Talk:Anti-foundationalism

From WT:WPP
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy Charles Stewart 21:11, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hegel
If Hegel is going to be on this list --- and I could see why he belongs here --- then you need to remove the part about anti-foundationalists opposing "totalising visions of social, scientific or historical reality". That's wildly inconsistent with Hegel's philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.35.39.65 (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Wittgenstein
Ludwig Wittgenstein can be seen as anti-foundationalist, particularly in his Philosophical Investigations. I don't want to push an interpretation by writing anything, but it may be worthwhile look for some people already sying this. I've added this article to my watchlist, and I will come back to it when I have time, to flesh out why Nietzsche is an anti-foundationalist and maybe add stuff on Wittgenstein.

Also, looking at the article, the section on Neurath's boat is really vague and doesn't strike me as even being relevant.--Tedpennings 09:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the above comment: Later parts of Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty would be considered far nearer foundationalist thinking. In reality, Wittgenstein wasn't technically either, once his whole corpus has been taken into account. I'd be wary of referencing him as has been done here. -- SM 13:50, 12 Jan 2010 (GMT)

Atheism
There ought to be research on links between Anti-foundationalism and Atheism. Many anti-foundationalists, such as Nietszche, were apparently atheists. ADM (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fails the laugh test
FTA: "Anti-foundationalists use logical or historical or genealogical attacks on foundational concepts (see especially Nietzsche and Foucault), often coupled with alternative methods for justifying and forwarding intellectual inquiry, such as the pragmatic subordination of knowledge to practical action".

OK, this is right up there with the "Ministry of Truth". Clearly this is some clever take on something, because what the sentence does is to construct a "foundation of anti-foundationalism". Instead of actually letting an anti-foundationalist speak in something like comprehensible English, we have a dull laundry list of philosophical clichés. 173.239.78.54 (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)