Card 2.3 · Root II — Epistemology
Structure of Justification
Why do you believe that? And why do you believe that?
This question asks what holds a belief up — what the architecture of support looks like when you trace a belief back to its grounds.
On this card
Where it sits
Under II. Epistemology. Contains 2.3.1 Foundationalism vs coherentism, 2.3.2 Internalism vs externalism. Borders 2.1, 2.4.
New to epistemology? Read the guide
Narrower questions under this one:
- 2.3.1 Foundationalism vs Coherentism Is knowledge a building or a raft?
- 2.3.2 Internalism vs Externalism Do you have to know why you know?
The rival answers
| Position | Response to the regress |
|---|---|
| Foundationalism | The chain terminates in basic beliefs that need no further support |
| Coherentism | There is no chain; beliefs support each other in a web |
| Infinitism | The chain is genuinely infinite, and that is acceptable |
| Foundherentism | Basic beliefs plus mutual support; both structures operate |
| Externalist dissolution | The regress is a demand for reasons; justification does not require them |
| Pyrrhonian conclusion | No option works; suspend judgement |
Where do you stand?
Why do you believe that? And why do you believe that?
One tap, no sign-up. You can change your answer at any time. Answers are counted anonymously.
Key figures
| Figure | Dates | Tradition | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agrippa | c. 1st c. CE | Greek Pyrrhonist | The trilemma: regress, circularity, or arbitrary stopping |
| Sriharsa | c. 12th c. CE | Indian | Pressed an equivalent regress against Nyaya |
| René Descartes | 1596–1650 | European modern | Classical foundationalism |
| Susan Haack | 1945–2026 | Analytic | Foundherentism; the crossword analogy |
| Peter Klein | b. 1940 | Analytic | Defended infinitism |
Talk about it here
Conversations about this question in Knowledge & belief:
- Knowledge-first epistemology is surrender dressed up as a theory 6 replies
- My father knew which cedar beam would split. He could never say how. Did he know? 6 replies
- Nāgārjuna asked what proves the means of knowledge. Is that Agrippa’s trilemma in Sanskrit? 6 replies
- Reliabilism has a machine problem: reliable prediction is not knowledge 6 replies
- I know within ten seconds whether a room will laugh, but I can’t say how. Does that count as knowing? 5 replies
Join free to ask about it Everything in Knowledge & belief
Connections
→ 2.1, 2.3.1 · ↔ 2.4, 2.3.2, 1.2.1 · ◇ foundationalism, coherentism, infinitism, foundherentism · ○ Classical; Early modern; Modern; Table 3
→ depends on · ↔ borders: genuine overlap, neither prior · ◇ answered by: points from question to answers · ○ appears in: points to the timeline and the comparisons
The full card is in the book
In The Coordinates of Thought this card goes on to a worked example that sets the answers against one case, and to where the question touches daily life — page 105.