic beliefs are restricted to internal objects and specifically beliefs that originate from someone’s mental condition (Steup). The second maintains that external substances are considered to be basic beliefs because their justification and evidence comes through experience