Foundationalism and coherentism are two fundamentally opposed basic epistemological views about the structure of justification. Interestingly enough, there is no consensus on how to interpret Husserl. While interpreting Husserl as a foundationalist was the standard view in early Husserl scholarship, things have changed considerably as prominent commentators like Christian Beyer, John Drummond, Dagfinn Føllesdal, and Dan Zahavi have challenged this foundationalist interpretation. These anti-foundationalist interpretations have again been challenged, for instance, by Walter Hopp and Christian Erhard. One might suspect that inconsistencies in Husserl’s writings are the simple reason for this disagreement. I shall argue, however, that the real question is not so much how to read Husserl, but how to define foundationalism and that there is overwhelming textual evidence that Husserl championed the most tenable version of foundationalism: a moderate foundationalism that allows for incorporating coherentist elements.

中文翻译：

---

为什么胡塞尔是温和的基础主义者

基础主义和连贯主义是关于辩护结构的两种根本对立的基本认识论观点。有趣的是，关于如何解释胡塞尔并没有达成共识。虽然将胡塞尔解释为基础主义者是早期胡塞尔学术界的标准观点，但随着克里斯蒂安·拜尔、约翰·德拉蒙德、达格芬·福勒斯达尔和丹·扎哈维等著名评论家对这种基础主义解释提出挑战，情况发生了很大变化。这些反基础主义的解释再次受到了挑战，例如，沃尔特霍普和克里斯蒂安艾哈德。人们可能会怀疑胡塞尔著作中的不一致是造成这种分歧的简单原因。然而，我认为真正的问题不在于如何阅读胡塞尔，