Journalof Integrative Humanism - Ghana:Vol. 6 No. 1 October2015,
ISSN: 2026—6286
CONTEXTUALISM: A CRITIQUE
BY
PUEBA, CLEVER LESOR
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY,
FACULTY OF ART, UNIVERSTY OF UYO,
UYO, NIGERIA
ABSTRACT
Contextualism is an epistemic concept of the contemporary period and it deals
mostly with the concepts of language and meaning. It is a theory which
distances itself from the self (personal) opinion; rather it is a general approach
as agreed upon and accepted by the people. Before the contemporalists, some
classical pMlosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, etc, address the issue of
language. Wittgenstein is one of those who spoke seriously about the use of
language and its meaning. The pragmatists were not left out because language
is communicated to representreality and its commonunderstanding. This paper
is to imveil the necessity and the importance of contextualism as a semantic
proposition.
INTRODUCTION
Epistemology is one of the core areas of philosophy and its area of
philosophical inquiry centers on knowledge. Historically, it has been notedthat
epistemology is derived from the Greek word "Episteme" and "logos" which
"episteme" means "knowledge" or "understanding" while "logos" is
"study". Etymologically, epistemology means "the study or the theory of
knowledge".
As an area of philosophy which its primary concern is knowledge, it
tries to take an in-depth study on the nature, source, extent and limits of
knowledge. And questions like how do we know what we claim we know? Do
we know anything for real? Our knowledge of the universe comes from where?
To what extent can we justify our knowledge-claim? and other such questions
are treated by epistemologist in their various ways.
In an attempt to clear doubt on these questions, Joseph Omoregbe
stated in his book tided Epistemology: A Systematicand Historical Study, tihat
"knowledge implies certainty. To claim to know something implies being
certain about that thing".
This means, for anything to be called or recognize as to know, such
must be there so as to be sure of what you claim you know. Knowledge for
Omoregbe is about been sure and certain, as an empirical conjoint.
153
Journal oflntegrative Humanism- Ghana: Vol. 6 No.1 October2015,
ISSN: 2026- 6286
Epistemological study is a broad one, and for the sake of this research
paper focus will be laid on the subject matter "contextualism". This will
enable the reader to read and understand clearly were the researcher is coming
from and where he is going to. By this, I mean, the research paper will be
narrowedtowards epistemological contextualism.
DEFINITION OF CONTEXTUALISM
In recent time there have been various explanations to the concept
contextualism. As other branches or areas of philosophy, there is no general
accepted definition to contextualism. Instead it has been said that contextualism
describes a collection of views in philosophy which emphasize the context in
which an action, utterance or expression occurs, "niis views hold that
philosophically controversial concepts, such as "meaning P" "knowing that P,"
"having a reason to A" and possibly even "being true" or "being right" only
havemeaning relative to a specific context. In epistemic sense, contextualism is
the treatment of word as context-sensitive.
It has also beenarticulated as a doctrine emphasizing the importance of
the context in solving problems or establishing the meaning of terms. By this,
contextualism tend to emphasize the importance of a concept in the context of
used and as epistemic concepts it tend towards problem solving within were it
is used.
Contextualism is a doctrine which emphasizes the importance of the
context of enquiry in a particular question. It deals with concept as semantics
oriented. It is a contextaccepted as authoritative by samegroup.
The word contextualism cut across various areas of studies and
disciplines such as ethics, psychology, linguistic, etc. in epistemic view it is
seen from the problem solving point as a theory toward epistemology. It brings
about common understanding and free fiow of meaning among set. It has
created more view in other aspect of philosophical enquiry of epistemology
(knowledge).
MAJOR PROPONENT AND THEIR ARTICULATIONS
Contextualism as a new trend in epistemology is very difficultto point
out its origin rather it is articulated to relativism. This philosophical account of
knowledge gains it popularity towards the end of20'"' century. Contextualism as
an epistemic concept comes as a result of epistemological response to the
problem of skepticism. Some notable contemporary contextualists are Micheal
Blome-Trillmam, MichaelWilliams, Stewart Conen, George Mattey, etc.
