Reply to comment

My understanding of a foundationalist is that it is an individual that believes in something (idea, concept, etc) if the something is epistmically justified by basic beliefs.  To that end, a foundationalist may be more inclined to write non-fiction as in the case of Darwin’s text. Darwin made observations and then developed a story based on those fixed beliefs. But, at the same time, Darwin as an individual and the story that he developed, could be viewed as entirely non-foundational in that his basic beliefs are comprised of a foundation that is not consistent with the basic ground or foundation of inquiry. Maybe the reason that Darwin’s story is such a good one, as we discussed in earlier lectures, is because there is no right answer. For every criticism there is a counter-argument to a point, as discussed in our small group on Thursday, that the argument is a never-ending circle.

The never-ending circle that is comprised of believing and doubting epitomizes most concepts, theories and “laws” that we observe and practice today- evolution, morality, value, duty, virtue, free will, consent, etc. With all of these concepts, there is a never-ending circle ideology that is consistent with Darwin. We will never know if Darwin was truly a pluralist or a non-pluralist, if he was a true foundationalist or non-foundationalist- with increased discussion about the matter, the faster we spin around this never-ending circle.