How Context Controls Our Perceptions

Learning Contextualism is important because it helps us understand how knowledge, meaning, and moral judgments can vary depending on different contexts, making our interpretations and decisions more nuanced and accurate.Contextualism is a philosophical theory that explores how the truth or meaning of statements can change depending on the context. This detailed overview covers contextualism in epistemology, showing how knowledge claims vary with different situations, and compares contextualism vs invariantism. It also examines contextualism in semantics, explaining how language meaning shifts with context, and looks at pragmatics and contextualism through conversational implicatures. The discussion includes indexicality and deixis, which are context-dependent expressions. In ethics, moral contextualism is explored, demonstrating how moral judgments change with context, and comparing contextualism in ethics with moral relativism. The chapters provide a comparative analysis of contextualism across various philosophical areas, offering practical applications and addressing criticisms.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/library-of-philosophy--5939304/support.

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Contextualism is a philosophical theory that asserts that the truth value or meaning of

(00:04):
statements can vary depending on the context in which they are expressed.
Contextualism states that whether a person knows something can depend on the context
of the conversation.
For example, consider the bank cases presented by philosopher Keith DeRose.
In one scenario, a person might claim to know that the bank is open on Saturday based
on their memory of visiting it recently.

(00:26):
In a low-stakes context, such as planning a casual visit, this claim might be accepted
as knowledge.
However, in a high-stakes context, such as needing to deposit a large check to avoid financial
penalties, the same claim might be scrutinized more rigorously, and the person might be
said not to know the bank's hours without further verification.
Contextualism contrasts with invariantism, which says that the truth value of knowledge

(00:50):
claims remains constant regardless of context.
Some argues that if a person knows something, they know it in all contexts, and if they
do not, they don't know it in any context.
Contextualism, on the other hand, allows for flexibility and acknowledges that our standards
for knowledge can shift based on situational factors.

(01:11):
One of the strengths of contextualism is its ability to account for the variability
in our everyday judgments about knowledge.
It aligns with our intuitive sense that what counts is knowing something can change depending
on the circumstances.
For instance, in casual conversations, we often accept claims of knowledge without demanding
rigorous proof, while in more critical situations, we require higher standards of evidence.

(01:35):
Contextualism also has practical applications in various fields.
In law, for example, the standards of proof required to establish guilt or innocence can
vary depending on the context of the case.
In communication, understanding the context in which statements are made can help interpret
their meaning more accurately.
Interactions often rely on contextual cues to determine the appropriateness of certain

(01:56):
behaviors or responses.
Contextualism in semantics is the view that the meaning of words and sentences can change
depending on the context in which they are used.
This theory is significant in understanding how language functions in different situations
and how meaning is constructed dynamically.
In semantics, contextualism suggests that the interpretation of a sentence depends

(02:18):
on various contextual factors, such as the speaker's intentions, the listener's background
knowledge, and the specific circumstances of the conversation.
For example, the sentence it is raining can have different meanings depending on where
and when it is said.
If someone says this while looking out the window, it likely means it is raining at that location
and time.
However, if the same sentence is said during a phone call with someone in a different city,

(02:43):
the listener might need additional context to understand where it is raining.
Pragmatics, a branch of linguistics that studies how context influences the interpretation
of meaning plays a crucial role in contextualism.
Pragmatics examines how speakers use language in real life situations and how listeners interpret
these utterances based on contextual clues.

(03:05):
For instance, conversational implicatures are a key concept in pragmatics.
These are meanings that are not explicitly stated but are inferred from the context.
If someone says can you pass the salt?
During a meal, the literal question is about the listener's ability to pass the salt, but
the implied request is for the listener to actually pass the salt.

(03:27):
Indexicality and deaccess are related concepts that further illustrate contextualism in language.
Indexacles are words or expressions whose meaning is dependent on the context in which
they are used.
Examples include pronouns like "I you here and now."
The meaning of these words changes based on who is speaking, where they are and when
they are speaking.
Deictic expressions are similar and include words like this that these and those which

(03:50):
also rely on contextual information to convey meaning.
To better understand how contextualism operates in language, consider detailed case studies.
One example is the use of indexicals in literature.
In a novel, the pronoun I refers to different characters depending on the narrative perspective.
In a first person narrative, I refers to the narrator while in dialogue it refers to

(04:12):
the character speaking.
This shifting reference illustrates how context determines meaning.
Another example can be found in media.
News reports often use phrases like today or recently which require the reader to know
the publication date to understand the timing of events.
Without this contextual information, the meaning of these temporal expressions would be unclear.

(04:34):
In everyday conversations, context helps resolve ambiguities and clarifies meaning.
For instance, if someone says I'll meet you at the bank, the word bank could refer to
a financial institution or the side of a river.
The context of the conversation, such as previous discussions or the location of the speakers,
helps determine the intended meaning.
Moral contextualism is the view that the truth or justification of moral judgments depends

(04:59):
on the context in which they are made.
This theory suggests that what is morally right or wrong can vary depending on the specific
circumstances, cultural background and individual perspectives involved.
Moral contextualism asserts that moral judgments are not absolute but are influenced by various
contextual factors.
For example, consider a situation where lying might be considered morally wrong in general.

(05:22):
However, in a specific context where lying could save someone's life, moral contextualism
would argue that lying in this case could be morally justified.
This approach allows for flexibility in moral reasoning and acknowledges the complexity
of real world ethical situations.
The moral analysis between moral contextualism and moral relativism highlights their differences

(05:42):
in similarities.
Moral relativism holds that moral judgments are true or false relative to specific cultural
or individual standards without any objective or universal moral truths.
In contrast, moral contextualism does not deny the possibility of objective moral truths
but emphasizes that the application of these truths can vary depending on the context.

(06:04):
While both theories recognize the influence of context, moral contextualism allows for
the possibility of some universal moral principles that can be applied differently in different
situations.
One of the strengths of moral contextualism is its ability to provide nuanced solutions
to ethical dilemmas.
For instance, in medical ethics, decisions about patient care often involve complex considerations

(06:25):
of context.
A doctor might face a situation where administering a certain treatment could have both positive
and negative outcomes.
Moral contextualism allows the doctor to weigh these outcomes based on the specific circumstances,
such as the patient's condition, preferences, and potential risks, rather than adhering
to a rigid moral rule.

(06:47):
In business ethics, moral contextualism can help address issues such as corporate social
responsibility and ethical decision making.
For example, a company might face a dilemma between maximizing profits and ensuring fair
labor practices.
Moral contextualism would encourage the company to consider the broader context, including
the impact on employees, customers, and the community to make a morally informed decision.

(07:11):
Personal relationships also benefit from a contextualist approach to ethics.
Consider a situation where a friend asks for advice on a sensitive issue.
Moral contextualism would suggest that the advice given should take into account the friend's
specific circumstances, emotional state, and the potential consequences of different actions.

(07:31):
This approach promotes empathy and understanding, allowing for more compassionate and context-sensitive
moral judgments.
Despite its strengths, moral contextualism faces criticisms.
One common criticism is that it can lead to moral uncertainty or inconsistency, as different
contexts might lead to different moral judgments.

(07:52):
Experiences argue that this variability can undermine the reliability of moral reasoning
and make it difficult to establish clear moral guidelines.
However, proponents of moral contextualism respond that this flexibility is necessary
to account for the complexity of real-world situations and that it encourages careful and
thoughtful moral deliberation.