Tni H.v.

u Riviiw oi Iniiosovnv
Conlexl and Use 133
!"#$%&''' )*+)
!"#$%&$ (#) *+%
!" $%&'( !)*+,-&
$%&'( !)*+,-& *& .&&'/*%0- 1)'2-&&') *( 03- 4-5%)06-(0 '2 13*7'&'53" %0 03-
8(*9-)&*0" '2 :3*/%,'; <- =')>& *( 03- 53*7'&'53" '2 6*(+? -5*&0-6'7'," %(+ 03-
53*7'&'53" '2 7%(,@%,-; <*& 5)*6%)" )-&-%)/3 5)'A-/0& /'(/-)( )%0*'(%7*0" %(+
ccnicxiua|isn. Hc nas a|sc uriucn cn inc |aicr Wiugcnsicin, ncnia| ccnicni, an!
*&&@-& *( 03- 53*7'&'53" '2 %/0*'(;
,-'./0/,-1 /2 .3456357
Tni H.v.u Riviiw oi Iniiosovnv
,(-.) /0"%1(2%3 132
!"#$%&''' )*+)
Schechlman, M. 2005. IersonaI Idenlily and lhe Iasl. "#$%&'&(#)* "')+#$,-.)* / "')+#&%&0)
12: . 922.
Schoeman, I., ed. 1987. 12'(&3'$4$%$-)* 5#,.,+-2.* ,36 -#2 78&-$&3'9 Cambridge: Cambridge
Universily Iress.
Sher, G. 2006. :3 ".,$'2 &; <%,82. Oxford: Oxford Universily Iress.
Shoemaker, D. 2003. Caring, Idenlihcalion, and Agency. 7-#$+' 114: . 88118.
Shoemaker, D. 2009a. Pcrscna| |!cniiiq an! |inics. A Bricj |nirc!uciicn. Ielerborough, Onlario:
roadviev Iress.
Shoemaker, D. 2009b. ResonsibiIily and DisabiIily. =2-,(#$%&'&(#) 40: . 438461.
Shoemaker, D. Iorlhcoming. AuribulabiIily, AnsverabiIily, and AccounlabiIily: Tovard a
Wider Theory of MoraI ResonsibiIily. 7-#$+'.
Shoemaker, S. 1970. Iersons and Their Iasls. >82.$+,3 "#$%&'&(#$+,% ?@,.-2.%) 7: . 269285.
Smilh, A.M. 2005. ResonsibiIily for Auiludes: Aclivily and Iassivily in MenlaI Life. 7-#$+'
115: . 236271.
Sider, T. 2001. A&@.BC$823'$&3,%$'89 Oxford: Oxford Universily Iress.
Slravson, I.I. 1963. Ireedom and Resenlmenl. ".&+226$30' &; -#2 <.$-$'# >+,628) 48: . 125.
SlribIen, C. 2007. GuiIl, Shame, and Shared ResonsibiIily. D&@.3,% &; E&+$,% "#$%&'&(#) 38:
. 469485.
Slum, I. 1988. Sanclihcalion, Hardening of lhe Hearl, and Irankfurl's Concel of Iree WiII.
F#2 D&@.3,% &; "#$%&'&(#) 85: . 395420.
Slum, I. 1996. Iersons: Idenlihcalion and Ireedom. "#$%&'&(#$+,% F&($+' 24: . 183214.
Tadros, V. 2005. 5.$8$3,% 12'(&3'$4$%$-)9 Oxford: Oxford Universily Iress.
ThaIberg, I. 1978. HierarchicaI AnaIyses of Unfree Aclion. 5,3,6$,3 D&@.3,% &; "#$%&'&(#) 8:
. 211226.
VeIIeman, }.D. 2002. Idenlihcalion and Idenlily. In Ccnicurs cj Agcncq. |ssaqs cn Tncncs
;.&8 G,..) A.,3H;@.-, ed. S. uss and L. Overlon (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Iress), . 91123.
Walson, G. 1975. Iree Agency. D&@.3,% &; "#$%&'&(#) 72: . 205220. Rerinled in Walson
2004, . 1332.
Walson, G. 2004. >023+) ,36 >3'I2.,4$%$-). Oxford: Oxford Universily Iress.
Wiggins, D. 1967. :623-$-) ,36 E(,-$&BF28(&.,% 5&3-$3@$-). Oxford: asiI IackveII.
WoIf, S. 1987. Sanily and lhe Melahysics of MoraI ResonsibiIily. In R2'(&3'$4$%$-)* 5#,.,+-2.*
,36 -#2 78&-$&3', ed. I. Schoeman (Cambridge: Cambridge Universily Iress), . 4662.
