|Topics:||Enlightenment, Ethics, Human Nature, Perception|
Philosophy entails the study of knowledge, and the relationship it has to the universe. The relationship created in the process of formulation of knowledge extends to the linkages manifested in the description of the particular knowledge. Belief is an acknowledgment of the validity of the existence of a specific truth with the actual proof of the existence of truth. The basis of modern knowledge has its construction from the argument that seeks to illustrate that every fundamental involved in the explanation of a particular fact has its explanation as well (McCain & Poston 2017). Epistemology represents a concept used for more than a thousand years to form the foundation of an argument, but the entirety of the process is believed to be an infinite process.
Epistemology justification of particular belief is the basis upon which the modern knowledge and systems of arguments were developed. Philosophy is an intricate approach to the perception of people about the universe, the dynamics involved in the daily development of the universe, and the procedures used to elaborate the most pressing questions of a person’s existence (Resnik 2017). Arguments about beliefs, the truth, and reality form one of the most intriguing aspects of civilization and development of philosophy. Conversations on belief have precipitated into the formulation of a different ideological approach to the depiction of knowledge and truth. The correlation of each set of belief as an explanation of another statement of fact through epistemic justification process form the basis of the argument of the above essay. Foundationalism and Coherentism investigate the discussion of belief and its epistemic relations. Inferential relationship justifies the truth of a belief irrespective of the stability of the evidence presented but subject to improvement and criticism from more logical and superior minds.
Arguments on what people believe to be true or false form the fundamental that influences the continuity in the learning process of human beings. Ambiguity in the explanation of the belief through strings of ideologies has resulted in the need for the proof of the ideas thereby forming an endless cycle that demands each statement proof. Over the course of history from the inception of philosophy as an integral approach to the better comprehension of the universe, philosophers have divided in their explanation of the basis of the modern knowledge base. Foundationalism entails that beliefs are justified by not using other beliefs to justify the validity of the idea in question (Poston 2014). Such philosophers acknowledge the need to have an explanation about particular situations or belief but state that not all views need justification from other beliefs. According to foundationalism, epistemic relationship of the believer’s belief does not entirely depend on the inferential relation of each other.
Inferential relations between beliefs in the justification of a particular belief are a construction of people who do not want absolute truths are only truths with no other explanation for the phenomenon. Foundationalism argues that some opinions are fundamental beliefs and require a no different set of assumptions to support their position on particular events. For example, morality is a set of ideas that depend on the environment of an individual. The morals of people are dependent on the personal perception of the topic in question. Therefore, the foundation of the beliefs is the perception of people and the mindset towards the situation. Beliefs are broad are it is presumed that they require a continuous series of elaborations that validate the existence of a particular premise. The presumption nature of human beings as far as philosophy lies in the mindset of individuals and the nature of their primary deduction on the comprehension level of the universe and self.
Coherentism is a depiction of approaches that argue that the validation of the degree of truth of a particular belief lays in the set of assumptions used to explain the fact. The theory of coherence ascribed to the ideologies that beliefs are as strong as the set of hypotheses that explain their premise. Inferential relation of beliefs in the explanation of phenomenon mirrors the basic concepts of the coherence approach. Philosophers who believe in the ideology claim that the universe is an interconnected phenomenon that requires every piece of its self to explain the relevance of other believers. Consequently, the circular correlation of the ideas that justify each other proof to be a better way of understanding the universe compared to believing that a phenomenon is truthful without a study of its dynamics.
The argument on the epistemically justification of beliefs forms the basis of the conflict in ideology between coherentism and foundationalism. Coherence theory depends on data collected in the justification process of the truth about a belief. Coherence gives people the opportunity to change the data that supports a particular belief if the new data forms a better relationship to the belief that the prior set of beliefs (McBride 2018). Coherentism portrays the belief of continuous explanation of ideologies resulting into a situation of infinite explanation of inferential data. The situation stems from the fact that coherence theory requires each belief to have a justification for it to be considered truthful. The acceptance of the coherence theory brings in the aspect of regress problem that makes the validation process insignificant to the explanation of a belief. It is because the regress complicates the definition of an opinion.
Descartes, the father of foundationalism stipulated that individuals had the right to believe in their truth as self-evident. The deduction is only relevant is the belief is as per the principle that recognizes the underlying truths. Foundation of knowledge of a particular situation is a hard stand to stick with considering there might be individual specific principles. At this point, the validity of the truth of a belief is at crossroads with the very foundation of the theory of foundationalism (Shamshiri 2016). An excellent argument on a belief rests on the explanation of the idea, its origin and the agreement on the information provided and the dynamics that influence the situation. Creation of ideologies that claim to explain a belief is the nature of human beings. People like to believe that the existence of particular truth is because of the previous situation. It is unclear on the fact of the belief, but the consistency of the belief has enabled the development of philosophy and civilization.
