下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文- Klein’s Argument Against Foundationalism，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了克莱因反对基础主义的论点。克莱因从认识论中一个重要的经典问题——回归问题入手，提出了一条支持无限主义的思路。克莱因声称回归解决方案的最佳解决方案既不是基础主义，也不是连贯主义，而是无限主义。无限主义认为，只有无限的、既不重复也不结束的主张链才能被证明是一种信念。每一个信念都是一个潜在的合法挑战，而这一系列的挑战在原则上是无限的，而每一个答案都成为链中的下一个论证的进一步理由。看似无用的无限推理，恰恰是有效的知识论证所需要的。
Klein puts forward a line of thought in support of infinitism beginning with an examination of the regress problem, which is a significant and classical problem in epistemology. In the regress problem, the justification of a conviction requires a reason, and this reason itself requires a further reason to justify it, and this process of justifying claims goes on infinitely. To a degree, and in many real-life situations, this is paradoxical. If some knowledge is gained through the conviction being proven, then there must be some knowledge not gained or sacrificed through the conviction not being proven. The proof sequence must either have an end or not have an end; if it does not have an end, we cannot know anything. On the other hand, if there is an end to the sequence, then we assume that the premise is true, whether or not the proof is properly formulated.
The common solution to the regress problem is foundationalism, which refers to the human attempt to find a final answer, beyond any possible doubt, absent of any relativity or subjectivity from cultural and philosophical perspectives and differences, to explain our own understanding and behavior. However, in the era of postmodern philosophy, some scholars have proposed certain objections against foundationalism. To argue this point, Klein claims that the best solution to the regress solution is neither foundationalism nor coherentism, but infinitism. Infinitism believes that an only infinite chain of claims that neither repeats nor ends can be proven as a conviction. Each belief is a potentially legitimate challenge, and the series of challenges is, in principle, unlimited, and each answer becomes a further justification for the next argument in the chain. The seemingly futile and infinite reasoning is precisely what is needed for effective knowledge justification.
However, infinitism is unacceptable to many foundationalist philosophers. Ginet thinks that our own existence is limited and that this makes it difficult to create an unlimited set of beliefs in terms of our limited existence. Even if we had infinite time, it would still be impossible to justify this chain of beliefs in a useful way. Second, if all our beliefs can only be justified by other beliefs, we will never achieve what we want to prove. Thirdly, there are obvious examples where finite sets of data can be used to definitively prove conclusions. He gives an example of the identity postulate—anything that lasts an hour also lasts sixty minutes. Proving this statement only requires a handful of extra data points; an infinitist might argue that one would have to trace this answer down an infinite pathway of proofs that would eventually touch on the most advanced realms of physics and the studies of time itself, but this is entirely unnecessary and in the end would produce exactly the same result.
However, Klein points out that the basis for foundationalism and coherentism is not a convincing reason, but a simple intuition: one is that human beings have limited intelligence; and second, there is no justifiable starting point for a regressive argument. Klein thinks these two points are not enough to invalidate infinitism and do not suffice to give a concrete justification to convictions. Further, the regress problem involves the reasoning ability to increase the rational credibility of a statement of a problem. Therefore, to solve this problem we must explain the warrant. A warrant is different from a justification. A warrant refers to the characteristics of a statement or belief. First, the true belief of such a characteristic is known. Second, the reasoning implied by the characteristic suggests that we have increased our rational confidence through non-obvious statements. While justification emphasizes the giving of reasons. Klein argues that foundationalism and coherentism do not give a corroboration of the warrant. Rather, a responsible cognizer cannot use their explanations to increase the rational credibility of a solution to a problem.
As opposed to foundationalism, anti-foundationalism/infinitism has its own contradictions, mainly manifested in the influence of somewhat irreconcilable or at least practically irreconciliable paradoxes: on the one hand, it attacks the foundationalist pursuit of the absolute; on the other hand, it confirms assertions consciously or unconsciously and establish a new foundation. However, precisely because of Klein's detailed refutation of various criticisms, a brilliant epistemological debate was formed. Infinitism is a relatively new theory and has a vast space for exploring in depth.
