A philosophy student argues: 'The regress argument proves foundationalism must be true, because both infinite regress and circular justification are obviously unacceptable.' What is the most important flaw in this reasoning?
AThe student has correctly identified the conclusion — the regress argument does establish foundationalism
BThe student ignores that circular justification is actually the most defensible option
CInfinitism and coherentism are genuine, defensible positions — the trilemma identifies three possible responses, not two unacceptable ones and one obvious winner
DThe regress argument only applies to empirical beliefs, not to all justified beliefs
The regress argument establishes a trilemma, not a proof of foundationalism. Infinitism (Peter Klein) argues that an infinite chain of reasons is not problematic as long as the reasons are available. Coherentism rejects the linear-chain model entirely, arguing that justification is a web of mutually supporting beliefs — a structure that avoids vicious circularity by abandoning the chain metaphor. Each horn is a serious philosophical position. The regress argument maps the space of possible theories; it does not settle which position to accept.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
Which horn of the epistemic regress trilemma does coherentism (in its holistic form) choose to accept?
AThe infinite regress horn — coherentism accepts that justification chains are infinitely long
BThe foundationalist horn — coherentism posits that some beliefs are self-justified
CNeither — coherentism rejects the linear-chain model and argues that justification is a web where beliefs support each other holistically, making the circular-chain objection inapplicable
Holistic coherentism does not simply accept circular reasoning in the chain model — it rejects the chain model itself. On the web picture, no single belief is the 'foundation' and no single belief 'comes first.' Rather, a belief is justified by its coherence with the entire system. This dissolves the regress, not by accepting any horn, but by showing that the trilemma assumes a linear chain structure that coherentism rejects. This is a crucial distinction: accepting the circular horn within the chain model would be vicious circularity; the web model provides a different account of justificatory structure.
Question 3 True / False
The regress argument is primarily an empirical claim about how human beings actually organize their chains of justification in practice.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
The regress argument is a conceptual or logical claim about the possible structures that any system of justified beliefs must have. It says: given that justification requires support from other beliefs, the chain must be infinite, circular, or terminating. This is a claim about logical structure, not about how people actually reason psychologically. Treating it as empirical would make it answerable by cognitive science, but the argument was always intended as a problem for the logic of justification, not a description of mental processes.
Question 4 True / False
The regress argument functions as a diagnostic tool that maps the logical space of possible theories of justification, with each horn of the trilemma corresponding to a distinct epistemological school.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
This is precisely what makes the regress argument so foundational to epistemology. Foundationalism accepts the terminating horn and posits basic beliefs; infinitism accepts the infinite-chain horn; coherentism rejects the chain model. Every major theory of justification is, in part, a response to this trilemma. Knowing the trilemma structure allows you to immediately ask of any new theory: 'Which horn does it accept, and how does it defend that choice?' — a powerful systematic framework.
Question 5 Short Answer
How does coherentism respond to the regress argument differently from foundationalism? What feature of the regress problem does coherentism reject?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Foundationalism responds by accepting the terminating-chain horn: it posits basic beliefs — justified by non-doxastic sources like perception or intuition — that stop the regress at a foundation. Coherentism rejects the linear-chain model that the regress argument presupposes. On the coherentist picture, justification is not a chain of beliefs where each supports the next; it is a web where beliefs mutually support each other through overall coherence. Once the chain model is abandoned, the question 'what justifies the last belief in the chain?' does not arise, because there is no chain and no last belief.
The key move coherentism makes is rejecting the metaphor of justification as a linear chain, where circularity (returning to a previously-cited belief) would be viciously circular. In a web, mutual support among beliefs is not viciously circular — it is holistic coherence. The regress argument only generates its trilemma if we assume the chain structure; coherentism challenges that assumption rather than accepting one of the three horns.