Skip to main content
Log in

Contextualism and Unhappy-Face Solutions: Reply to Schiffer

  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

REFERENCES

  • Cohen, S. (1988): ‘How to be a Fallibilist’, in J. Tomberlin (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 2, Epistemology.

  • Cohen, S. (1999): ‘Contextualism, Skepticism, and the Structure of Reasons’, in J. Tomberlin (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 13, Epistemology.

  • Cohen, S. (2001): ‘Contextualism Defended: Reply to Feldman’, Philosophical Studies (June).

  • De Rose, K. (1995): ‘Solving the Skeptical Problem’, The Philosophical Review 104, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dretske (1981): ‘The Pragmatic Dimension of Knowledge’, Philosophical Studies 40.

  • Lewis (1979): ‘Scorekeeping in a Language Game’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8.

  • Lewis (1996): ‘Elusive Knowledge’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74(4).

  • Schiffer (2003): ‘Skepticism and the Vagaries of Justified Belief’, Philosophical Studies 119 (this issue).

  • Unger, P. (1975): Ignorance: A Case for Skepticism, Oxford.

  • Unger, P. (1984): Philosophical Relativity, University of Minnesota.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cohen, S. Contextualism and Unhappy-Face Solutions: Reply to Schiffer. Philosophical Studies 119, 185–197 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHIL.0000029356.31332.fe

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHIL.0000029356.31332.fe

Navigation