RICHARD RORTY'S "PHILOSOPHY AND THE MIRROR OF NATURE" IS CENTRALLY CONCERNED WITH A CRITIQUE OF FOUNDATIONALISM. THOSE WHO HAVE TAKEN EXCEPTION TO RORTY'S LARGER VISION OF PHILOSOPHY HAVE NEVERTHELESS GENERALLY ACCEPTED THAT HIS CRITIQUE IS SUCCESSFUL AGAINST CLASSICAL FOUNDATIONALISM, IF NOT AGAINST MORE MODERATE FORMS OF FOUNDATIONALISM. I SHOW THAT RORTY'S CRITIQUE IS IN FACT UNSUCCESSFUL AGAINST EVEN CLASSICAL FOUNDATIONALISM, AND I EXPLAIN HOW CLASSICAL FOUNDATIONALISM CAN PROVIDE A PLAUSIBLE ACCOUNT OF EMPIRICAL JUSTIFICATION.
