Philosophical Studies

, Volume 135, Issue 2, pp 225–254 | Cite as

From Epistemic Contextualism to Epistemic Expressivism

Article
First Online:

Abstract

In this paper, I exploit the parallel between epistemic contextualism and metaethical speaker-relativism to argue that a promising way out of two of the primary problems facing contextualism is one already explored in some detail in the ethical case – viz. expressivism. The upshot is an argument for a form of epistemic expressivism modeled on a familiar form of ethical expressivism. This provides a new nondescriptivist option for understanding the meaning of knowledge attributions, which arguably better captures the normative nature of epistemic discourse than descriptivist competitors like invariantism and contextualism.

Keywords

Knowledge Claim Knowledge Attribution Epistemic Norm Moral System Epistemic Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brandom R. (2000). Articulating Reasons. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA .Google Scholar
  2. Chrisman M. (2005). Review of Allan Gibbard’s Thinking How to Live. Ethics 115: 406–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chrisman, M. (ms-a): Ethical Expressivism and the Many Senses of ‘Express’.”.Google Scholar
  4. Chrisman, M. (ms-b): Metaethics: Transcending the Noncognitivism-Descriptivism Debate.”.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen S. (1988). How to Be a Fallibilist. Philosophical Perspectives 2: 91–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen S. (1999). Contextualism, Skepticism and the Structure of Reasons. Philosophical Perspectives 13: 57–89.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen S. (2004). Contextualism and Unhappy-Face Solutions. Philosophical Studies 119: 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Creswell M.J. (1973). Logics and Languages. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  9. Craig E. (1990). Knowledge and the State of Nature. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  10. DeRose K. (1992). Contextualism and Knowledge Attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52: 913–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeRose K. (1995). Solving the Skeptical Puzzle. Philosophical Review 104: 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeRose K. (2004). Single Scoreboard Semantics. Philosophical Studies 119: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeRose K. (2005). The Ordinary Language Basis for Contextualism. Philosophical Quarterly 55: 172–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dreier J. (1990). Internalism and Speaker Relativism. Ethics 101: 6–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Field H. (1998). Epistemological Nonfactualism and the A Prioricity of Logic. Philosophical Studies 92: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibbard A. (1986). An Expressivist Theory of Normative Discourse. Ethics 96: 472–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gibbard A. (1990). Wise Choices, Apt Feelings. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA .Google Scholar
  18. Gibbard A. (2003). Thinking How to Live. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA .Google Scholar
  19. Hawthorne J. (2004). Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford University Press, Oxford .Google Scholar
  20. Hofweber T. (1999). ‘Contextualism and the Meaning-Intention Problem’. In: Korta, K., Ernest, S. and Xabier, A. (eds) Cognition, Agency and Rationality, Kluwer: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  21. Lewis D. (1996). Elusive Knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74: 549–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lycan W. (2000). Philosophy of Language. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Mackie J.L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth .Google Scholar
  24. Neta R. (2003). “Skepticism, Contextualism and Semantic Self-Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67: 396–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ridge, M. (forthcoming): ‘Ecumenical Expressivism: Finessing Frege’, Ethics.Google Scholar
  26. Rysiew P. (2001). The Context-Sensitivity of Knowledge Attributions. Nous 35: 477–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosenberg J. (2002). Thinking About Knowing. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Schiffer S. (1996). Contextualist Solutions to Skepticism. Proceedings of the Aristotlean Society 96: 317–333.Google Scholar
  29. Sellars W. (1963). ‘Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind’, reprinted in his“ Science, Perception and Reality. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London .Google Scholar
  30. Stanley J. (2004). On the Linguistic Basis for Contextualism. Philosophical Studies 119: 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stanley J. (2005). Knowledge and Interest. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Williamson, T. (2005): ‘Knowledge, Context and the Agent’s Point of View’, in G. Preyer and G. Peter (eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy: On Epistemology, Language and Truth, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Williamson T. (2005). Contextualism, Subject-Sensitive Invariantism and Knowledge of Knowledge. Philosophical Quarterly 55: 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wright C. (2005). Contextualism and Scepticism: Even-Handedness, Factivity and Surreptitiously Raising the Standards. Philosophical Quarterly 55: 236–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of North CarolinaChaper HillUSA

Personalised recommendations