Sextus Empiricus and its Strengths essays

Sextus Empiricus and it's Strengths essays Sextus Empiricus' trilemma against justification is an argument presented in response to Plato's claim that knowledge is justified true belief. According to the trilemma, there can be no such thing as knowledge, because we can have no real justification for our beliefs. This is the basis of skepticism. There are many responses to that argument, including those of the foundationalist, coherentist, and infinitist. This paper will outline the general principles of Sextus Empiricus' Trilemma, as well as discuss the responses to that trilemma according to the foundationalist, the coherentist, and the infinitist. In addition, this paper will attempt to show that the foundationalist response has the most validity. Empiricus' trilemma begins with the assumption that we only have knowledge if our beliefs are justified. If those beliefs are challenged, there are only three ways in which we can attempt a justification. First, we can attempt to justify our belief set by reference to some foundational belief or belief set, otherwise known as foundationalism. The problem here is that the second belief or belief set is also not justified by any further belief. Second, we can justify our beliefs mutually, otherwise known as coherentism. In other words, any set of beliefs is justified in conjunction with another. Finally, we can create an endless digress of justification, where each proposition is justified by a unique proposition, which, in turn, is justified by another proposition, and so on. This is Empiricus continues the above argument by discussing why each possible justification is impossible. First, if we justify one belief by using another belief, and the second belief is a "basic" belief that requires no justification, we have not justified the first belief at all. For example, if a person is trying to justify the belief that man is good, and uses the belief that a...