Epistemic closure is the idea that knowledge is self-contained and cannot be justified by anything outside of itself. This means that the justification for a belief must be found within the belief itself or within other beliefs that are justified by the first belief.

The problem of coherentism is that it cannot account for the justification of basic beliefs. Basic beliefs are beliefs that are not justified by other beliefs. Coherentism claims that all beliefs are justified by their coherence with other beliefs, but this means that basic beliefs cannot be justified.

One response to the problem of coherentism is to argue that basic beliefs are justified by their self-evidence. Self-evident beliefs are beliefs that are immediately apparent to be true. They do not require any further justification.

Another response to the problem of coherentism is to argue that basic beliefs are justified by their reliability. Reliable beliefs are beliefs that are likely to be true. They are justified because they are based on evidence or experience that suggests that they are true.

The main objection to the self-evidence response to the problem of coherentism is that it is circular. It claims that basic beliefs are justified by their self-evidence, but this means that the justification for a belief is simply that it is true. This is circular because it does not provide any independent reason for believing that the belief is true.

The main objection to the reliability response to the problem of coherentism is that it is too subjective. It claims that basic beliefs are justified by their reliability, but this means that the justification for a belief depends on the individual's own experience and evidence. This is subjective because it does not provide any objective standard for determining whether a belief is justified.

One way to avoid the circularity objection to the self-evidence response is to argue that basic beliefs are justified by their coherence with other beliefs. This means that the justification for a belief is not simply that it is true, but that it is also consistent with other beliefs that are known to be true.

One way to avoid the subjectivity objection to the reliability response is to argue that basic beliefs are justified by their social acceptability. This means that the justification for a belief is not simply that it is based on the individual's own experience and evidence, but that it is also accepted by the community as a whole.

The main advantage of the coherence response to the problem of coherentism is that it provides a more objective standard for determining whether a belief is justified. This is because the coherence of a belief can be evaluated by anyone, regardless of their individual experience or evidence.

The main disadvantage of the coherence response to the problem of coherentism is that it is too relativistic. This is because it allows for the possibility that there are multiple, equally coherent systems of belief, each of which is justified within its own context. This raises the question of how we can determine which system of belief is true.

One way to avoid the relativism objection to the coherence response is to argue that there is only one true system of belief. This means that all other systems of belief are false. This is a controversial claim, but it is one way to avoid the problem of relativism.

Another way to avoid the relativism objection to the coherence response is to argue that truth is relative to the community. This means that what is true for one community may not be true for another community. This is a less controversial claim than the claim that there is only one true system of belief, and it is one way to avoid the problem of relativism.

The main advantage of the social acceptability response to the problem of coherentism is that it is more consistent with the idea that knowledge is a social construct. This is because it claims that the justification for a belief depends on the agreement of the community, rather than on the individual's own experience or evidence.

The main disadvantage of the social acceptability response to the problem of coherentism is that it is too dogmatic. This is because it claims that the justification for a belief depends on the agreement of the community, regardless of whether or not the belief is true. This can lead to the acceptance of false beliefs, simply because they are widely held.

The skepticism response is not a response to the problem of coherentism. Skepticism is the view that we cannot know anything for certain. This is a different problem from the problem of coherentism, which is the problem of how to justify basic beliefs.