In this paper, I will argue that the theory of coherentism is more justified than foundationalism. First, I will explain justification. Then, I will explain the theory of coherentism and foundationalism. Finally, I will argue that coherentist theory is closer to the truth than foundationalism. Justification is the reason why someone holds a belief or idea, the reason as to why the belief is a true one, or how one knows what one knows. Statements which can be justified by action, often form into arguments. For example attempts to justify why a man is late for his dinner date after assisting a person who is stranded, can become an argument. This man had motives for his justification, but never the less, his justification can or cannot be believed as truth by his dinner date. This example is one, where we could clearly see where this motive of helping another, led to the justification that the man was late and now his dinner date is upset and this could lead into an argument. Most people would agree that the man had great justification for his actions, in helping another. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy states "a belief can be justified and be false and that truth and justification are two independent conditions of belief."i Beliefs are justified by supporting beliefs and those beliefs get justified by other beliefs and this can keep continuing on and on. "Justified beliefs need to have good reasons for belief, such as a proposition."ii.
Foundationalism is the theory about justification that Rene' Descartes, the philosopher, known as the father of modern philosophy, proposes. "Foundationalist think that beliefs are justified but not by virtue of being based on or inferred from other beliefs." ii An example of this would be our simple belief that when we take in a breath we will receive oxygen into our lungs. This is a simple belief that we do not need justification for.
