Question

Some foundationalists maintain that basic truths are self-justifying, which means they are allowing, in some exceptional cases at least, a form of circular reasoning; petitio principii or begging the question.

This is subtly different from coherentism, which employs a different kind of circular reasoning; circulus in probando, in which there a mediating propositions between a proposition and itself.

Answer 1

Foundationalism and coherentism are two different views on the structure and justification of beliefs. Foundationalism argues that all justified beliefs rest on a set of foundational, basic beliefs, while coherentism argues that beliefs are justified if they are embedded in a network of coherent beliefs. Both views have their strengths and weaknesses.

Step-by-step explanation:

Foundationalism is the view that all justified beliefs ultimately rest on a set of foundational, basic beliefs. It is the idea that beliefs are structured in a linear fashion, with one belief justifying another, until the foundation is reached. Coherentism, on the other hand, argues that beliefs are justified if they are embedded in a network of coherent, mutually supported beliefs. In coherentism, justification emerges from the structure of the belief system.

One objection to coherentism is that it can result in circularity, known as circulus in probando. Within a system of beliefs, any belief can play a roundabout role in its own justification. On the other hand, foundationalism allows for basic truths to be self-justifying, allowing for a form of circular reasoning known as petitio principii or begging the question.

Both foundationalism and coherentism have their strengths and weaknesses, and philosophers continue to debate which view is more accurate in explaining the structure and justification of beliefs.