(July 25, 2012 at 3:18 pm)Skepsis Wrote: The issue of foundational belief has been a tough one for me, to say the least. Avoiding post modernism and radical skepticism isn't a simple chore, as the ticket to doing so for me is to justify the seemingly unjustifiable: foundational beliefs.
Beliefs of this nature are a priori issues and include self evident belief and axioms. Descartes established personal acknowledgement of reality with the cogito, but memory, induction (as dissected by Hume), sense-perception, and interpretation of the meaning of words ( I believe it was Wittgenstein who brought light to this) are all truths that humans intuitively assume and need in order to survive as a mentally and physically healthy individual.
The justification for many foundational beliefs is fairly simple, and I personally subscribe to it. The answer that has bubbled to the surface is, "You are either with me or against me in this world. Functioning in a world you don't believe to be real isn't healthy- some could say deadly or impossible. So I will assume these truths, all the while beings receptive to new information that contradicts these beliefs."
My issue with this is that I feel like I am shifting the burden of proof, waiting to be proven wrong. I had previously thought it to also be special pleading, however foundational belief is in another class from derived belief because it is an a priori issue that takes precedence over all other forms of belief.
That has been my very limited understanding of foundationalism and is what governs my evidentialist beliefs. My question to anyone and everyone is, am I justified?
Am I justified in making an assumption on the part of foundational beliefs?
On the issue of justifying foundational beliefs: if it has be justified, then it is not foundational. Beliefs which are foundational ought to exactly match the definition of what knowledge is without demonstration.
Once we specify what we really mean by the word "knowledge" seeing whether a belief fits this category ought to be like seeing that A equals A. I think what knowledge refers to is a belief that you have which matches reality. Since reality is experienced by sensations of various kinds, asking whether a belief is true (in other words, asking whether a belief counts as knowledge) means asking whether this belief matches the sensations which you have. The beliefs which are foundational are statements in which you can clearly see this without further proof: "I now feel tired" (if you feel tired when you think this) "I exist" "A equals A" and so on. Beliefs such as induction do indeed require justification (and can be justified) but that's another story.