Ludwig Wittgenstein: Wittgenstein who lived between 1889-1951 is
one of the most infiuential British philosophers in the contemporary period. He
was bom in Vienna. His father was a Jewish who was later converted to
154
Journal of Integrative Humanlan - Ghana: Vol. 6 No.1 October 201S,
ISSN: 2026- 6286
Protestantism while his mother was of the Roman Catholicism. He was raised
by his mother's faith. Wittgenstein was an engineer and mathematician who
later studied philosophy forthree years at Cambridge. Two of his philosophical
works namely Tractatus Logic philosophicus and philosophical Investigation
makes him an influential philosopher.
His Tractatus contains picturing theory of language. This means a
theory in which language is seen from the angle of picturing reality. For him
(Wittgenstein) the function of language is to represent the states of affairs in the
world. This was known as his picture theory of language". According to Joseph
Omoregbe in his Epistemology (20) Wittgenstein tells us that his aim in the
book (Tractatus) was to draw a limit to though, by drawing a limit to language.
He was aware of the inseparable link between language and thought. The
scope of knowledge is thescope thought andthescope of knowledge. Thelimit
of language is the limit of bought and the limit of thought is the limit of
knowledge.
When Wittgenstein talked about language picturing reality he was
looking at language corresponding to the structure of reality. The duty of
language is to make us see reality in the world out there. His Tractatus is
linguistics oriented.
In his second book philosophicalInvestigations Wittgensteinstated that
the duty of philosophers is not to change the language of the people that a
proposition canbe useful within a context. It alsomeans that anylanguage used
outside the language game will be a meaningless. A proposition is meaningful
because of its universalagreement because that is where the meaningis found.
He further stated that language-game is a theory in which language is seen as a
gamft that has its own distinctive rules governing how it is played. By this he
means each language to be like a gamewhichit own rules governing it is used.
Omoregbe in his contemporary philosophy stated;
Every language is like a game, and every game has its
ovmrules which stipulate how it is to be played. There is
no absolute, objectivestructure for all game because all
games are not the same, each is different and has to be
played in its own way (121).
So it is to language, even when you learn a new language the
techniques has to be applied in other to picture reality or in otherfor it to has its
meaning spelt out. It is not possibleto have objective and universal structure for
all games, so it is for all languages. Each has their various structures that
govern how it is use.
155
Journal ttfln^rative Humanism- Ghana: Vol. 6 No. 1 OcUriter 201S,
ISSN: 2026 - 6286
The Pragmatist
Charles Sanders Perce (1849 -1914) developed and founded an
influential American philosophical theorycalledpragmatism. The central theme
of his philosophy is the theory of truthand meaning. This philosophical theory
made him to be very relevant in the history of philosophy and in the
development of epistemology. His philosophical'movement offers us a possible
method of determining the truth meaning and the truth value of an ideal, belief
or proposition. It creates a positive groimd for contextualism, when it maintains
that for any true it must work in practice (Omoregbe 99). This means, the
validity of any proposition, concept, belief or theory depends on its
practicability.
One of the important pointsdeduce fromthis principle is that the theory
is related to man and the world. "It must be in the first placebe related to man
in his dailylife. If it is not related to man or related to the practical problems of
his daily life, then it is meaningless" (Omoregbe).
The pragmatism of Charles Sanders Pierce is mainly the theory of truth
and meaning, its workability. This means the theoryregarded as true mustwork
in practice. It is about theworkability of a proposition, beliefor theory.
William James: William James pragmatic development at time sticks
closely to Charles Sanders Pierce's position when he says that pragmatism is
simply a method of clarifying the meaning of our conceptions. James took a
separate part from Pierce when he presented pragmatism as a theory of truth.
According to James what is true for a theory or proposition to be true is what
works in practice. So for us to say an idea, theoryor proposition is trueit means
that such idea, theory or proposition works in practice or it will be beneficial it
is put to practice. He went fruther by saying that the meaning and truth of an
idea depends on its cash value. Cash value here is about the difference the idea,
theory makes or the practical effects it has on one's life.
James further presented his theory as instrument that enables us to
handle reality. True beliefs have the characteristic that they pay or have
practical cash value (Willian Lawhead 461). For James truth is what works.
Therefore, a theory, proposition or an idea is true if it its works when put to
practice. As relating to contextualism, the context is accepted if it has value
meant for.
In as much as man gives meaning to language through communication,
the context can be taken as meaningful if it use within rightavenue. His theory
is a good ground of finding or creating a positive ground for finding out what
propositions are true. The same method finding what is true as applied to
contextualism.
For James, a proposition is meaningful if it can be shown to lead to
same practical consequence for human life; otherwise it is meaningless
(Omoregbe).
