Foundationalism vs. Antifoundationalism

1
Foundationalism vs. Antifoundationalism
The basic difference Foundationalists believe
that there is some ultimate and knowable
truth. Antifoundationalists believe that there is
only contingency.
Some important qualifications Foundationalists
are not necessarily fundamentalists. One can
believe that there is a truth but be skeptical
about what gets identified as truth. One can
believe, for instance, that there is a good way
to hold democratic elections but be skeptical
about the widely accepted practice of allowing
people to shirk their civic duty of casting a
ballot.
Some important qualifications Antifoundationalist
s are not necessarily anarchists. One can
believe that there is no absolutely determinable
truth and still be relatively certain that one
set of opinions is best. One can believe, for
instance, that there are a many viable ways to
hold democratic elections but still feel assured
that the Australian practice of taxing people
who do not cast ballots would benefit U.S.
elections.
2
Foundationalism vs. Antifoundationalism
Some important qualifications One can be a
foundationalist about certain things and not a
foundationalist about others. One can believe,
for instance, certainly that a rock has struck
his foot, but that same person can be skeptical
about any effort to declare one painting
aesthetically better than another. Aristotle
famously argued that dialectic deals with the
realm of human knowledge where there is absolute
certainty, and rhetoric deals with the realm
where we must be uncertain.
Both foundationalists and antifoundationalists
can be dogmatic or cautious in their
assertions. A dogmatic antifoundationalist will
assault all efforts at securely determining any
position, refusing even to consider an argument
that presupposes the possibility of arriving at
certainty. This is relativism at its worst. A
dogmatic foundationalist will assault all efforts
to question what s/he believes to be true, no
matter how interesting, complicated, or
convincing. This is fundamentalism at its most
dangerous. The key lesson here is this ones
philosophical disposition can be divorced from
ones style of engagement.
3
Foundationalism vs. Antifoundationalism
Sophists as Antifoundationalists The sophists
famously argued that our knowledge about anything
is always incomplete and contingent upon some
questionable assertion. Gorgias on Being In
one of the few fragments that we have of
Gorgiass writing (his On Non-Being), we find
him saying that (1) nothing exists, and (2)
if anything does exist, we cannot know it, and
(3) if anything does exist and we can know it,
we cannot communicate it.

• Plato as Foundationalist
• Plato, through the character of Socrates,
  consistently argues that there is a knowable
  truth, especially in the realm of human affairs.
  In another dialogue (The Republic), this belief
  in truth leads Plato to champion one mode of
  aristocratic rule by philosophers.
• In this dialogue, Socrates, for instance, sez
  that politics is the art of the soul, the
  identifiable practice of good legislation and the
  administration of justice (p. 32).
• Later in the dialogue, Socrates will explain how
  his method of dialogue (elenchus) leads to truth,
  not the spurious, widespread assent that Polus
  and Gorgias seek (pp. 44-5)

4
Foundationalism vs. Antifoundationalism
The basic foundationalist take on rhetoric
Foundationalists have historically been hostile
to certain versions of public argument, just as
Socrates is hostile to the idea that one can
teach persuasion responsibly without also
teaching the good. This is not to say that
foundationalists are hostile to rhetoric.
Rather, they see rhetoric as a means to an
endthe good. Socrates makes this point on pp.
37-9 when he talks about being persuasive not to
be persuasive but to achieve some other, higher
end.
The basic antifoundationalist take on rhetoric
Antifoundationalists have historically been
amenable to certain versions of public argument.
Since we cannot know what is true, the best we
can do is argue about the matter and determine
our course of action based on what appears to be
the most reasonable case. For the
antifoundationalist, the good rhetor makes a
persuasive case in public, and in doing so, this
rhetor performs an important civic duty by
exposing a population to one possible version of
events. With multiple arguments and multiple
perspectives, people will be more critical and
more able to make a reasoned decision, though
they may not be any closer to the truth of the
matter.
5
Foundationalism vs. Antifoundationalism
A recent debate between foundationalists and
antifoundationalists During the 2003 election
debacle, people arguing for both Bush and Gore
claimed to have determined the ultimately best
manner of proceeding, and they both made
arguments about what the other party should do.
For a while those supporting Bush sed it was not
good to resort to legal action in deciding an
election. Then, those supporting Bush took legal
action to stop the recount afforded Gore as a
result of his victory in the Florida Supreme
Court. Gore consistently argued that it is best
in a democracy to make sure all votes are fairly
counted. All of these arguments hinge on some
notion of the good. Stanley Fish, on the other
hand, in a New York Times (15 Nov. 2000)
editorial, sed that the parties should make
whatever arguments they could to advance their
case because Practicing politics as usual is
what everyone always does and should do, because
politics is the only vehicle by which our
substantive visions -- our visions of what is
right and good for the country and the world --
can be realizedSome are now urging that we --
which usually means Mr. Gore -- stop playing
politics. But if either candidate were to stop
playing politics -- if Mr. Bush were to cease
assembling his cabinet in public and Mr. Gore
were to cease fighting and concede -- he would be
performing an immoral action because he would be
abandoning the hope of his supporters for the
sake of some empty abstraction. If a candidate
believes in an agenda, he should pursue it
politically, without rest and without apology
(although apologies, strategically offered, can
be a means of pursuing it). Fish is a champion
of antifoundationalist philosophy and a
participant in a group who consider themselves
neo-sophists.