Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T19:11:38.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why (Wittgensteinian) Contextualism Is Not Relativism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Michael Williams
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article distinguishes Wittgensteinian contextualism from epistemic relativism. The latter involves the view that a belief’s status as justified depends on the believer’s epistemic system, as well as the view that no system is superior to another. It emerges from the thought that we must rely, circularly, on our epistemic system to determine whether any belief is justified. Contextualism, by contrast, emerges from the thought that we need not answer a skeptical challenge to a belief unless there is good reason to doubt the belief; so we need not rely on our epistemic system to determine whether a belief is justified. Accordingly contextualism is not committed to the view that a belief’s status depends on the believer’s epistemic system, nor to the view that no system is superior to another. The contextualist is not committed to epistemic relativism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , February 2007 , pp. 93 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Annis, David. 1978. “A Contextualist Theory of Epistemic Justification.” American Philosophical Quarterly 15: 213–219.Google Scholar
Boghossian, Paul. 2006. Fear of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 1995. Making It Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chisholm, Roderick. 1982. The Foundations of Knowing. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Fogelin, Robert. 1994. Pyrrhonian Reflections on Knowledge and Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon and Ernest, Sosa. 2000. Epistemology: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Steup, Matthias and Ernest, Sosa. 2005. Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Williams, Michael. 1996. Unnatural Doubts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Michael. 1999. “Skepticism.” Pp. 35–69 in A Companion to Epistemology, ed. Greco, John and Sosa, Ernest, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Williams, Michael. 2001. Problems of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1969. On Certainty, trans. Paul, Denis and Anscombe, G. E. M.. New York: Harper.Google Scholar