156
Journal of Integratlve Humanism-Ghana: Vol. 6 No.1 October 2015,
ISSN: 2026-6286
CRITIQUE OF CONTEXTUALISM
Contextualist epistemology has faced series criticism by various
philosophers and several philosophical movements in recent time. This is to say
that there are several philosophical movements who have challenged the
proposition posted by the contextualist. One of those philosophical groups that
kicked against the arguments of contextualism is invariantism. Invariantism
claims that knowledge is not context-sensitive rather it is invariant. More
recently criticism was been in the form of arrival theories such as SubjectSensitive Invarriatism (SSI) and Interest-Relative Invariatism (ITI). SSI claims
that the context of the subject of knowledge is attributed and determines by the
epistemic standard.
Others have argued that whether or not someone knows P may be
determine in partand by practical facts about the subject andthe usage. Claims
has vehemently been made by invariantism that contextualism is not proper
since contextualism among epistemologist is considered to be restricted to a
claim about the context-sensitivity of knowledge.
In other to give face to this recent epistemic development, some
philosophers have augured that contextualism tend to handle just few areas of
philosophy which is relative-wise, whereas epistemological axiom goes beyond
relativism subjectivism and its advocators.
IMPLICATION FOR TRADITIONAL EPISTEMOLOGY
In a general speaking, epistemology tries to givejustificatoryanswer to
questions that bordered on the nature, scope, origin and other condition of
Imowledge. This is whyclassical epistemologist understood epistemology to be
a "justified true believe". Epistemological truth is an axiom. Its truth is
certainty. It is both rational and empirical truth. Epistemology tends to look at
the real as far as knowledge is concern.
As an epistemic concept, contextualism is a semantic proposition about
"knowledge" and its application to language. It describes a collection of views
in epistemology which emphasize the concept in which an action, utterance, or
expression occurs. It argues that the action, utterance, or expression can onlybe
understood properlyrelativeto the contextin which the expression is used.
Whatever claim we made about our knowledge at a given time depends
on the features of our context. For example, you can't know if you see a fire
unless there is a fire, which involves how it is in your context. This claim will
be easily agreed upon because of it concrete factual native.
According to Wikipedia, "in epistemology, contextualism is the
treatment of the word "knows" as context-sensitive". In this case, context-
sensitive expression is expression that expresses different propositions that are
relative to different contexts of use epistemic contextualist have argue that the
157
JournalttflntegratlveHumanism-Ghana: Vol. 6No. 1 October201S,
ISSN:2026-6286
word to "know" is context-sensitive whichexpresses different relations in some
different contexts.
What varies with context is how well-position a subject must be with
respect to a proposition to coimt as "knowing" it. This now presented
contextualism in epistemology as a semantic thesis which deals with knowledge
and how it works in English.
The main tenet of contextualist epistemology is that knowledge
attribution is regard as context-senstive.
As it hasbeen saidthatepistemology comes as a response to skepticism
whenskepticism doubted the possibility of knowledge.
Skepticism simply means to doubt or the denial of the possibility of
knowledge. This means the skeptist doubted or denial that we do not know
anything for certainty. Theyclaim that certainty was impossible thatwe do not
know that which we claim we know.
Thefirst Westem traditional skeptists were the sophist. This skepticism
was a group of philosophers who were very skeptical and knowledge claim.
Notableamongthem were Gorgia, Protagoras, etc.
In cause of their criticism to knowledge Gorgia said we do not know
anything and even it we know, we cannot communicate is to others. This claim
of Gorgia means a total rejection of thepossibility of knowledge. Protagoras in
his own view said man is the standard of measuring what is true and what is not
true, so man only can decides what is true or false.
It will be important to note that,thereare different forms of skeptist as
to different forms of doubt. In Chapter Three of Living Issues in Epistemology
(Ozumba, 34), it was stated that "different forms of skepticism have different
levels of doubt". There is the absolute skeptic who holds that no form of
knowledge is possible "... we have the relative skeptic like, Protagoras who
holds that knowledge is possible ..." it is the response or the attempt to counter
skepticism thatepistemology has grown to its relevance today. Epistemologists
have tried very hard to sustain sufficient ground for knowledge claim to have
its absolute status.
