Epistemology Foundationalism & basic beliefs?

Question

Basic beliefs have been considered "regress stoppers" and do not need to be justified since they are "self evident' truths. I have just read that considering these as basic beliefs requires other beliefs which take us back to the regress problem; so I guess if one is to claim knowledge either as a foundationalist or coherentist, one must be dogmatic and claim that the "buck stops here" either with basic beliefs or in determing what "coherence is"? Even the theories of truth are plagued with circularity. So what I have found is any position that claims knowledge will have to defend their dogmatism. Does any of this make sense?

Answer 1

I agree with your definition of basic beliefs as regress stoppers. However, it seems you read a text that explains the situation in general, and not any specific theory.

The way I look at it, there is a set of basic beliefs that are truly regress stoppers and self-evident. What is this set, what are those basic beliefs, is a matter of dispute among philosophers. Nobody has presented a set that convinces everybody. I do not know why, because such set was presented to me, and I am convinced its the true one, but I am not a philosopher.

Answer 2

You're talking about axioms...statements that identify the BASE of knowledge and are necessarily contained (implicitly) in all other statements.

For example: existence exists and two corollary axioms - that there's something that exists that can be perceived and that there is a consciousness that is capable of perceiving.

People can stand on their head and dispute this all day long, but existence and consciousness are irreducible primaries in every action and thought.

Complete idiots say 'You can't prove that you exist". They are ignoring the fact that PROOF presupposes existence and consciousness.

Answer 3

Yes, but infinite regress is impossible. You only need regress stoppers if you are not ready to change your position.

The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative.