Essay 2 Why might one be a contextualist? Explain the motivations for contextualism, and evaluate at least one argument against contextualism. Within the realm of epistemology, there are many different groups of people who argue in favour of particular theories of knowledge and undoubtedly hold fast to their stances. These epistemic stances are largely varied, and at times almost polar opposites, with very little compromise or middle-ground for individuals who do not want to fully commit to and agree with one particular stance. Nevertheless, one possible solution for a compromise between polarizing epistemic stances for those who are unable to take a side is the concept of contextualism. What distinguishes contextualism from other epistemic …show more content…
Emerging in the early 1970s as a refurbished version of the Relevant Alternatives Theory, a prominent theory of knowledge during the time, contextualism would later become a distinct theory about the language used for knowledge ascriptions that many people have subscribed to. Scholar Gail Stine, in 1976, published the very first explanation of the contextualist perspective. In his two part proposal, Stein claims two things. The first claim he makes is that there are different epistemic standards for knowledge in different conversational contexts and settings: “It is an essential characteristic of our concept of knowledge that tighter criteria are appropriate in different contexts. It is one thing in a street encounter, another in a classroom, another in a law court – and who is to say it cannot be another in a philosophical discussion?” (Nagel 92) Stein’s second claim follows that “within any given context, we appropriately stick to one set of standards” (Nagel 92). According to Stein’s conception of the contextualist perspective in his two part proposal, knowing something is dependent on being able to rule out relevant alternatives that would deny knowledge and the amount of relevant alternatives that would need to be ruled out is dictated by the conversational context. Contextualism, in its simplest form, …show more content…
As a semantic claim about the language we use to talk about knowledge, contextualism does present distinct benefits; however, when it is evaluated using linguistic methodology, it also presents certain problems. For example, if I happened to hear Detective McNulty say “Bunk knows that Omar is dead”, following the structure of contextualism, I would probably report, “McNulty says that Bunk knows that Omar is dead”. Although the latter statement seems relatively straight forward, it is in fact a sort of disquotation. In a further example of McNulty saying “I’m going to make sure Avon Barksdale gets a life sentence”, again following the structure of contextualism, I would report, “McNulty said that I’m going to make sure Avon Barksdale gets a life sentence”. If Detective McNulty and I were in different conversational contexts then my statement would not be applicable since the statement would mean different things in the respective contexts. Therefore, “knows” according to contextualism in these situations gets a little messy and confusing. Contextualism does not seem to have an answer for the concern that is raised, which creates more concerns for the theory. Despite contextualism providing certain advantageous, a counterargument against contextualism, which is by no means conclusive and exposes its disadvantages, can
In his view, "there is no such thing as a single mind, unconnected to other minds or to their (collective) social cultural constructions" (Cunningham, "MOM" handout). If this is taken as fact, the "social, cultural, historical, and institutional contexts" humans find themselves in contribute to creating their metaphors and in turn, their artifactual worlds. Therefore, the situational context and the metaphors found there are intertwined and must be examined together. For example, I work in a juvenile prison. Prison is an interesting cultural context to investigate from its various perspectives.
(1) Kelly, Thomas (2005). “The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement.” Oxford Studies in Epistemology. Eds. Tamar Szabo Gendler and John Hawthorne. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pg.1 – 36.
The traditional method is incredibly contextual, meaning, it looks deeply at the source, message, and audience as they interact within a give time span. Furthermore, this method is a critique of the assumed interaction between a speaker, text, or artifact and its intended audience. In contrast, a narrative criticism examines all facets of any rhetorical artifact for its form, structure, and pattern, treating it as a dramatic story that unfolds and reveals itself for a certain purpose. Additionally, narratives are primarily utilized as a cognitive instrument for comprehending significance.
We must not isolate ourselves from what we think we know, but instead allow ourselves to comprehend. Bibliography:.. PERRINE'S STORY AND STRUCTUE 9TH ED. ARE, THOMAS R. 1998, HARCOURT-BRACE COLLEGE PUBLISHERS. FORT WORTH, TX -.
This issue impacts my life in many different ways. First, it makes me pay closer attention to my personal interactions. How am I part of this problem? How much of what Dr. Tannen describes apply to the way I approach dialogue, the way I problem-solve, or the way I consume the news? It will certainly make me an even better listener. Knowing that assumptions are part of any given dialogue, I will be more in-tuned to assumptions underlying any given argument. I am also reminded to pay attention to metaphors. What metaphors are at play? Keeping in mind that "the terms in which we talk about something shape the way we think about it", I am invited to identify the metaphors operating within any discussion, and perhaps more importantly, choose my own words wisely.
