Venezia ZandrelliA11186709Claudi Brink (A01)In this article, I will first define knowledge and explain how we achieve epistemic justification for our beliefs. I will then briefly explain the Gettier cases and use his argument to introduce the Agrippa Trilemma and discuss two epistemological theories. Next, I will define and explain coherentism and foundationalism, and finally offer my argument for why coherentism is the best explanation of epistemic justification. “If we want to have knowledge, then we must be justified in what we believe (Pritchard, 39).” Knowledge consists of three necessary and sufficient conditions: Knowledge is a justified, true belief. Anything that possesses all three qualities possesses knowledge, and anything that lacks justification, truth, or belief cannot contain knowledge. Knowledge is a state of mind that asserts that x and y are the case. “For example, when we believe that P, we are in a mental state that takes P to be true. We cannot believe that P, and also believe that P is false (FULKERSON, PHIL 15: WEEK 4).” I will now explain what reason we have for our beliefs. Notions of justification are the beliefs you have; these notions are propositions that you have justification for believing, so “justification is necessary for knowledge (Pritchard, 31).” Justification may be based on evidence, but some beliefs may be automatically justified. For example, the belief that the earth orbits the sun “needs no further support to be rightly held (Pritchard 32).” For any X, if Y is justified in believing X, and X implies Z, and Y infers Z from , then you have the knowledge (FULKERSON, PHIL 15: WEEK 4).”A...... middle of the paper ......is not very plausible; “Justification is necessary for knowledge (Pritchard, 23).” The issue for which foundationalism and coherentism offer contrasting explanations is the fundamental structure of the epistemic justification of our beliefs. This epistemic justification is what should give us a compelling reason to think that the belief in question is justified. While both theories have flaws, I would argue that coherentism achieves a belief closer to the truth than foundationalism; there is more evidence to justify the truth of a belief. So if you have a coherent set of beliefs, that's enough to justify them. I argued why coherentism is the best explanation of epistemic justification and showed how foundationalism fails to provide a logical or adequate reason for being accepted as a structure of knowledge..