WoIf, S. 1990. A.226&8 J$-#$3 12,'&3. Oxford: Oxford Universily Iress.

1. Cnntcxtua!ism
O
Ni oi +ni xos+ s+ixiNo uiviiovxiN+s iN iciN+ .N.iv+ic vniiosovnv
is lhe enormous ouIarily of lhe aroach lo meaning and conlenl
knovn as conlexluaIism. ConlexluaIisl lheories are key Iayers in
a range of currenl debales in hiIosohy of Ianguage, eislemoIogy,
moraI hiIosohy, lhe hiIosohy of Iogic, melahysics, and eIsevhere.
An orienlalion lhal 25 years ago had al mosl a handfuI of adherenls is nov
mainslream, in some recincls verging on orlhodoxy.
Whal is conlexluaIism` Whal il is lo have a conlexluaIisl viev of
somelhing` Consider lhe foIIoving lhree cases:
1) Imagine lvo acquainlances of a cerlain Mary, Naomi and Didi, vho
have indeendenlIy Iearned lhal Mary has von a miIIion doIIars
in lhe Iouery. Didi is imressed by Mary's vindfaII, and says lo
one of her friends, Mary is rich. IIsevhere, Naomi, vho moves
in more rarehed circIes, says lo one of her friends, Mary is nol
rich al aII. olh Naomi and Didi have robabIy soken lhe lrulh,
for il is very IausibIe lhal lhe lrulh of lheir cIaims aboul veaIlh
lurns on vhalever slandards revaiI vilhin lheir conversalions
(Richard, 2004, . 218).
2) Iia has a }aanese maIe. She does nol couon lo lhe reddish hue
of ils Ieaves, so she ainls lhem green. The lask comIeled, she
says, Thal's beuer. The Ieaves on my lree are green nov. She
has soken lhe lrulh. A fev momenls Ialer her bolanisl friend
iII caIIs, soIiciling samIes for a sludy on lhe chemislry of green
Ieaves. Iia says, The Ieaves on my lree are green. You can have
lhem. Nov she has soken a faIsehood (Travis, 1997, . 89).
3) Sura| and his vife drive by lheir bank on a Iriday lo deosil a
aycheck. ul lhe Iines are Iong and lhere is no arlicuIar rush
lo gel lhe check deosiled. Sura| suggesls bringing il by lhe nexl
morning. His vife oinls oul lhal many banks are nol oen on
Tni H.v.u Riviiw oi Iniiosovnv
Conlexl and Use
Tni H.v.u Riviiw oi Iniiosovnv
}ason ridges 134 135
!"#$%&''' )*+) !"#$%&''' )*+)
Salurdays. Sura| says, I knov il'II be oen. I vas lhere lvo veeks
ago on a Salurday. His avovaI of knovIedge is lrue.
Nov consider a sIighl varialion. As before, Sura| and his vife drive
by lheir bank on a Iriday lo deosil a aycheck and are mel vilh
Iong Iines. In lhis scenario, hovever, il is exlremeIy imorlanl for
lhem lhal lhe check be deosiled before Monday. Sura| makes lhe
same suggeslion lo vail unliI Salurday as in lhe hrsl version and
simiIarIy aeaIs lo his revious Salurday visil lo lhe bank. ul
his vife counlers, anks do change lheir hours. Do you knov
lhe bank viII be oen lomorrov` And Sura| reIies, WeII, no.
I'd beuer go in and make sure. His deniaI of knovIedge is lrue
(IighlIy adaled from DeRose, 1992, . 9134).
On a lradilionaI concelion of lrulh, lhe lrulh vaIue of a cIaim is
delermined by lvo lhings: lhe conlenl of lhe cIaim, and lhe vay lhe vorId
is. A cIaim is lrue i vhal is cIaimed (conlenl) is in facl so (vorId). Granling
lhis concelion, il's very dicuIl lo see hov lo exIain Richard's, Travis's and
DeRose's roosed assignmenls of lrulh vaIues excel by suosing lhal lhe
reIevanl redicale lerm in each caserich, green, and knovsexresses
a dierenl conlenl in ils lvo occurrences.
