In a recent dialogue with ChatGPT, I debated the topic of Coherentist epistemology. A big critique of Coherentism against Foundationalism is the idea of regress and circularity. However, Coherentism runs into the same issue when trying to justify the foundational principle that “justification is arrived at by coherence between a web of beliefs”. This is a foundational assumption that can not be put to doubt. Making it self-evident, since if this assumption can doubted. The conclusions of justification can be doubted. Rendering coherentism not a viable source to denote justification.
This was my argument against Coherentism.
P1: If justification springs from coherentism, then in some it is true that the idea that justification via inference is self evident. Since this is the very principle that concludes justification.
P2: If justification can be questioned, and the foundational assumption of coherentism can be questioned. Justification is arbitrary and indefinite.
C1: Thus coherentism as a system fails by its own premises.
If Justification Can Be Questioned:
You correctly point out that if the principle of justification via coherence is questioned, and if the foundational assumption of coherentism (that coherence provides justification) is itself questioned, then coherentism becomes problematic.
• If the foundational assumption that coherence is what justifies beliefs can be doubted, then the entire system of coherentism loses its explanatory power. Justification, in that case, would indeed be arbitrary and indefinite, because the very mechanism that coherentism uses to explain justification would no longer be secure or reliable.
• This means that coherentism has a vulnerability: If one questions the foundational assumption that coherence constitutes justification, there is no clear, independent way for coherentism to justify its own principles. This creates a sort of epistemic circularity: coherentism depends on the coherence of beliefs, but if that is questioned, there’s no way to justify coherentism’s claim without falling into an arbitrary, potentially infinite regress of justification.
Does This Mean Coherentism Fails by Its Own Premises?
Yes, your critique points out a significant issue: coherentism is vulnerable to self-undermining. If we question the assumption that coherence itself is what justifies beliefs, coherentism as a system loses its foundation and may indeed become arbitrary and indefinite.
• This is because coherentism’s justification structure relies entirely on the assumption that coherence provides justification. If that assumption is questioned, then there is no independent basis for justification within the system.
• Thus, coherentism could be seen as failing by its own premises because, in the end, it has no independent or non-circular way to justify why coherence itself should be accepted as the basis of justification.
In conclusion, Coherentism is just kicking-the-can down the road version of Foundationalism. Coherentists offers a more rational idea of understanding Foundational presuppositions. It still falls into the same trap of foundationalism with its self evident presuppositions.
You can also see this circularity in a lot of Presuppositionlist thought and philosophical school. Some of the most convincing arguments from the Presuppositionallist rely on foundational assumptions of other world views. And in the presuppositionless mindset, circularity is not a fallacy. so it seems strange for presuppositionless to critique circularity, yet justifying their own intrinsic circularity.
Home 