It's commonly held in philosophy, as in life, that we cannot truly know something unless it's backed up by some sort of evidence. In philosophy, there is a simple formula used to describe this correlation. It says that knowledge = belief + truth. To put that into words: in order to have knowledge, one must have a justified true belief. That is, a belief backed by evidence which is found in the real world.
It's simple enough if you think about it. Picture yourself right now, sitting at your computer reading words on the screen. If this is what you believe you are actually doing at the moment, then congratulations! You are a foundationalist.
Foundationalists believe that there are certain things that we can know for sure. They call these "basic beliefs". What those basic beliefs are is relative to the foundationalist. What is important is that she believes there is no need to investigate or question beyond a certain point (in this case, that the chair, computer, and words all exist definitely outside of your mind).
Most would say that you are perfectly justified in believing that you are, in fact, sitting in front of your computer and reading a blog. However, let's say that you are the inquisitive type. Since you've read this far, I think that's a safe assumption. You may find it hard to simply believe in the world around you. After all, maybe the Matrix has you and you are, instead, acting as a AA battery for some enormous remote control somewhere. This is sometimes called the "brain in the vat". You exist as a brain preserved in a jar in some scientist's lab and you are being sent sensations that make you feel as thought you are in a chair in front of your computer. You can't tell the difference between real sensation and fake. This seems like a silly thought, right? Can you prove it's not the case? I'll bet you can't. No one can. So, how do we move forward? If you're like me, you won't like the answer.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we don't hold to foundationalism. We don't believe that sensation of the external world is enough. We would need justification for these sensations. But then we would need justification for that justification. This easily leads down a slippery slope of beliefs justifying beliefs justifying beliefs, endlessly. One way to avoid this is what's called Coherentism. They believe that, to avoid the bottomless hole of belief, they construct a web of supporting beliefs in order to stay afloat.
So, how do Foundationalism and Coherentism fit into the picture of how we can have knowledge? They are two examples that help us justify the existence of the world around us. Remember, knowledge comes from justified true belief. We can believe in anything we want: God, Santa, the G-spot, a fulfilling, satisfying job requiring no training that allows you to work from home and pays $100,000 a year. However, without truthful, real world justification, these will remain (philosophically) unjustified beliefs, or more coloquially: fantasies.
Congratulations! You are now studying Epistemology!
Lol, so in the case of the two schools of thought you've mentioned, is it that their justified in the beliefs they have, or are they simply agreeing on a web of supporting beliefs for the sake of the eternal regress that invariably occurs. After all you've agreed that no one can really prove their not a "brain in a vat" but we can revisit this at a later time, my question to you is, as a philosopher, how have you chosen to justify your existence?
ReplyDeleteI always liked Socrates' answer when asked about his beliefs. Mine is not so much as to spread my beliefs but to make others question theirs. As an undergrad, I'd have to say that I'm suspending judgement in light of insufficient evidence. I'd like to believe in the coexistence of the external world with my perception of it. However, no, I don't know what my justification would be.
ReplyDelete