Philosophia

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 741–750 | Cite as

Interests Contextualism

Article

Abstract

In this paper I develop a version of contextualism that I call interests contextualism. Interests contextualism is the view that the truth-conditions of knowledge ascribing and denying sentences are partly determined by the ascriber’s interests and purposes. It therefore stands in opposition to the usual view on which the truth-conditions are partly determined by the ascriber’s conversational context. I give an argument against one particular implementation of the usual view, differentiate interests contextualism from other prominent versions of contextualism and argue that, unlike those versions, interests contextualism can mitigate against the epistemic descent objection put forward by Duncan Pritchard in his ‘Contextualism, Scepticism, and the Problem of Epistemic Descent’ (the objection is that, on the contextualist view, an ascriber of knowledge cannot, for some subject S and proposition p, properly ascribe knowledge that p to S if that ascriber has previously retracted an earlier ascription of knowledge that p to S).

Keywords

Epistemology Contextualism Practical interests Salience Epistemic descent 

References

  1. Blome-Tillmann, M. (2009). Knowledge and Presuppositions. Mind, 118(470), 241–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. DeRose, K. (1995). Solving the skeptical problem. Philosophical Review, 104(1), 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DeRose, K. (2009). The case for contextualism. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lewis, D. (1996). Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74, 649–667.Google Scholar
  5. Pritchard, D. (2001). 'Contextualism. Scepticism, and the Problem of Epistemic Descent'. Dialectica, 55, 327–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and practical interests. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  7. Williams, B. (1980). ‘Internal and External Reasons’, reprinted with postscript in Millgram, ed., 2001, Varieties of Practical Reasoning, MIT Press, pp. 77–97.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations