Foundationalism

I found Rowan’s presentation on foundationalism to be very thought provoking (if my plethora of questions didn’t already make that quite obvious). I tend to like the idea that there should be a central idea that one relies on for many of one’s thoughts. Two philosophers that I think really add to this conversation are Descartes and Nicolas Wolterstorff. Descartes provides a really compelling argument for existence through his idea that he cannot doubt that he doubts. He then follows this up with his argument that God cannot be a deceiver; thus we must be observing what truly exists. I feel like this argument would provide a pretty good foundation for anyone who believes in God. Wolterstorff provides another interesting take on the foundationalism discussion. He defines what he calls “controlling beliefs.” These are beliefs that a person accepts as true and that shape the rest of his or her discovery of knowledge. That we exist and properly perceive things would probably qualify as a controlling belief. Personally, I normally don’t spend too much time on these problems out of practicality. I cannot prove that I perceive what actually exists, but I do know that my life is a lot happier if I believe that I can perceive things. I also see no benefit to skepticism, other than as an intellectual exercise. This is the same idea that I apply to free will. I cannot prove that I have free will, but I do know that it feels like I have free will. I choose to believe in free will since I can see no practical benefit to denying it.