This has given rise to various epistemic concepts and theories such that
today we can talk of contextualism, etc and eachof these theories tried to put
the skeptist wrong. By putting the skeptist wrong epistemological importance in
philosophy became a well known.
The main tenet of contextualist epistemology is that the attribute of
contextualism to knowledge is context-sensitive. This means when knowledge
is attributed to someone the context in which "knowledge" is used determine
by the standard to whichknowledge is being attributed. It will be clearlynoted
that in this sense epistemological contextualism is not knowledge that
encompass the entire epistemology rather it is knowledge by relativism. Here
knowledge regarded as knowledge by relativism and not by objectivism. It is
158
Journal ofIntegrative Humanism—Ghana: Vol. 6 No. 1 October 2015,
ISSN: 2026—6286
relative because its absolute view-point of truth or validity has relative or
subjective value, base on its differences in perception and consideration. By
this, contextualism is shallow to t he camp of relativism.
Again, an evidentialist account ofknowledge canbe a good instance of
contextualism, if its strength of justification is contextually varying matter. But
in all, it haslogically been made known in thisresearch thatit is relative dueto
its context base.
IMPLICATION FOR NATURALIZED EPISTEMOLOGY
Naturalized epistemology is an epistemic concept coin by W.V.O
Quine. In the development of naturalized epistemology W.V.O Queine was
concern mostly with the role of natural science in epistemological sense. He
focus on scientific methods of studying knowledge (epistemology) shifting to
empirical method acquiring knowledge away from thetraditional philosophical
was of knowing. Some advocates of naturalized epistemology in their view
claim that epistemologist must make use of scientific result in pursuing
epistemology. The most extreme view along this lines recommended that
traditionalepistemology be replaced with psychology.
When Quine beganto looked at the nature of naturalized epistemology
by saying that "epistemology is concerned withthe foundation of science". The
possibility of this statement began from traditional epistemologist in thenattempt to derive statement about the world aroimd us from statements about
our own sensation, it strictlywe could deriveour beliefs about our sensation.
Naturalized epistemology of Quine is based on three perspectives;
replacement naturalism, cooperative naturalism and substantive naturalism.
Replacement naturalized epistemology states that traditional epistemology
should be abandoned and replaced with the methodologies of neutral sciences.
This means the groimd for which traditional epistemology is based could no
longer guarantee our perfect knowledge of the world around us and our
sensation should be replace with neutral science. For cooperative naturalism
states in its inquiry by applying the knowledge we acquire from cognitive
sciences. Ozumba holds that substantive naturalism focuses on an asserted
equalityof facts of knowledge and natural facts.
Contextualism as an epistemic concept is factually oriented because of
its communication and to emphasize the importance of the contextof enquiryin
a particular way. Naturalized epistemology of Quine looked more at the
concept of natural science which is context oriented for there could be no
perfect knowledgewithout communication.
CONCLUSION
As a concept base theorycontextualism is relative. Contextualism is all
about man and its evolutional idea about knowledge in contextualism, we are
159
Journal of Integmtive Humanism- Ghana: Vol. 6 No.1 October201S,
ISSN: 2026- 6286
sajdng relativism can only be conceived if it is related to the context and the
theory.
Works Cited
Brower,Bruce W. Epistemology
http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/contextiialismepistemological-contextualism
EHE, EMMANUAL E, "Knowledge and The Question of Justification" in
Kyrian A andElijaOkon John(ed.) Living Issues in Epistemology,
Uyo: El-John publishers, 2013.
Copi, Irving M, Cohen, Carl, Introduction to Logic, New Delhi: Prentice Hall,
2002.
John, Elijah O.Man and Knowledge: Issues in Contemporary Philosophy, Uyo:
Scholars Press, 2006.
Klein, Peter D. Epistemology: Contextualism, Publication Date: 2005. Retrieve
May, 2015.
Lawhead, William F. The Voyage of Discovery: A History Introduction to
Philosophy, USA: Wadsworth, 2002.
Omoregbe, Joseph a Simplified History of Western Philosophy: contemporary
philosophyLagos: Joja EducationalResearch and Publishers, 1996.
Omoregbe, Joseph Epistemology: A Systematic and History Study Lagos: Joja
Educational Research and Publishers, 1998
Sosa, Emest. Contextualism
http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/contextualism.
Publication
Date: 2005. Retrieve May, 2015.
Virtue Epistemology, htt://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/virtue-epistemology.
Retrieve May, 2015.
160