Religion is built based on coherence and foundationalism aspect of philosophy. People believe that a supernatural being that sets order and balances the dynamic controls every event in the universe. The premise of the argument is based on the acknowledgment of the fact that one cannot question the explanation behind the existence of the Supreme Being. The conflict between coherence theories and foundationalism is the fact some people choose to believe that something happens and exist for the sole reason of existence (Kelly 2016). The purpose of life is a complicated topic, as it will entail people asking their origin and concocting explanations aimed at resolving their desperate questions. Coherentism inquisition of the reasons behind the existence of a situation only brings confusion, as people will always result in different explanations aimed at elaborating a belief (Patterson 2014). Since there are no systems of measurements that can ascertain the validity of a belief, inferential correlation to the permissible arguments but not the truth as the universe would like people to perceive.
Justification is a process that requires people to doubt their belief as there might be a substantive elaboration of what they deem as factual. The need for justification and the debate of coherentism and Foundationalism brings forth the debate on rationalism and experimentation of the ideologies discussed in each case. One might ask what if the current perception of belief is factually false. What if the whole system of beliefs build over the years has relied on unsubstantiated premise (Phillips 2018). To develop at every aspect requires constant asking of questions that different prompt approach to the examination of evidence that proves their validity. In the course of civilization, the foundationalism and coherent theories have evolved to accommodate the constant development of the human brain. At this point, epistemic ideologies concerning the justification of beliefs have led people to the realization of a more significant phenomenon.
The arguments presented by foundationalism are based on the notion that everything is the way it is a baseless notion to consider. The foundationalism believers depict are a lot of ignorant geniuses who want to be contented with the principles of believing in events without wanting to form their correlation to the numerous events of our lives (Baç 2017). Other people choose to interrogate the reason why people are born, and this has helped develop the knowledge the modern society understands about reproduction. Advancement in the arguments people make is a crucial ingredient to the development of the mindset and formulation of better strategies for solving problems. The basis of foundationalism emanates from the observation that is irrefutably direct in their manifestation in the human eye.
an A-level paper for you.
Coherence theories, on the other hand, are fancied as per their contribution to the modern civilization. The challenge associated with coherentism is the fact that it gives rise to regress problem that creates a form of infinite elaboration of the situation without getting to the root explanation. The definition of regress problem in itself produces infinite ideologies that correlate with the basic understanding of the terminology (Scheidegger 2017). The formation of cycles that elaborates a belief registers the presence of an interconnection between the essential elements of knowledge and philosophy as a concept. The inferential relationship between ideas helps create a systematic explanation of knowledge to people across the globe through generations. Philosophy was intentioned to provide people with the tools to question the very nature of the earth and present a viable solution or explanation of the universe.
In conclusion, claims that their inferential relationship with other beliefs can epistemically justify an opinion. The validity of the statement is elaborated through the arguments of foundationalism and coherence theorists. Foundationalism states that belief can be self-evident if it obeys the conditions specific to the origin of the ideology. Coherence theory is in agreement with the claims made by a philosopher that beliefs are as strong as the set of beliefs they explain the phenomenon. The explanation of the universe and the foundation of the modern knowledge is based on the belief that events correlate with each other thereby making it easy to understand their dynamics and the dimensions of their effects in the universe. Foundationalism and coherence are estranged in their ideological articulation of what is considered as a viable truth, reality, and process of understanding the universe. Inferential relationships on beliefs are therefore relevant in the depiction of the core fabric of ideologies as they give room for further improvement.
- Baç, M., 2017. THE FOUNDATIONALISM-COHERENTISM DEBATE IN LIGHT OF THE POST WITTGENSTEINIAN ONTOLOGICAL ENLIGHTENMENT. Φιλοσοφια: International Journal of Philosophy, 18(2), pp.1-1.
- Kelly, T., 2016. Historical Versus Current Time Slice Theories in Epistemology. Goldman and his Critics, pp.43-65.
- McBride, M. 2018. Basic Knowledge and Conditions of Knowledge (p. 238). Open Book Publishers.
- McCain, K. and Poston, T., 2017. Beliefs are justified by coherence.
- Patterson, J., 2014. Problems of Epistemology: Foundationalism, Coherentism, and a Gettier Case.
- Phillips, D.Z., 2018. Faith After Foundationalism: Plantinga-rorty-Lindbeck-Berger–Critiques And Alternatives. Routledge.
- Poston, T., 2014. Reason and explanation: A defense of explanatory coherentism. Springer.
- Resnik, D.B., 2017. The role of intuition in risk/benefit decision-making in human subjects research. Accountability in research, 24(1), pp.1-29.
- Scheidegger, M., 2017. Modest Foundationalism vs. Classical Foundationalism and Coherentism.
- Shamshiri, M., 2016. The theory of knowledge in contemporary epistemology. Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 8(3), pp.30-38.
Offered for reference purposes only.