Coherentism In Philosophy

Improved Essays
Coherentism has not gained much recognition throughout the history of philosophy. According to the traditional definition of knowledge, knowledge is Justified True Belief. Hence, one must first justify their belief before they can acquire any knowledge. Since most of the time the beliefs we assume we have justified and are justified based on other belief. Consequently, this promotes the concept of regress argument where the philosophers are on the quest to truly justify a belief thus we can know for sure that we have knowledge. Coherentist attempts to solve the regress problem by suggesting a system of beliefs where the justification is done by referring to other beliefs within the relevant justified system. In this essay, I will focus on the …show more content…
In general there have been three solutions to the general regress argument: infinite regress, sceptic and foundations. Out of all the propose theories, foundationalism appears to be the most possible. Foundationalism is the view where the justification is done by referring to basic beliefs. Coherentists pointed out that there should be a fourth solution to the argument: holism (BonJour, 2003). The belief can be justified if it is connected with a relevant justified system of beliefs where the beliefs are able to interlock and capable of interactive relationship which stands to supporting each other. Sometimes coherentism gives the impression of leading the regress into a circle. Some coherentists response to the circularity regress problem by claiming as long as the circles are large and complicated enough, it should not be considered as a problem at all. This response, however, did not gain much support because such reasoning only reinforces the lack of legitimate force for justifying beliefs in the chains of justification. Most importantly, a large and complicated circle after all, is still a circle. The fundamental concept has not been changed (BonJour, 2003). There are many coherentists holds the believe that most of the problems lies in the lack of ability to precisely distinguish the things which coherence is …show more content…
They believe the problem rest on the misunderstanding about coherentism. Often coherentists will point out that their purpose is to build systems of justified beliefs and the idea of justification should not be linear, or circular, it should be holistic in character (BonJour, 2003). A belief will not be justified as true or be rejected as false just because of its relation to its surrounding beliefs. Rather, the belief will be justified if it is in relations with the relevant justified system of beliefs. Some have argued that changing the justification to holistic fails to truly answer the circular problem. For such a system of beliefs still requires the beliefs to be circular justification because all the individual beliefs that make up the system are justified by referring to other beliefs in the system and hence end up in a circular fashion. Even though at first sight, it appears that coherentists have gone one step ahead by providing a solution to the regress problem through the building of a holistic system where the beliefs involve in the system are justified. When we dig deeper into this view, the problems started to come out of the surface. Even when the beliefs are involved in a justified system, it still cannot hide the fact that the beliefs are justified by other unjustified beliefs and gone back to leading the justification into a

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    William James argued that under the right conditions it is legitimate to will to believe in something even without evidence to support it. The only reason not to will to believe something would be if there is evidence provided against it. He also claimed that one cannot be criticized for forming these beliefs (James, Part 5). This claim, by James, is incorrect. One, instead, should be able to criticize the beliefs of others.…

    • 1421 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Objectivism states that some moral claims are objectively true. One big difference between objectivism and nihilism is that objectivism depends on process of elimination rather than actual merits. It says that nihilism, objectivism, or relativism has to be true before eliminating nihilism and relativism as being false. This leaves only objectivism standing, so proponents say it must be true. While this is a strategic approach, it is not strong.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    If one uses an absurd belief as a basic foundationalist belief, they would be questioned by others in their epistemic community. It would also be easier to point out when a belief has nothing to do with the foundation that it has been built…

    • 911 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    And, as one relies on false propositions for fallibilism, the fallibility feature of the Gettier example is eliminated as a consequence. The correct reconstruction of a causal chain requires admixtures of causes and inferences, and causes and logical connections. The correct reconstruction makes direct, logical connections between all of the important links. This ensures proper justification for the truth and belief conditions, thereby eliminating any possibility of luck in knowing. Therefore, the Gettier problem has been thwarted, because causal theory relies on identifying, justifiably, what causes true belief, without instances of accidental…

    • 924 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Alternatively, if our explanations come to an end, then they end either with a belief that is not justified, or with a belief that is justified, but not inferentially. A statement is certain or justified if it is proved, but proof is impossible because it is question-begging – any criterion for the validity of a proof requires a different proof, since self-justification is too easy and always possible. A justification procedure…

    • 1084 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The debunker claims that since evolution selects for fitness rather than moral truth, we cannot trust our moral beliefs to be objective, and that we must require a Good Reason to back up all our moral beliefs. This not only knocks out moral realism, or at least leaves it crippled and ineffective, but also leads down the road to pure…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    (Railton 795) The Pyrrhonian model is much more plausible attempt at defining moral skepticism because unique individuals possess to distinct worldviews. Arguments arise because people can’t reach compromises on various issues. By using Pyrrhoian skepticism the individuals defines what is moral using their own judgments. People should not be dictated by what they are told is right and just because it is quite plausible that they are being deceived. While one cannot ever assume that any moral claim is a truth, modest justification can be provided by consideration of contrast classes.…

    • 1131 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    This includes authority, systematic and revisionary. Relativism would mean we are stuck. Yet MacIntyre gives us an account of how traditions can progress and reflect upon themselves. Relativism held that a tradition or way of life could only justify its conception of justification internally, but a framing of new theories shows that relativism is mistaken in this belief, since scope, coherence and continuity are external to a tradition. Furthermore, if a theory only meets scope and coherence, but not continuity, then we have grounds for declaring it superior to a previous one, but inferior to a one that has all three.…

    • 1871 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    There has always been a point in history of Western philosophy when the definition of knowledge had been redefined, debated upon, and rejected. However, many philosophers were more concerned with the essence of knowledge, that is, what does constitute as knowledge and how we can achieve it. In addition, many argue that there are certain knowledge is just not attainable and human mind wouldn’t be able to grasp on the capacity of the higher truths. Nevertheless, one still can question the knowledge they already possess and decided for themselves whether to believe it or not. In this essay I aim to demonstrate Descartes’ arguments for skepticism and genuine knowledge.…

    • 1490 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Firth’s absolutist analysis can easily be turned into a relativist analysis with the possible existence of multiple Ideal Observers with different reactions. Harrison has his own version of the Ideal Observer theory that competes with Firth’s. He critique’s that Firth is unclear of the description of an Ideal Observer where it does not need to exist. To say that an Ideal Observer is a hypothetical being who retains all knowledge and he/she well informed, is impartial, and without passions toward agents and objects, while being incapable of making mistakes, and is consistent, is simply misleading. Firth tries hard to give us many explanations of an Ideal Observer but his giveaway is when he mentions that an Ideal Observer does not need to exist while claiming Ideal Observer is normal.…

    • 2027 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays