Epistemological Issue 2: Are the moderate foundationalist views of Aristotle and Kant—which point toward non-foundationalism—coherent positions?

                Aristotle contends, in opposition to Plato, that matter and form are not things. Rather they are ways that people have found to find some coherence in their experience. Aristotle’s view favors empiricism—namely, the view in epistemology that all knowledge comes through sense experience.

                Kant tries to reconcile the rationalism of Descartes with empiricism. He adds to Aristotle’s list of matter and form some concepts that he suggests should be viewed as principles rather than things. Kant adds God, self, causality and freedom to Aristotle’s list of matter and form. The mind contributes the categories (or forms) and the external reality provides the phenomena that the mind interprets. We employ such notions as God, self, causality and freedom to help us make our experiences coherent.

                STRENGTHS: Aristotle’s position is more satisfying to those who have a scientific orientation. Aristotle was an early scientist who turned to the practical side of things to form his judgments. He was careful to draw conclusions that were justified by his sense observations.

                Kant’s rejection of Descartes’ claims of certainty left a framework of doubt concerning the existence of God, the self, freedom, and cause and effect. The origin of such notions, Kant claimed, was the mind rather than the world. Such doubt, Kant argued, was more consistent with human experience than any artificial, contrived or rational certainty regarding such notions.

                WEAKNESSES: Aristotle and Kant address issues that are focused on this world. The uncertainty of their answers to what lies beyond this world leaves many people dissatisfied. Their positions prepare the way for non-foundationalism, and non-foundationalism can lead to skepticism or relativism in regard to knowledge.