 The Coherentist resists regress by allowing a circular or holistic explanation of the \(F\)-ness of at least some \(X\)s. This could be to simply allow straightforwardly circular explanations, such as that \(X_1\) is \(F\) in virtue of \(X_2\) being \(F\) and \(X_2\) is \(F\) in virtue of \(X_1\) being \(F\). But that is not the only option for the Coherentist. Consider again the regress argument concerning justification of belief: our belief \(p_1\) is justified by appeal to \(p_2\), which is in turn justified by appeal to \(p_3\), and so on. There is an assumption behind this regress: that what is to be explained are the facts concerning the individual beliefs—why is this one justified, then why is that one justified, etc. An epistemic Coherentist such as Bonjour (1985) rejects this assumption. It is not, primarily, individual beliefs that are justified, it is systems of belief. A particular belief is justified only in a derivative sense, by belonging to a justified system. A system of belief is justified because of the properties of the system as a whole, namely that the beliefs in it form a coherent system. Thus, justification is a holistic phenomenon: a collection of beliefs is justified because of what they, collectively, are like, not because of what each individual member of the system is like. This holistic explanation of where justification comes from is very different from a circular explanation: a circular explanation tells us that one individual’s being \(F\) explains another’s being \(F\) and also vice versa, but a holistic explanation tells us to abandon the idea of explaining an individual’s being \(F\) by appeal to another individual being \(F\), and instead hold that the explanation for some things being \(F\) can be the facts concerning what that collection of things as a whole is like. (An analogous view concerning Metaphysical Coherentism and holistic explanation is defended by Thompson (2018), and Cameron (2022, Ch.4). Cf. Barnes (2018).)