Any contextualist approach to knowledge has to provide a plausible definition of the concept of context and spell out the mechanisms of context changes. Since it is the dynamics of context change that carry the main weight of the contextualist position, not every mechanism will be capable of filling that role. In particular, I argue that one class of mechanisms that is most popularly held to account for context changes, namely those that arise out of shifts of conversational parameters in (...) discourses involving knowledge claims, are not suited to the job because they cannot account for the genuinely epistemic nature of the context shift. A form of epistemic contextualism that defines the context through the structure of our epistemic projects is suggested. Context changes in this account are linked to changes in the background assumptions operative in our epistemic projects and the methods used to carry out our inquiries. (shrink)
According to Antonia Barkes version of contextualism, epistemic contextualism, a context is defined by a method and its associated assumptions. The subject has to make the assumption that the method is adequate or reliable and that good working conditions hold in order to arrive at knowledge by employing the method. I will criticize Barkes claim that epistemic contextualism can provide a more satisfactory explanation or motivation for context shifts than conversational contextualism (in particular, David Lewiss contextualism). Two more points (...) of criticizm will be presented, which are meant to show that epistemic contextualism presupposes epistemic internalism, and that (epistemic) contextualism leads to an implausible view about which parameters the special achievement that is constitutive of knowledge depends on. I suggest that, contra (epistemic) contextualism, knowledge is a more robust phenomenon that does not depend on whether anyone calls into question any assumptions or raises skeptical doubts in conversation or in his or her mind (as, for example, Fred Dretskes account says). I indicate how this can be reconciled with the phenomenon that knowledge attributions are somewhat unstable and seemingly context-dependent. (shrink)
The institutions of science arecomposed of communities with conflicting andoverlapping interests. In the United States,the internal governance of science resemblesthe structure of republican government,particularly in its fragmentation,representation, and extension. This articlecalls upon Michael Polanyi's metaphor of a`Republic of Science' in the context ofAmerican history and political theory, toexamine the ways in which these interests arerepresented. Using the metaphor obliges us toask about rules of citizenship in the`Republic', and to determine whether those whopay for science should also be represented inits institutions.
This article contains the notes made by the Italian poetess Antonia Pozzi while attending the university courses held by Antonio Banfi during 1931-1932 and 1932-1933. They are useful for an understanding not only of her academic studies but also of Banfi’s thinking on aesthetics in the 1930s. In two appendices, the Author describes the content of the Italian philosopher’s courses on aesthetics between 1931-1932 and 1934-1935 and Antonia Pozzi’s university career. Unpublished until now, these notes by a student (...) are the only existing record of those courses since Banfi’s lecture notes never appeared in print. (shrink)
: Soulez's work focuses on the ethical dimension of philosophy manifested in the way in which thought engages and transforms an acting subject on a formal level, beyond what is "said" as such, including any explicitly ethical statements. Wittgenstein's injunction to "silence" on certain ethical matters does not, for Soulez, prevent his being a thinker of the ethical stakes of philosophy, contrary to more orthodox readings of the analytical tradition.