An Exposition of Foundationalism and Essentialism Essay

Foundationalism is the view that some beliefs can be held in inference from other beliefs which to a given extent are justified directly. Such beliefs are held on the basis of rational intuition or sense perception (Crook 168). In foundationalism, knowledge is split into basic and non-basic beliefs. Normally, philosophers believe that the basic beliefs are the building blocks upon which non-basic beliefs are structured (Crook 169). Basic beliefs must always be effective in order to the fully foundational. To a considerable extent, perception can be a justified basic belief unless proven otherwise by a different evidence. The justification of the beliefs of human beings is ultimately derived from the basic beliefs that act as the foundation of everything people know (Crook 169). People always trust the word of God to be true and they can base other truths upon them.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

According to the Bible, true foundationalism starts with the Lord Jesus. Jesus is the cornerstone of the biblical foundation and the fact that Christians or believers trust in Him is the starting point of the belief (Feher 149). People can be more certain that God exists and is a protector only if they know that whatever they perceive distinctly and clearly is true. Believers call upon God to guarantee not only the truth of clear perception but the accuracy of their ability to retain information over time for the purposes of influencing future actions or choices. There must be some kind of justification that does not necessarily depend on other justified beliefs, and when people believe in certain practices, there must be alternative beliefs that support the same practices. A justified belief is a tentative belief and not a known truth. If the truth is not known, then we cannot call it a truth. A belief may be justified or unjustified depending on the strength and evidence for it. If the evidence is strong, then, it may be considered a justified belief but cannot be considered a truth. The problem comes in equating justified belief with the truth. There is no way an individual can have non-inferentially justified beliefs about the past. The question most philosophers ask is whether there is hope to get back the vast body of knowledge one has if the person's epistemic base is impoverished.

Foundationalists believe that all justifications are both linear and inferential. However, although all justification is linear, it is not inferential. The regress argument claims that the argument is wrong because if all justification is linear and inferential, then the need that justifying beliefs be justified implies that for one to be justified in holding any belief, one must be justified in holding an infinite number of inferentially linked beliefs. When we ask for the justifications for the reasons themselves, an infinite regress is likely to arise. If the reason counts as knowledge, they must themselves be justified with reasons for the reasons (Feher 149). When some reason is given, there must be some justification, and this can lead to an infinite regress of justifications. At times, we might be confident that some of our beliefs about the world are correct. However, we have to understand the beliefs in a way that does not require the existence of material objects. The focus should be on the moral justification.

For a foundationalist, beliefs are divided into various categories such as non-basic beliefs and basic beliefs. Non-basic beliefs are justified by other beliefs and most of our beliefs fall into this category. On the other hand, basic beliefs are justified by experiences and rational insights. However, certain beliefs are not justified by other propositional beliefs but directly from the sense experience itself. A person can believe a proposition on the basis of the supporting evidence. This means that he/she might belief the right things for the wrong reasons. When one does not believe on the basis of the evidence presented, then the belief is opinion based. Sometimes, beliefs are not well-founded and depend on the evidence that supports them.

Experiences provide justification for propositions and this, in turn, justifies propositions about the world. Not all experiences provide justification for respective external world beliefs. While there is the need for justification of certain 'facts,' justification only makes sense when one is an expert. If people think that experience is the ultimate source of justification, then it will be highly possible that given a certain sort of experience, specific beliefs about the external world can be easily justified.

An individual's moral belief is justified just in case the belief is either foundational or based on the appropriate kind of inference from foundational moral beliefs (Feher 149). A moral belief about an action can be justified in part by reference to another. The society has a big role to play in instilling moral values. If a person is morally responsible, then there is a responsibility-foundation that makes him/her morally responsible (Crook 171). If there were a responsibility-foundation, it would either be an ungrounded choice which to a given extent serves as the foundation. In most cases, a character state serves as the foundation implying that According to foundationalism, the set of an individual's justified beliefs has a certain structure. Beliefs of some people are immediately justified and by making use of the immediate distinction, we are likely to formulate a version of ethical foundationalism.

