Primal

In the debate over relativism the regress model was brought up with someone saying it supported Coherentism, whereas many foundationalists think it supports foundationalism. I personally think neither however there is a third possibility which I think Kantian ignored and should be presented: Infinitism. http://chss2.montclair.edu/prdept/HK.htm

Questions or comments?

John Page

I reject the underlying premise of the paper that reasons need justification. This avoids the supposed regress.

If a "reason" is interpreted as a "cause" (as seems to be from the paper) it is a human inference that there must be some justification. IMO it is misleading or inaccurate to use such anthropomorphisms. Justification is only required when judging actions against a code of morality.

BTW the paper does not make clear how "rational beliefs" differ from beliefs in general. What is rational vs. irrational is the subjective judgement of the observer - relativism rules OK!

Cheers, John

AnthonyAdams45

A quick skim doesn't prepare me for a full critique, but I will note three important structural qualities of the paper:
[list=1][*]He acknowledges that "there are no final guarantees." His position is not that he has closed the door on further discussion, but rather that he may yet be found wrong, indeed, may find himself wrong.[*]Among the persons he thanks for help is Richard Fumerton, the man who's book he is attacking. That is how serious philosophers work. Some of the best criticisms of Plato are found in the Parmenides, his own writing.[*]and last, he at best arrives at the view that his position is no worse than the other fellow's, not that the other person is wrong and he is right. Instead, he characterizes his view as "provisional." Indeed, he says "The crucial point to recall is that for the infinitist all justification is provisional." Not final, not absolute, but a working draft that may fail[/list=1]