What kind of Classical Foundationalism has Plantinga refuted
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11420331 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ralf-Thomas Klein (Evangelical Theological Faculty, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2009 |
| Volume | 28 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 304-311 |
| Publication date | 2009-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | South African Journal of Philosophy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0258-0136 • E-ISSN: 2073-4867 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.4314/sajpem.v28i3.47862 |
| OpenAlex | W2018236736 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 9 |
Alvin Plantinga declared in 1983 that Classical Foundationalism had collapsed. He was convinced that he had found an utterly damaging argument against CF: CF is self-referentially incoherent. Already Alston (1985) and Quinn (1985 and 1993) and recently DePoe (2007) have denied that Plantinga’s argument is successful. There are three objections against his argument: i) He has to show that there is no argument for CF; ii) there may be an inductive argument for CF; iii) there are other good arguments for CF, presented e.g. by Richard Fumerton. In this paper I will argue that i) is wrong and that Quinn’s inductive argument (ii) fails. Plantinga has shown that the “old” type of CF is self-refuting. Plantinga’s argument is not successful if aimed against a contemporary Fumerton-style CF because this type of CF differs in at least one relevant aspect from the kind of CF Plantinga was struggling with
Epistemology · Foundationalism · Classical Philosophy and Thought · Philosophy · Philosophy and Theoretical Science · Philosophy, Science, and History
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2025 (1) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |