Infinite regress in the context of "Foundationalism"

⭐ In the context of foundationalism, the regress problem is considered a significant challenge because it presents which of the following scenarios?

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: Infinite regress

Infinite regress is a philosophical concept to describe a series of entities. Each entity in the series depends on its predecessor, following a recursive principle. For example, the epistemic regress is a series of beliefs in which the justification of each belief depends on the justification of the belief that comes before it.

An infinite regress argument is an argument against a theory based on the fact that this theory leads to an infinite regress. For such an argument to be successful, it must demonstrate not just that the theory in question entails an infinite regress but also that this regress is vicious. There are different ways in which a regress can be vicious. The most serious form of viciousness involves a contradiction in the form of metaphysical impossibility. Other forms occur when the infinite regress is responsible for the theory in question being implausible or for its failure to solve the problem it was formulated to solve.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<

👉 Infinite regress in the context of Foundationalism

Foundationalism concerns philosophical theories of knowledge resting upon non-inferential justified belief, or some secure foundation of certainty such as a conclusion inferred from a basis of sound premises. The main rival of the foundationalist theory of justification is the coherence theory of justification, whereby a body of knowledge, not requiring a secure foundation, can be established by the interlocking strength of its components, like a puzzle solved without prior certainty that each small region was solved correctly.

Identifying the alternatives as either circular reasoning or infinite regress, and thus exhibiting the regress problem, Aristotle made foundationalism his own clear choice, positing basic beliefs underpinning others. Descartes, the most famed foundationalist, discovered a foundation in the fact of his own existence and in the "clear and distinct" ideas of reason, whereas Locke found a foundation in experience. Differing foundations may reflect differing epistemological emphases—empiricists emphasizing experience, rationalists emphasizing reason—but may blend both.

↓ Explore More Topics
In this Dossier

Infinite regress in the context of Primitive notion

In mathematics, logic, philosophy, and formal systems, a primitive notion is a concept that is not defined in terms of previously defined concepts. It is often motivated informally, usually by an appeal to intuition or taken to be self-evident. In an axiomatic theory, relations between primitive notions are restricted by axioms. Some authors refer to the latter as "defining" primitive notions by one or more axioms, but this can be misleading. Formal theories cannot dispense with primitive notions, under pain of infinite regress (per the regress problem).

For example, in contemporary geometry, point, line, and contains are some primitive notions.

↑ Return to Menu

Infinite regress in the context of Kalam cosmological argument

The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It is named after the Kalam (medieval Islamic scholasticism) from which many of its key ideas originated. Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig was principally responsible for revitalising these ideas for modern academic discourse through his book The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979), as well as other publications.

The argument's central thesis is the metaphysical impossibility of a temporally past-infinite universe and of actual infinities existing in the real world, traced by Craig to 11th-century Persian Muslim scholastic philosopher Al-Ghazali. This feature distinguishes it from other cosmological arguments, such as Aquinas's Second Way, which rests on the impossibility of a causally ordered infinite regress, and those of Leibniz and Samuel Clarke, which refer to the principle of sufficient reason.

↑ Return to Menu

Infinite regress in the context of Epistemic regress

In epistemology, the regress argument is the argument that any proposition requires a justification. However, any justification itself requires support. This means that any proposition whatsoever can be endlessly (infinitely) questioned, resulting in infinite regress. It is a problem in epistemology and in any general situation where a statement has to be justified.

The argument is also known as diallelus (Latin) or diallelon, from Greek di' allelon "through or by means of one another" and as the epistemic regress problem. It is an element of the Münchhausen trilemma.

↑ Return to Menu

Infinite regress in the context of Principle of sufficient reason

The principle of sufficient reason or PSR states that everything must have a sufficient reason. It is similar to the idea that everything must have a cause, a deterministic system of universal causation. A sufficient reason is sometimes described as the coincidence of every single thing that is needed for the occurrence of an effect. The principle is relevant to Munchausen's trilemma, as it seems to suppose an infinite regress, rather than a foundational brute fact. The principle was articulated and made prominent by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Arthur Schopenhauer wrote On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

↑ Return to Menu