Foundationalism is based on some foundational truth that requires further justification (Crook 171). If there are no foundational beliefs, it may lead to an infinite regress which can only be avoided if there are certain fundamental self-justifying beliefs constituting the starting point of knowledge. The origin of the facts people know is based on other 'facts.' For instance, Christians know that Jesus lived at some point because various historical texts describe Him including the Bible. Foundationalists would contrast the belief about Jesus with a kind of knowledge that does not require other knowledge. Our beliefs form an interlocking network of beliefs that support each other mutually. In this case, there is no need for single primary beliefs. Since there must be objective and universal standards of rationality, it must be understood that it takes more for a belief to be justified that just for it to be a belief in some proposition one has good reasons for believing. If the belief is based on good reasons, then it is justifying.

There is a common core of knowledge that needs to be transferred to learners in a systematic manner. In this regard, the emphasis should be on intellectual and moral standards taught in learning institutions. Essentialists believe that schooling should focus on facts and objective reality. Children should learn the basic subjects rigorously and thoroughly because they are the foundation of knowledge. In most learning institutions, the curriculum tends to address the growth of learners in all aspects. Generally, essentialism tries to instill students with the most basic academic knowledge, skills, and character development (.......). Teachers should try to embed virtues and traditional moral values such as respect for authority and intellectual knowledge that learners need to become model citizens. The foundation of the curriculum should be based on certain disciplines such as history, math, natural science, and literature. It is the hope of essentialists that when students leave learning institutions, they will not only pose basic knowledge and skills but also will have discipline, practical minds, capable of applying lessons learned in schools in the real world. There are various types of essentialism including ethical, epistemological, sociological, mereological, and educational essentialism.

Foundationalism should not be regarded as a doctrine but a syndrome in which questions and assumptions about knowledge are linked together in a variety of possible ways. The debate between foundationalism and anti-foundationalism extends to moral epistemology. Intuitive input is critical in order for moral beliefs to be justified to any degree. Foundationalists incorporate the views of coherentist that all moral beliefs can be justified in virtue of their mutually supportive relationships with other beliefs (Feher 153). Moral coherentism holds to the idea that a person's moral belief is justified insofar as the belief is part of the coherent system of beliefs both moral and non-moral. In the society, the belief about the value of a certain activity depends on among other things the ideals of the person; moral beliefs about what kind of persons we ought to be. These and other beliefs should be made into a maximally coherent system of beliefs (Crook 172). To avoid circularity, foundationalists focus on the justification of certain moral judgements by appealing to the moral rules and principles. If foundational beliefs are to be self-satisfying, they must have certain characteristics that give them that feature. Although the defenders of foundationalism have not separated alternative versions of foundationalism, object conception of the idea makes the belief probable or reliably true. It is not easy to understand the motivation for the belief that intuitionists focus on as far as the existence of a special institution of moral perception. Like other perceptual beliefs, foundational moral beliefs might require their own perceptual institution. The assumptions of foundationalists to a considerable extent pervade the figures of speech which articulate what common sense mean by knowledge and the conceptual framework which is the view of knowledge and skills (Feher 157).

Some foundationalists believe that there is no need to show or justify fundamental ethical propositions while other believe in facts about human reason and action (Feher 159). In the context of showing or proving ethical propositions, some of such propositions must have a privileged epistemic status; a status denied by a non-foundationalist view. Even if one does not reject the idea of immediately justifying ethical beliefs, the choice between foundationalism and the sort of foundationalism developed by epistemologists shows justifications in ethics. Reliable ethical observes perceive intuition as attached to a particular concrete action in a way different from how we ordinarily perceive the physical properties of objects.

Intuitionists believe that the process of justification does not rest on other beliefs, and to an extent, the moral beliefs are foundational. Furthermore, they believe that there are no foundational moral beliefs that people have knowledge of evidence-independent moral facts. However, at times, what we believe is part of a coherent system of beliefs. The degree of an individual's justification in holding a belief various directly with the level of coherent exhibited by the belief set by a section of the community. This means that in as much as we have to justify certain beliefs that define us as a community, explanatory relations are a critical aspect of coherence. Normally, it is difficult to determine the relative coherence of competing beliefs.

Conclusion

A person's moral belief is justified insofar as the belief is part of a coherent system of belief, both moral and non-moral. Some moral beliefs depend on other moral beliefs. For instance, beliefs about the value of a particular activity depends on the ideals of a person. Also, moral beliefs depend upon non-moral beliefs. For example, the moral belief about the political legitimacy of a state depends on non-moral beliefs about such things as human nature. The theory of justification in ethics demands that both moral and non-moral beliefs should be made into a maximall...