Bedrock
Showing only #4385 and its comments.
See full discussionLog in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.
The article says:
[Justificationism] is the idea that beliefs can be fully justified, proven true by some final authority beyond question.
This definition breaks with BoI. The glossary from ch. 1 says:
[Justificationism is t]he misconception that knowledge can be genuine or reliable only if it is justified by some source or criterion.
Note that this second quote says nothing about finality “beyond question”.
Just because Dirk’s notion of justificationism breaks with BoI’s doesn’t mean Dirk is wrong. BoI could be wrong.
For a tiebreaker, consider this Wiktionary definition of justificationism (links removed):
An approach that regards the justification of a claim as primary, while the claim itself is secondary…
Since this quote doesn’t mention finality, it sounds more in line with BoI.
Indeed. Justification without finality is fake.
"X is true because of Y, but we can discuss Y"
Is functionally the same as
"X is true and we can discuss why"
But this sounds like you’re saying justificationism is necessarily the same as foundationalism. Whereas in #4392 you agreed it’s only a kind of justifiationism.
“Justification without finality is fake.” (#4391) In other words, if it doesn’t claim to be final, it’s not justification.
In that model, the final justification ends up serving as foundation.
If finality = foundationalism, then yeah they're the same and I was right all along. Justificationism and foundationalism are the same thing.
You could use your own definition of justificationism that equates it to foundationalism. But then you’d want to explain that choice.
Regardless, we’re getting too bogged down on terms. I think at this point it would be easier for you to just change your article so it either uses established terms with their accepted definitions or explains departures from them.