At 11:35 AM 6/28/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Hello folks,
>
>I will approach the question of "foundationalism" according to Minteer in
>small steps. I am not a philosopher/ethicist so I have to start from some
>basic questions. Remember, there are no prerequisites for entering this
>discussion group! :-)
>
>I hope you all will be patient with me. Please correct me
>when you know/think I am wrong.
>
>I have a little problem trying to understand just what "foundationalism"
>*is*. That is, I don't think that I really understand the "foundationalism"
>question.
I was confused at the start too. There is a helpful definition a bit
further into the paper:
"Moral justifications are foundational if they posit the existence of
certain basic or privileged beliefs which are supported non-inferentially.
Such premises are generally claimed to be a priori, self-evident, or
directly justified in some manner; they do not depend upon any other
beliefs for their support."
I thought the paper did a good job of showing how the 'appealing' and 'hard
to resist' foundational positions actually contain grave dangers, being
anti-democratic and authoritarian.
Chris
Chris Hope, Judge Institute of Management Studies,
University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1AG, UK.
Voice: +44 1223 338194. Fax: +44 1223 339701
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|