005fc6 No.6283
Hey board. What's your stance on the problem of epistemic regress, and where do you all fall on Agrippa's Trilemma?
Foundationalism, coherentism, or infinitism?
I'm personally an infinitist, although I also accept there may be a point of justification that is impossible to express and articulate and so justification itself may be a failed project. For most of our reasoning, we base our thought off of psychological maxims that act as 'just good enough' foundations which allow us do the necessary legwork to pursue our ends.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f24cb1 No.6431
Our beliefs are ultimately supported by foundational axioms. Agrippa's Trilemma is only true insofar as it is impossible to explain why an axiom is true. Infinitism is only true in this inability. Coherentism is retarded in assuming inferences are more foundational if they are grouped together, which does nothing to explain away the epistemological vacuum. Foundationalism is true if and only if we accept the existence of the truth of axioms that, just because unexplainable, could still exist. I hold that either the truth of axioms exist, or there simply is no such thing as knowledge. But the very possibility that the former is true is enough reason to pursue it. Infinitism is also retarded and might as well just be an admission that there is no knowledge either.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b43ba4 No.6458
Infinitist claims may be epistemically justified by unconditional probabilistic regress, so no foundation needs to be assumed.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.