Topics for Second Paper
Write a 2-3 page paper on one of the following topics:
1. Formulate and explain the Cartesian version of Foundationalism. Present one (of the three) objections to Cartesian Foundationalism discussed by Feldman (pg. 55-60). Then either (i) defend Cartesian Foundationalism from this objection or (ii) show how Modest Foundationalism avoids this objection. (If you choose (ii), make sure to explain what Modest Foundationalism is).
2. Present and evaluate BonJour’s “TIF argument” against Foundationalism (Feldman, pg. 75—77). Make sure to discuss at least one Foundationalist response and say whether you find this response convincing (and why).
3. Towards the end of his article “Does Empirical Knowledge Have a Foundation?”, Sellars writes:
I do wish to insist that the metaphor of “foundation” is misleading in that it keeps us from seeing that if there is a logical dimension in which other empirical propositions rest on observation reports, there is another logical dimension in which the latter rest on the former.
Reconstruct (as best as you can) Sellars’ argument for this claim. Why does he think that our knowledge of observational facts (expressed by sentences such as “this is green”) presupposes that we know general facts of the form “X is a reliable symptom of Y” (or that utterances of “this is green” are reliable indicators of the existence of green objects in the proximity of speaker)? Why does Sellars say that the metaphor of “foundation” is misleading?