• Shawn
    13.2k
    In general, foundationalism has been regarded as a waste of time. Postmodernism is essentially a philosophy that regards foundationalist attempts at understanding human behavior or the world as misguided.

    Personally, as a Tractarian, I believe in the ontology of facts in logical space or 'state space'. It's what the logical positivists called 'objects' or 'simples' that constitute the behavior of a system. In a recent thread hereabouts, these 'simples' were called 'brute facts'.

    I'm also a Platonist, which reinforces my foundationalist belief. I find it hard to believe that some premises or axioms can't be derived from a system to describe its long-term behavior.

    So, what are your opinions on the matter? It seems to me that anti-foundationalism is the same as some sort of ontological solipsism, where one is only aware of their own sensory data/experience and asserts that you don't exist due to that fact.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.