Infinite regress is a logical fallacy that occurs when an explanation of something relies on an infinite series of explanations, with no starting point or endpoint. It is a problem that arises when trying to justify a claim or premise by appealing to a sequence of supporting reasons, each of which requires another reason to support it, leading to an endless chain of justifications.
congrats on reading the definition of Infinite Regress. now let's actually learn it.
Infinite regress is a problem that arises when attempting to provide a complete justification for a belief or claim, as each supporting reason requires further justification, leading to an endless chain.
The problem of infinite regress is often used to argue against foundationalist theories of justification, which rely on basic, self-evident beliefs as the foundation for knowledge.
Coherentist theories of justification, which focus on the mutual support and consistency of beliefs within a system, are proposed as an alternative to foundationalism to avoid the issue of infinite regress.
The problem of infinite regress is not limited to theories of justification, but can arise in various philosophical contexts, such as discussions of the origin of the universe or the nature of causation.
Philosophers have proposed various strategies to address the problem of infinite regress, such as accepting it as unavoidable, denying the need for complete justification, or introducing a stopping point or foundation to the chain of reasons.
Review Questions
Explain how the problem of infinite regress relates to the concept of epistemic justification.
The problem of infinite regress is particularly relevant to theories of epistemic justification, which seek to provide reasons or evidence to support the truth or reasonableness of beliefs. If each reason or piece of evidence used to justify a belief requires further justification, leading to an endless chain, it becomes impossible to provide a complete justification for any belief. This undermines foundationalist approaches to justification, which rely on basic, self-evident beliefs as the foundation for knowledge, and highlights the need for alternative theories, such as coherentism, which focus on the mutual support and consistency of beliefs within a system.
Analyze how the problem of infinite regress relates to the debate between foundationalism and coherentism in epistemology.
The problem of infinite regress is often used to critique foundationalist theories of justification, which hold that knowledge or justified belief must be based on a foundation of basic, self-evident, or otherwise unquestionable beliefs. If each of these foundational beliefs requires further justification, leading to an infinite regress, the foundationalist approach becomes problematic. In contrast, coherentist theories of justification, which focus on the mutual support and consistency of beliefs within a system, are proposed as an alternative that can avoid the issue of infinite regress. By not relying on a foundation of basic beliefs, coherentism can provide a justification for beliefs without being trapped in an endless chain of supporting reasons.
Evaluate the various philosophical strategies that have been proposed to address the problem of infinite regress, and discuss the strengths and limitations of each approach.
Philosophers have proposed several strategies to address the problem of infinite regress, each with its own strengths and limitations. One approach is to simply accept the inevitability of infinite regress, acknowledging that complete justification may not be possible. While this avoids the trap of an endless chain of reasons, it can be unsatisfying and may lead to skepticism about the possibility of justified belief. Another strategy is to deny the need for complete justification, arguing that beliefs can be justified without appealing to a foundational set of unquestionable beliefs. Coherentism, for example, takes this approach by focusing on the mutual support and consistency of beliefs within a system. However, this raises questions about the ultimate grounding of knowledge. A third approach is to introduce a stopping point or foundation to the chain of reasons, such as self-evident or basic beliefs. This is the foundationalist solution, but it must address the problem of how these foundational beliefs can be justified without falling into infinite regress. Overall, the various strategies proposed to address infinite regress each have their merits and drawbacks, highlighting the complexity of this philosophical challenge.