1
In this paper I will explain what the Agrippan Trilemma is and explain they ways that
foundationalism and coherentism are responses to it. I will then prove that, although
foundationalism and coherentism are attractive responses to the Trilemma they have some
serious problems that limit their usefulness in our search for truth and knowledge. Namely,
foundationalism’s inability to properly respond to the ‘level ascent’ argument and coherentism’s
inability to leap the wide chasm between true belief and knowledge.
In the 1st century AD a philosopher by the name of Agrippa was credited with giving
clear articulation to what was considered to be a serious problem with the justification of
knowledge and true beliefs. It works on the assumption that knowledge must be grounded in
good reason in order to be justified. If we can accept this as fact, the sceptic argues that we will
soon find that our belief and knowledge are not well grounded at all. The Agrippan argument
shows that a persistent investigation into the reasons for our knowledge will lead to one of three
things.
The first option of the Trilemma is infinite regress. This occurs when one’s justification
for a belief is based on another belief, which in turn is based on another belief and so on into
infinity. Infinite regress of justification is computationally impossible and therefore, useless as an
approach to justification. If, for example, you held that belief A was justified by belief B, one
would then question what justified belief B. In order to be epistemically responsible you would
need to give reason for holding belief B. Upon stating belief C as your justification for belief B
one may begin to see the pattern of infinite regression beginning to form.
Circularity of argumentation is the second option of the Agrippan Trilemma. This form of
justification occurs when one belief, A, is justified by another belief, B, which is justified by A.
If, for example, someone claims that all opponents of affirmative action are racist and then
defends the point by saying, “If they weren’t racist, they wouldn’t oppose it,” that person is
presenting a circular argument. This type of argumentation can come in a much larger form but
the size of the argument has nothing to do with its inherent flaw of circularity.
