Everyday Foundationalism

Contemporary theories of knowledge are rejecting centuries of accepted wisdom about knowledge and beliefs. Descartes' persistent doubt that led to "I think, therefore I am" transformed the history of thought into an effort to find the fundamental truths that were indubitable and absolute. The doubt which initiated this project has returned to its source, and contemporary academics generally dismiss foundationalism, the theory that some beliefs are self-evident or certain and can be used to derive all other beliefs. In its place, various theories of knowledge have ranged from nihilistic relativism to near-foundationalist dogmatism.

However, outside academia and the insulated discourse of "philosophers", lay people have been involved in a tremendous sociological shift that reflects this revolution against foundationalism. People with no attempt to articulate a theory of knowledge have gained a completely new element to their worldview: certain uncertainty. Truth, absolutes, totality, perfection--these words are either denounced or used metaphorically to convey personal opinions. Thus, phrases such as "your truth is not my truth" or "that's good for you and all, but not for me" have become popularly accepted.

Yet, despite this intense effort to eradicate dogmatic foundationalism in every public discourse, people still talk and act in foundationalist terms. We make strong statements of belief about politics, religion, music, etc., and we provide justifications for these statements. We expect others to understand and respect the rationales we provide. We expect others to be able to provide justification for their utterances and behaviors. Is this a practical retreat to foundationalism? Has the theoretical critique of foundationalism failed on account of people's needs to think, choose, and communicate?

I believe this phenomenon (of people professing postfoundationalism while behaving according to foundationalism) is not only natural in a time of transition, but also an essential part of progressing our understanding of understanding. While the academic arguments of professional philosophers are extremely convincing, and while the consequences of foundationalism have been discovered to be very destructive, pure negation does not seem possible or practical. Also, rejection of centuries of wisdom and practice will not be universally accepted, desired, or employed. Thus, there is tension between the foundationalists and the postfoundationalists, and this tension is played out in society at large.

I believe this tension can only be resolved in temporary, dynamic, localized ways. The efforts to articulate a new understanding of knowledge will be geographically, culturally, and experientially bound to a context which will limit who will receive what from each effort. Thus, no matter how effective an articulation is in communicating one's knowledge in specific circumstances and under specific conditions, different conditions and circumstances will arise which will require different articulations. Does this mean there is no such thing as knowledge? Certainly not. Just because an articulation is context-dependent doesn't mean that it is meaningless in other contexts.

It is important to recognize that we still depend on the interconnectedness of our beliefs. We give reasons and expect reasons because our beliefs are not isolated. What Descartes unraveled may not have been foundationalism in the architectural sense that modern philosophy adopted it. Rather, he may have exposed the relationships that exist for the knower and knowledge. "I think, therefore I am" still has much to teach us, though interpreted in a new context, over and over again. While it may be important for professional academics to critique and dissemble foundationalism, it is only important for the "lay person" to permit those foundations to be (inter)dependent and flexible.

Therefore, it is quite reasonable to assert opinions on politics, religion, music, and whatever else. It is also quite reasonable to have justifications for those assertions, and to expect justifications from others for their opinions. This is not a hypocrisy that slips back into historical foundationalism; rather, it is the opportunity permitted and responsibility required by knowledge itself. To know is to put thoughts in context, and to justify is to articulate some of that context. These contextual articulations will be necessary throughout life, but that is no reason for despair. In fact, it provides the hope that we will always have something to do and something to say.