A Critique of Anti-Foundationalism (and also Foundationalism)

[Extreme Z7]

I really like the sense of nuance in this article because it wasn't exactly written by an Objectivist clown.
But still, I doubt this person is spiritually awake. They seem to be just at the edge of intellectual rationalist exploration without quite knowing where the next step is supposed to be.

https://dropsofexperience.com/2022/04/27/the-anti-foundationalists-problem/

[Ulax]

@Extreme Z7 I like it somewhat. Makes some useful points.

I think the key to anti-foundationalism is to use it as an internal critique rather than external. So, rather than say, 'There is no base justification to rationality, therefore, all propositions are arbitrary'. You simply ask the question, 'What is your justification for that?' and go on, down and down the chain of justifications.

The thing is his rebuttal to the anti-foundationalist critique also begs the question of whether there is a base justification, as he is asserting his counter proposition is true. 

The issue is whatever is said, is something said. It is something that takes place within the paradigm of rationality. So, anything claimed is always begging the question.

I really think the only reason to engage in this sort of discussion is for rhetorical purpose. In terms of using language to manipulate someone to a certain point of view. To use it instrumentally. It sounds harsh but, to my mind, all use of language is rhetorical and inherently manipulative. There is always arbitrary privileging in language and I think that makes the use of language an inherently violent one.

------------------------

On another note, the epistemic coherentists are even more deluded lol.