Combining Texts

Ideas for 'fragments/reports', 'Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy' and 'Contextualism Contested'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     choose another area for these texts

display all the ideas for this combination of texts


4 ideas

13. Knowledge Criteria / C. External Justification / 6. Contextual Justification / b. Invariantism
That standards vary with context doesn't imply different truth-conditions for judgements [Conee]
     Full Idea: The fact that different standards are routinely applied in making an evaluative judgement does not imply the correctness of semantic contextualism about the contents of judgements. ..We can't infer different truth conditions from differing standards.
     From: Earl Conee (Contextualism Contested [2005], p.51)
     A reaction: This is the basic objection to contextualism from the 'invariantist' camp, which says there are facts about good judgement and justification, despite contextual shifts. My sympathies are with the contextualists (on this one).
Maybe there is only one context (the 'really and truly' one) for serious discussions of knowledge [Conee]
     Full Idea: Maybe every issue about knowledge (Gettier problem, scientific knowledge, justification, scepticism) has been discussed solely in the single 'really and truly' context.
     From: Earl Conee (Contextualism Contested [2005], p.53)
     A reaction: This seems not to be true, if we contrast Descartes' desire for total certainty with Peirce's fallibilism. It seems to me that modern philosophy has deliberately relaxed the standard, in order to make some sort of knowledge possible. Cf. Idea 12894.
13. Knowledge Criteria / E. Relativism / 6. Relativism Critique
Our ability to react to an alien culture shows that ethical thought extends beyond cultural boundaries [Williams,B]
     Full Idea: The fact that people can and must react when confronted with another culture, and do so by applying existing notions, seems to show that ethical thought of a given culture can always stretch beyond its boundaries.
     From: Bernard Williams (Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy [1985], Ch. 9)
     A reaction: Hardly conclusive, but it does seem to show that there is an element of universalising in values, no matter how local you may consider them to be.
It is very confused to deduce a nonrelativist morality of universal toleration from relativism [Williams,B]
     Full Idea: Some people believe a properly relativist view requires you to be equally well disposed to everybody's ethical beliefs, but this is seriously confused, as relativism has led to a nonrelativist morality of universal toleration.
     From: Bernard Williams (Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy [1985], Ch. 9)
     A reaction: Good point. This need not stop a relativist from passionately defending tolerance - it is only that the lack of rational support for the passion must be recognised.