Antifoundationalists

Antifoundationalists are philosophers who oppose foundationalism in epistemology, the view that justification rests on a small set of indubitable or self-justifying beliefs. Antifoundationalists argue that there is no secure, noncircular foundation for all knowledge, or that any candidate foundation would itself require justification. Instead, they favor approaches in which justification is achieved through alternative structures that do not rely on a private, irrefutable base.

Common antifoundationalist positions include coherentism, infinitism, and other non-foundational frameworks. Coherentism holds that beliefs justify one another within a web or system, with overall coherence providing justificatory support. Infinitism maintains that justification can proceed through an endless chain of reasons. Other variants, such as contextualism and naturalized epistemology, treat justification as dependent on context or grounded in naturalistic, non-normative methods rather than on foundations.

Historically, antifoundationalism emerged as a reaction to classical foundationalism and the early foundationalist project in epistemology. The critique drew on the work of philosophers who questioned the existence or accessibility of a secure base for knowledge, including late 20th-century debates about the nature of justification, the role of the “given,” and the structure of our reasons for belief. Influences and developments have continued in areas such as semantics, the theory of science, and cognitive science, where holistic or non-foundational accounts of justification are often discussed.

Critics of antifoundationalism argue that it can lead to skepticism or relativism or that it lacks the criteria needed to distinguish good from poor justification. Proponents respond by appealing to the explanatory power, explanatory coherence, and practical success of non-foundational accounts.