structure for 'Knowledge Criteria'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

13. Knowledge Criteria / E. Relativism / 2. Knowledge as Convention

[knowledge is just social convention (Gk. nomos)]

4 ideas
By nature people are close to one another, but culture drives them apart [Hippias]
     Full Idea: I regard you all as relatives - by nature, not by convention. By nature like is akin to like, but convention is a tyrant over humankind and often constrains people to act contrary to nature.
     From: Hippias (fragments/reports [c.430 BCE]), quoted by Plato - Protagoras 337c8
Truth is mutually agreed perception [Leibniz]
     Full Idea: In the mutual agreement of perceivers consists the truth of the phenomena.
     From: Gottfried Leibniz (Letters to Des Bosses [1715], 1716.05.29)
     A reaction: This remark is startling close to the 'perspectivism' that crops up in the late notebooks of Nietzsche. Leibniz was keen on relativism in many areas, starting with the nature of space. I personally think Leibniz meant 'knowledge' rather than 'truth'.
Objectivity is intersubjectivity [Davidson]
     Full Idea: An entity is objective in so far as it is intersubjective.
     From: Donald Davidson (Three Varieties of Knowledge [1991]), quoted by Martin Kusch - Knowledge by Agreement Ch.10
     A reaction: This thought baffled me until I saw it in the context of socialised epistemology. Effectively objectivity is subsumed under justification, which in turn is seen in a social context, not private to individuals.
Contextualism says that knowledge is relative to its context; 'empty' depends on your interests [O'Grady]
     Full Idea: Contextualist about knowledge say that "to know" means different things in different context. For example, a warehouse may be empty for a furniture owner, but not for a bacteriologist or a physicist.
     From: Paul O'Grady (Relativism [2002], Ch.4)
     A reaction: There is obviously some truth in this, but we might say that 'empty' is a secondary quality, or that 'empty for furniture' is not relative. We needn't accept relativism here.