51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创essay代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有essay代写、assignment代写、paper代写、作业代写服务。
51due为留学生提供最好的essay代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多essay代写范文 提供代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。
Klein puts forward a line of thought in support of infinitism beginning with an examination of the regress problem, which is a significant and classical problem in epistemology. In the regress problem, the justification of a conviction requires a reason, and this reason itself requires a further reason to justify it, and this process of justifying claims goes on infinitely. To a degree, and in many real-life situations, this is paradoxical. If some knowledge is gained through the conviction being proven, then there must be some knowledge not gained or sacrificed through the conviction not being proven. The proof sequence must either have an end or not have an end; if it does not have an end, we cannot know anything. On the other hand, if there is an end to the sequence, then we assume that the premise is true, whether or not the proof is properly formulated.
The common solution to the regress problem is foundationalism, which refers to the human attempt to find a final answer, beyond any possible doubt, absent of any relativity or subjectivity from cultural and philosophical perspectives and differences, to explain our own understanding and behavior. However, in the era of postmodern philosophy, some scholars have proposed certain objections against foundationalism. To argue this point, Klein claims that the best solution to the regress solution is neither foundationalism nor coherentism, but infinitism. Infinitism believes that an only infinite chain of claims that neither repeats nor ends can be proven as a conviction. Each belief is a potentially legitimate challenge, and the series of challenges is, in principle, unlimited, and each answer becomes a further justification for the next argument in the chain. The seemingly futile and infinite reasoning is precisely what is needed for effective knowledge justification.
However, infinitism is unacceptable to many foundationalist philosophers. Ginet thinks that our own existence is limited and that this makes it difficult to create an unlimited set of beliefs in terms of our limited existence. Even if we had infinite time, it would still be impossible to justify this chain of beliefs in a useful way. Second, if all our beliefs can only be justified by other beliefs, we will never achieve what we want to prove. Thirdly, there are obvious examples where finite sets of data can be used to definitively prove conclusions. He gives an example of the identity postulate—anything that lasts an hour also lasts sixty minutes. Proving this statement only requires a handful of extra data points; an infinitist might argue that one would have to trace this answer down an infinite pathway of proofs that would eventually touch on the most advanced realms of physics and the studies of time itself, but this is entirely unnecessary and in the end would produce exactly the same result.
However, Klein points out that the basis for foundationalism and coherentism is not a convincing reason, but a simple intuition: one is that human beings have limited intelligence; and second, there is no justifiable starting point for a regressive argument. Klein thinks these two points are not enough to invalidate infinitism and do not suffice to give a concrete justification to convictions. Further, the regress problem involves the reasoning ability to increase the rational credibility of a statement of a problem. Therefore, to solve this problem we must explain the warrant. A warrant is different from a justification. A warrant refers to the characteristics of a statement or belief. First, the true belief of such a characteristic is known. Second, the reasoning implied by the characteristic suggests that we have increased our rational confidence through non-obvious statements. While justification emphasizes the giving of reasons. Klein argues that foundationalism and coherentism do not give a corroboration of the warrant. Rather, a responsible cognizer cannot use their explanations to increase the rational credibility of a solution to a problem.
As opposed to foundationalism, anti-foundationalism/infinitism has its own contradictions, mainly manifested in the influence of somewhat irreconcilable or at least practically irreconciliable paradoxes: on the one hand, it attacks the foundationalist pursuit of the absolute; on the other hand, it confirms assertions consciously or unconsciously and establish a new foundation. However, precisely because of Klein's detailed refutation of various criticisms, a brilliant epistemological debate was formed. Infinitism is a relatively new theory and has a vast space for exploring in depth.
51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创essay代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有essay代写、assignment代写、paper代写、作业代写服务。
51due为留学生提供最好的essay代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多essay代写范文 提供代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。