The context is of paramount importance because without the context to support the content, the story is nothing; it means nothing. Literature is so great because it transforms the way we think and influences what we believe. Without context, literature is nothing. Without literature to express our worldviews, we are nothing.
8 Some philosophers have referred to this idea as the Condition of Reasonable Epistemic Access (COREA)
philosaphy. ED.J.Baird Callicott and robert Fdrodeman usa, 2009, 458-463. opposing view points in context. web.12 feb.2014
According C.Wright.Mills (1959), sociological imagination enables one to understand the larger historical scene in terms of its meaning for the inner life and the external career of a variety of individuals. It enables one to take into account how individuals, in the welter of their daily experience, often become falsely conscious of their social positions. It is not only information that they need - in this Age of Fact; information often dominates their attention and overwhelms their capacities to assimilate it. It is not only the skills of reason that they need although their struggles to acquire these often exhaust their limited moral energy. What they need, and what they feel they need, is a quality of mind that will help them to use information and to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be happening within them.
Theories that share worldviews may differ on the particulars and may even be in opposition on some points, but they still share a set of basic assumptions or building blocks that each has used in arriving at it's conclusions (Goldhaber, 9). The three developmental worldviews that are most relevant to developmentalists are Mechanistic, Organisic, and Contextualistic. Mechanistic worldview defines humans, as passive individuals functioning like machines by some external force. The Organismic worldview defines individuals as living organism making choices that are oriented towards the future. Contextual worldview defines individuals in contrast to both Mechanists and Organicists worldviews functioning on particular events that form our everyday experiences (Goldhaber, 9).
There are two main schools of thought, or methods, in regards to the subject of epistemology: rationalism and empiricism. These two, very different, schools of thought attempt to answer the philosophical question of how knowledge is acquired. While rationalists believe that this process occurs solely in our minds, empiricists argue that it is, instead, through sensory experience. After reading and understanding each argument it is clear that empiricism is the most relative explanatory position in epistemology.
Empiricists claim that knowledge does not directly originate from reason, but it originates from experience. Empiricists also believe in reason, but assert that reason is a way to augment knowledge that derives from experiences. Empiricists contend that reality is the essence which produces theory through experience. This makes empiricism a reductionist epistemology as well as it reduces the idea of truth to experiences (Resnick & Wolff, 1987). One can argue that our thoughts literally contribute to our experiences and similarly our experiences help us to constitute our thoughts. Both events are connected to each other and each event helps to shape the other. This implies neither empiricism nor rationalism can be utilized as a fair way to deliver the
This dispute is between two philosophical schools of epistemological thought: empiricism and rationalism. Empiricists argue that “sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge” (Markie, 2004). Whereas rationalists argue that “concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience” and use intuition as “a form of rational insight” (Markie, 2004). The empiricist/rationalist argument can even be extended over to the film Memento as Leonard, the empiricist, can only rely on his sense experience or the notes that he continuously writes to himself so that he can never really forget any vital piece of information. Yet, Leonard’s foil, Teddy, keeps warning Leonard that he shouldn’t depend his entire life on his “little notes and pictures” since sense experience, or experience derived from the senses, can also be unreliable (Memento, 2000).
Structuralism employs terms to help in the understanding of one of the most complex literary theories (McManus, 1998; Brizee and Tompkins, 2011). All words in any given language are either classified as parole or langue (McManus, 1998). Barbara McManus is an expert on literary criticism, has authored two books on the subject, is a retired professor of Classics Emerita, including the topics of Feminism and general literary criticism courses, from College of New Rochelle who defines the two terms as “any particular meaningful use of spoken or written language (also called ‘performance’)” and “the underlying system of sounds, forms, and rules of combination of a language which make meaningful communication possible (a speaker's implicit knowledge of this system is called ‘competence’),” respectively (McManus, 2003; McManus, 1998). McManus later states that “[Structuralists are] interested in langu...
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Much of the debate in epistemology centers on four areas: the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification, various problems of skepticism, the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and the criteria for knowledge and justification. Epistemology addresses such questions as "What makes justified beliefs justified?", "What does it mean to say that we know something?" and fundamentally "How do we know that we know?"