Acta Analytica

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 91–104 | Cite as

Justification in context

  • Matjaž Potrč
  • Vojko Strahovnik


Contextualism has been a prominent epistemological theory for more than twenty years. Its central claim is that standards for justification and of knowledge ascriptions can vary from one context to another context. However this in not the end of the story, for one must subsequently explain these variations of standards in order to avoid arbitrariness. Two strategies offer themselves at this point: generalism and particularism. We argue that the latter could provide a viable support for an overall contextualist approach. David Lewis in his paper “Elusive Knowledge” provides a nice case of contextual epistemology and points to several important aspects of knowledge. But we disagree with Lewis on two points of his account: (i) knowledge without justification and (ii) set of exceptionless rules that determine relevant alternatives. We preserve the overall conception of knowledge as justified true belief and attempt to work out a contextualist account of knowledge by pointing to an alternative, particularistic view of relevance and relevant alternatives.


contextualism justification relevant alternatives particularism D. Lewis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cohen, S. 1998: “Contextualist Solutions to Epistemological Problems: Scepticism, Gettier and the Lottery”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 76, 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cohen, S. 1999: “Contextualism, Skepticism, and the Structure of Reasons”, Philosophical Perspectives 13, 57–89.Google Scholar
  3. Dancy, J. 1993: Moral Reasons. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Dancy, J. 2000: “The Particularist’s Progress”, in B.W. Hooker and M. Little (eds.), Moral Particularism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 130–156.Google Scholar
  5. Dancy, J. 2004: Ethics Without Principles. (Oxford: OUP)Google Scholar
  6. Gettier, E. L. 1963: “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” Analysis 23, 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Horgan, T. and Henderson, D. 2000: “Iceberg Epistemology”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61, 497–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Horgan, T. and Henderson, D. 2001: “Practicing Safe Epistemology”, Philosophical Studies 102, 227–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Horgan, T. and Henderson, D. Forthcoming: “Morphological Content and Justified Belief”.Google Scholar
  10. Horgan, T. and Tienson, J. 1996: Connectionism and the Philosophy of Psychology, Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  11. Lewis D. 1979: “Scorekeeping in a Language Game”, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. 1996: “Elusive Knowledge”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74, 549–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Potrč, M. and Strahovnik, V. 2004a: Practical Contexts. Frankfurt: Ontos-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Potrč, M. and Strahovnik, V. 2004b: “Metaphysics: Ultimate and Regional Ontology” Informacion Filosofica, I, 1, 21–45.Google Scholar
  15. Sosa, E. 2003: “Relevant Alternatives, Contextualism Included”, Philosophical Studies 112, 35–65.Google Scholar
  16. Timmons, M. 1999: Morality without Foundations, New York: OUP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matjaž Potrč
    • 1
  • Vojko Strahovnik
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Arts Department of PhilosophyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations