Foundationalism is a sound theory of epistemic justification

As my opponent stated in the beginning of the round, that “The burden of Con will be to show why these arguments or reasons [in favor of the epistemic soundness of foundationalism as a theory] are either flawed or insufficient to justify foundationalism,” I will not state a constructive case, but merely one which will deconstruct the points of my opponent and thereby negate the resolution, “Resolved: Foundationalism is a sound theory of epistemic justification.” “To be justified in believing some proposition A, one must have reason B for believing so.” AND “To be justified in believing reason B (in order justify belief in proposition A), one must have further reason C for believing so.” A. Locke’s Veil of Perception Locke’s Veil of Perception notes that proposition A must not necessarily have a reason B to justify that proposition, because every proposition is created by one’s own observation through his perception, therefore proposition A has the ability to stand alone. It also eliminates the ability of an absolute truth to exist. “The important thing to note about this account of perception is that all our evidence for it comes from our observations of the world, which are themselves perceptions. If this account is correct then we can’t directly observe the basis of our perceptions, since any observation we make is itself a perception, and perceptions are representations of things, not the things themselves. And so from what we do perceive directly – the images in our minds – we can only infer the things that we do not perceive directly – the material world beyond our minds. This serves to create a ‘veil of perception’ between our minds and the world.” [1] As this reflection points out, everything in the world around us is an inference because it has evolved from our observations which have stemmed from our perception. In the affirmative’s world, however, in accordance with the foundationalist theory of epistemic justification, “all justified belief must rest ultimately on non inferential knowledge, or an absolute truth.” [2] Therefore because everything we observe is observed through our own perceptions, we can believe nothing to be true as absolute truth cannot exist. B. Hume’s Skepticism “According to Hume, no proof exists in support of cause and effect relationships within the universe. This is the case because through habitual observation, one infers a relationship between two independent events. Since one cannot experience the necessary connection between two events such as, the Law of Gravity, one cannot necessarily prove that event ‘A’ caused event ‘B.’ Therefore, even though experience and reasoning indicate that objects act in a predictable way, this fails to necessarily prove how objects will act in the future based upon previous interactions.” [3] Again, as mentioned above in Locke’s Veil of Perception, knowledge is gained through experience and the relation of causal ideas gained in such a way. By advocating for non inferential justification, the Affirmative leaves no one the ability to truly believe anything, because even the beliefs we know to be most intrinsically true merely stem from our own perceptions and experiences and thus cannot qualify as an absolute truth. Propositions can be inferentially justified because all propositions stem from the human perceptions and are thus naturally inferred. Sources: [1] http://alonelyphilosopher.wordpress.com... [2] http://plato.stanford.edu... [3] http://schoonmaker.wordpress.com...