“Nothing is certain in life.” For hundreds of years, humanity has repeated this phrase and observed it to be true Although it is a common saying when something goes wrong in our daily lives, one 16‘” century man took this belief to the extreme. Rene Descartes, born in 1596, concluded that the basic belief of everything is “cogito ergo sum”, or “I think, therefore I am.” This is irrefutable because it is proved by the simple act of attempting to think about disproving it One theory in opposition to foundationalism, coherentism believes that a belief’s reasoning can only be another belief (Olsson), The major incongruity between the two is what qualifies as evidence for any given belief. A coherentist view is inferior to Descartes foundationalism because of its assumptive infinite regress and inconsistencies in the conclusions drawn.
When he first began to question everything in search for a basic belief, Descartes faced the problem of an infinite regress Each reasoning for a belief required another reason in support. Finally, he established that one truth was that he was thinking, and thus existed. This was his “foundation” which he built all other knowledge uponi Cogito ergo sum cannot be disputed, and therefore can be reliably used to support all proceeding beliefs. However, a coherentist believes that this regress of infinite justifications should not proceed in a linear fashion (Olsson). This allows a system of beliefs to be justified, rather than an individual. Thus each belief becomes a part of the whole belief, an application of reductionism.
This theory would certainly make it easier to justify one’s beliefs, and we wouldn’t need to completely doubt everything as Descartes did But coherentism is based entirely on the assumption that one of the causal agents is true With Descartes, we reached a basic belief that we all know to be true, thereby allowing us to argue (logically) the beliefs we hold (Fumetton) When attempting to argue with coherentist views, it is impossible to prove to your opponent that you are justified. In the sense of a simple circle, A may prove B, and B may prove C, but for C to prove Ajust starts the process over again. It can’t be assumed that one of the pieces of evidence is true, because that would be begging the question.
127 our experts are availableright now
Therefore, the system collapses. Perhaps the most obvious objection to the coherentist theory of justification is the isolation objection. The isolation objection prompts the discussion on how a system, justified from within, can reflect any reality outside of itself (experience, senses). The following system is an example of this flaw: A: Penguins can fly. B: Penguins have wings, and animals that can fly have wings. C= Animals that can fly are birds. D: Penguins are birds. pA, penguins can fly, is a simple statement, and has a simple reason when required, Penguins can fly because they have wings, and animals that can fly have wings (pB). When asked why pB is true, it could be supported by pC; that animals that can fly are birds.
Because we have already established that penguins can fly, we can support pC with pD, penguins are birds. Why are they birds? Because they can fly (pA). This system makes logical sense, and supports itself when scrutinized, because we assumed that at least one of the premises (beliefs) are true. However, in reality we know that although penguins are birds, and have wings, they cannot in fact fly In the process of eliminating all “doubtable” beliefs, Descartes reaches the conclusion that “there is nothing which is easier for me to know than my mind” (Rene). He does this by doubting all sources of knowledge, because it would be impossible to systematically go through every belief and attempt to disprove it. But he is unable to doubt the fact that he is thinking. It is because of this that the reconstruction of his “house of knowledge” upon this foundation is valid.
Some may claim that one single truth cannot support all knowledge, but it is through this truth that we reach other aspects of the human experience. In Descartes’s second meditation, he says that being a thing that thinks means he is a “thing which doubts, understands, [conceives], affirms, denies, wills, refuses, which also imagines and feels”, which means that he can now safely trust other life experiences .(Rene) Therefore, his conclusion of “cogito ergo sum” is the strongest foundation that knowledge can have. In conclusion, although the theory of coherentism appears functional when first approached, it cannot stand up to the secure certainty of Descartes’s foundationalism. Even centuries later, Descartes basic ideas expressed in his mediations are widely adhered to, and while there may be many competing theories, none have been able to overthrow the simplicity of Descartes’s cogito.
