Michael Huemer is a professor at the University of Colorado. He studies ethics and theory of knowledge while teaching philosophy at the university. His work with ethical intuitionism, moral realism, anarcho-capitalism, and libertarianism shaped many discussions Huemer has fore fronted, and brings us to “Three Skeptical Arguments,” an excerpt from Skepticism and the Veil of Perception. The debate question Huemer touches on is “can humans truly know anything?”
He takes the negative position, stating that no human can or will ever truly possess knowledge. He breaks his main theory into an argument, which is then separated into three sections that he uses to support his disputation: ‘the infinite regress argument,’ ‘the problem of criterion,’ …show more content…
Since every idea must have a starting point yet starting propositions do no exist, so there is no true beginning to come from. An individual cannot know anything.
A foundationalist is a person who believes in foundational propositions, or self-evident beliefs that are true with no supporting evidence – they are simply accepted as the beginning truth.
An example foundational proposition is “2 = 2.” However, for a foundational proposition to be able to stand on its own with no prior evidence, a foundationalist must be able to distinguish the proposition from an arbitrary belief. An example of an arbitrary belief here could be that purple aliens live on Venus. Most people would automatically dismiss this idea. I, however, firmly believe that it is true. My friend and I share a mutual agreement that 2 is equal to itself.
“If we both agree 2 is 2, then why not agree about the purple aliens,” I would ask my friend, “Why proof do you have that 2 is 2?”
This method shows that foundational proposition is proved impossible for if it is true with no evidence, the asymptotic belief must be true, leaving the fundamentalist at an inability to dispute the resulting idea that individuals know nothing since both ideas must first be proven before