Which is the better postition? Is it a false dichomity? The only epistemology that I have read in depth is Rand's, and I think that it is one of the best parts of Objectivism. However, I read Roderick Long criticizing her epistemology for being foundationalist instead of coherenticist. I haven't yet read his Reason and Value. What arguements does he make?
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
wombatron: Which is the better postition? Is it a false dichomity? The only epistemology that I have read in depth is Rand's, and I think that it is one of the best parts of Objectivism. However, I read Roderick Long criticizing her epistemology for being foundationalist instead of coherenticist. I haven't yet read his Reason and Value. What arguements does he make?
I recommend reading his Reason and Value. In part of it he describes different types of foundationalism and coherentism. He argues that Aristotle was a coherentist on knowledge and justification and a foundationalism on scientific explanation. But he also argues that broad neoclassical foundationalism (all or nearly all our beliefs are foundational, and some are defeasible) and negative coherentism are essentially equivalent.
Roderick agrees with her theory of abstraction though.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauche, Ph.D.Political ScienceLouisiana State University
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"(Who watches the watchmen?)-Juvenal, Satires VI.347
Thanks! Reason and Value is now on my next-to-buy list.
This has been a question of mine as well, ever since touching upon coherentism in my Philosophy course (Davidson's version of it.)
-Jon
The chill that you feel is the herald of your doom! Irenicus' Diaries.
I need to read this book by Long....
There is one section from the Prior or Posterior Analytics by Aristotle, that I always read as a flat out rejection of coherentism, and an argument for foundationalism as superior.
http://aestheticbend.blogspot.com/
Which section is this? That would be intriguing...
The way that I understand the Posterior Analytics specifically Book 1 Ch 2-3 and Ch-19-21 seems to suggest a foundationalist account of knowledge, but given the difficulty of most of Aristotle's epistemological and metaphysical texts, I could be reading this wrong or missing something because of the language involved.
I am trying to figure out how the indemonstrable first principles would not be considered basic axioms from which all other knowledge can be justified? How can one integrate the idea of indemonstrable first principles with the idea of being justified in virtue of other beliefs? Perhaps Long is dealing with a very different brand of coherentism than I am familiar with.
Keep in mind he was a foundationalist as far as scientific explanation went.