The nature of knowledge has always been a disputable question. Since the earliest stage of civilization, philosophers have been trying to determine this broad concept and clearly explain its character. However, the scope of the term, its sophistication, and the numerous components it includes resulted in the emergence of numerous theories and views. Thus, coherentism and foundationalism can be viewed as two conceptions offered to outline the nature of knowledge or beliefs and discuss them. The differences in these theories come from the perspectives on knowledge and its true nature. However, by comparing these two approaches, it is possible to acquire a better vision of how beliefs can be understood.
Foundationalism can be described as a set of philosophical theories attempting to describe knowledge. The central idea of this theory is that all human beliefs are justified by other, more fundamental beliefs (Stephen and Donaldson 146). It means that some existing representations can be held by inference from other, directly justified factors (Stephen and Donaldson 146). In such a way, there are always epistemically basic beliefs that serve as starting points for cogitations and building specific assumptions, leading to the generation of a particular knowledge (Stephen and Donaldson 147). For this reason, these primary facts serve as the foundation which cannot be dissociated further. It gives rise to the idea of foundationalism, or knowledge that rests on core representations.
As stated previously, coherentism is one of the alternatives to foundationalism. It assumes that people’s beliefs form an interconnected network of other beliefs characterized by mutual support (Stephen and Donaldson 148). The given definition shows that there is no need for basic assumptions or core knowledge. On the contrary, a particular statement, or idea, can be viewed as a true one only if it coheres with another system of beliefs, introducing similar ideas (Stephen and Donaldson 148). Under these conditions, coherence acquires the primary importance for justifying some facts or knowledge. Coherentism also rests on the concept of logical consistency, meaning that one belief should be connected to another to form a system that might justify specific knowledge.
In such a way, coherentism and foundationalism are two opposing theories of knowledge. The central difference is the approach to determining true knowledge. Thus, the second one implies the existence of prior beliefs needed to justify other knowledge; the first one does not need it, as it introduces the idea of an interconnected system, where all assumptions are interrelated. Foundationalism focuses on the idea that basic knowledge can be acquired and justified directly by sense perception or observation. At the same time, coherentism states that logical consistency becomes central to generating new ideas and proving the existing ones. Thus, these two theories are completely different; however, they both serve to determine the nature of knowledge.
Concluding, it is possible to say that both frameworks can be used to analyze belief organization and the nature of knowledge. They offer logical explanations of how some concepts and ideas are formed and justified. However, for me, the idea of foundationalism seems more relevant and applicable. The existence of the primary knowledge needed to prove other facts is more plausible compared to coherentism. Additionally, the direct justification based on intuition or sense perception implied by foundationalism seems a more reliable method to acquire basic facts and use them to determine the nature of other ones. Under these conditions, I think foundationalism is a more relevant theory in terms of the system of knowledge and its investigation.
Work Cited
Stich, Stephen, and Tom Donaldson. Philosophy: Asking Questions–Seeking Answers. Oxford University Press, 2018.