Coherentist responses reject the idea that truth, knowledge, etc. must be grounded and instead seek to find a way of balancing what is known with how it is known to form a self-consistent system.
Coherentism may lack foundations in the sense that foundationalism has foundations, but it still has guiding principles—notably, that coherence is conducive to truth!
Right, and this gets at why Chisholm argues there are only really two positions—particularism and skepticism/nihilism—because coherentism still requires one know the idea of coherentism to start, although to be fair coherentism would theoretically allow one to stop believing in coherentism if believing in it ceased to be coherent!
Right, I think Chisholm would agree that skepticism is not useful and you can’t do anything with it, so if we want to live he’d argue that particularism is, in fact, the only choice whether we like it or not.
Coherentism may lack foundations in the sense that foundationalism has foundations, but it still has guiding principles—notably, that coherence is conducive to truth!
Right, and this gets at why Chisholm argues there are only really two positions—particularism and skepticism/nihilism—because coherentism still requires one know the idea of coherentism to start, although to be fair coherentism would theoretically allow one to stop believing in coherentism if believing in it ceased to be coherent!
How could believing in coherentism cease to be coherent?
For instance, if there is some self contradiction involved.
Chisholm can think what he likes, but what I am saying is that skepticism qua nihilism isn’t a viable position.
Right, I think Chisholm would agree that skepticism is not useful and you can’t do anything with it, so if we want to live he’d argue that particularism is, in fact, the only choice whether we like it or not.