> Rejecting foundationalism means accepting that we > have every right to hold basic beliefs that are not > legitimated by philosophical reflection.

> Rejecting foundationalism means accepting that we > have every right to hold basic beliefs that are not > legitimated by philosophical reflection. No, that's an utter non-sequiter. It certainly does not follow on from a rejection of foundationalism that you can hold arbitrary basic beliefs. For example, you may instead set a standard of evidence whereby you expect the set of your ideas to have an internal consistency, and where you consider the weight of new evidence against your existing map. Your tree could be influenced by philosophical reflection. Of you might consider your belief to consist of parallel hypotheticals. I may be a brain in a vat, but I'm also open to being a geek tapping on a computer in a newtonianish universe.