14
we have seen before, either this claim is just a discrete one, made by how some local, nominal
community made its world by how it used its language. Or, it is a claim to know things as they
really are, apart from language. But they labor diligently to remind us of this view, and they
attempt to consistently employ a non-foundationalist methodology throughout their constructive
proposals. And never do they admit that such claims are just how their community talks, for that
likely would be rather uninteresting to outsiders. But to be consistent, that is all this claim can
be: a statement as to how their community has made its world by its language use. In that world,
they would have talked in such a way that foundationalism is dead.
But that is not at all what Grenz and Franke want us to believe. They want us to see that
foundationalism is indeed dead. It is therefore most likely that they presuppose an epistemic
access to the way the world really is i.e., apart from language. But if that is the case, then the
demise of foundationalism is an open question, capable of rational investigation. And, tellingly,
they have begged the most important questions of all by how they have constructed their world
by their language use.