PHIL Discussion 4
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Colorado, Boulder *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
1350
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
1
Uploaded by maddie6638
The Regress Argument argues that you must have justifiable reasons for all of your beliefs and those reasons must have reasons and so on. If one must provide reasonable justification and explanation for every belief they have, they might end up needing to provide infinite justifications
which is where the Regress Problem arises.
The Regress Argument concludes that there are no beliefs for which believers are justified in holding them because there is no solid foundation for any of these beliefs. This argument questions the structure of justification. The Regress Argument can be seen as supporting Pyrrhonian Skepticism. Pyrrhonian Skepticism questions whether knowledge is possible or not which seems to align with the Regress Argument. If problems arise with one of our beliefs, like the Regress Problem, then that problem may apply to all of our other beliefs meaning we must be skeptical of our beliefs. I found the foundationalist response to the Regress Argument to be the most plausible. According to foundationalists, the chain of reasons for holding a belief stops when you reach basic beliefs. “Basic beliefs” are independently justified and serve as the foundation for all other beliefs. For example, the belief that I am typing on my computer right now is justified because I can see that I am typing on my computer which is enough justification. This reply targets premise 1 of the Regress Argument which states that in order for a belief to be justified or reasonable, it must be based on another justified belief. Because foundationalists believe that basic beliefs stand on their own, this premise must be false. The foundationalists also target premise 6 because they believe that the chain of reasons comes to an end with basic beliefs which are independently justified.
I think the foundationalist reply to the Regress Argument does allow us to escape the skeptical conclusion of the argument, but it depends on what one would classify as “basic beliefs”. If we accept the foundationalist reply, the infinite regress of justification will eventually end, solving the regress problem. Solving the regress problem and taking into account foundationalist views, there would be a solid foundation of justification. With a solid foundation of justification and beliefs, we can escape the skeptical conclusion of the regress argument. However, this reply would not allow us to escape skepticism entirely because it seems difficult to some to reasonably identify basic beliefs and non-basic beliefs.
Discover more documents: Sign up today!
Unlock a world of knowledge! Explore tailored content for a richer learning experience. Here's what you'll get:
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help