1
riey:
a) In 1), lhe vorId is heId hxed. Given lhe Iav of nonconlradiclion, il
foIIovs lhal Naomi's and Didi's cIaims cannol bolh be lrue unIess
vhal Naomi cIaims, in saying Mary is nol rich, is nol lhe negalion
of vhal Didi cIaims in saying Mary is rich. And vhere couId lhe
conlenl dier excel in resecl of vhal is exressed by rich`
b) In 2), lhe vorId is aIso heId hxed. There is a comIicalion in lhis
case, hovever: Iia's lvo cIaims are made al sIighlIy dierenl limes.
Il is oen lo hoId lhal her lvo cIaims dier in conlenl in virlue of
imIicilIy seaking of dierenl limes. (Imagine a siIenl nov al
lhe end of lhe second asserlion lo araIIeI lhe exIicil one al lhe
end of lhe hrsl.) ul lhis enabIes us lo assign a univocaI conlenl
lo lhe lvo occurrences of green onIy if ve are reared lo say
lhal Iia's Ieaves change coIor, in lhe reIevanl dimension, vhiIe she
vaIks inside lo ansver lhe hone. And lhal seems ridicuIous. The
ushol, il vouId seem, is lhal Iia's lvo remarks cannol dier in
lrulh vaIue unIess vhal she said lo be so of her Ieaves, vhen she
hrsl caIIed lhem green, is nol vhal she said lo be so of her Ieaves
vhen she nexl caIIed lhem green.
c) In 3), lhe vorId is nol heId hxed, ve are imagining lvo dierenl
''ossibIe vorIds.'' ul according lo a famiIiar concelion of
knovIedge, vhelher one knovs a given roosilion is a mauer of
vhal grounds or evidence one's beIief in lhe roosilion is based
uon. And Sura|'s grounds for beIieving lhe bank lo be oen do
nol aear lo dier in lhe lvo scenarios. Since lhe lvo vorIds are
lhus simiIar in aII reIevanl resecls, ve are in lhe same silualion
as vilh 1): ve cannol exIain hov bolh asserlions couId be lrue
vilhoul osiling a dierence in lhe conlenl exressed by lhe lvo
uses of lhe redicalive lerm.
2

If ve generaIize lhese resuIls in lhe vays lhe examIes seem lo invile,
ve arrive al lhree conlexluaIisl doclrines, one aboul laIk of veaIlh, one aboul
laIk of coIor, and one aboul laIk of knovIedge. The cIaim in each case is lhal lhe
conlribulion of a cerlain verb or common noun lo lhe conlenl of an asserlion is
conlexl deendenl: vhal one asserls of somelhing, in aIying lhal noun or verb
lo il, viII deend uon lhe conlexl of one's asserlion.
3
Indeed, lvo asserlive uses
of lhe redicalive lerm can dierenl in conlenl lo lhe exlenl lhal one such asserlion
is lrue and anolher is faIse even vhiIe lhe resl of lhe conlenl is idenlicaI and lhe
vorId is heId reIevanlIy hxed.
Some cIaims of conlexl deendence are unconlroversiaI. Iev eoIe deny,
for examIe, lhal lhe conlenl of an asserlion of a senlence conlaining I deends
uon lhe conlexl of use, in arlicuIar, il deends uon vho lhe seaker is. (CIearIy
my uuerance of I am coId mighl be lrue vhiIe your simuIlaneous uuerance of
lhal senlence be faIse, and lhe naluraI exIanalion is lhal my uuerance seaks
of me and yours of you.) The conlexluaIisl doclrines mosl videIy discussed by
hiIosohers lhese days are nol egged lo obvious indexicaIs Iike I, here,
or nov. Ralher, as in our lhree examIes, lhey focus on lerms vhere il vouId
be in lhe nalure of a discovery lhal lhese lerms inlroduce conlexl deendence
inlo lhe conlenls of lhe asserlions lhey are used lo frame. Is nol il surrising lhal
lhere is more lhan one lhing ve couId be saying of a erson in saying lhal she
knovs lhal such-and-such`
In vhal foIIovs, I viII nol aueml lo delermine lhe lrulh of our samIe
conlexluaIisl doclrines, or of any olher. Inslead, I vanl lo examine a very
abslracl idea aboul meaning lhal mighl be laken, and has indeed been laken,
lo rovide suorl for conlexluaIisl doclrines across lhe board. The idea is lhal
use delermines meaning. Whal lhis idea is laken lo suggesl is lhal ve can execl
conlexl deendence of lhe sorl reresenled by our lhree samIes lo be quile
revaIenllo be, in facl, lhe characlerislic and erhas even ubiquilous condilion
of discourse in a naluraI Ianguage. I viII give reasons for lhinking lhal lhe idea
does nol rovide any basis for lhis execlalion.
To see lhe roIe lhe idea can be laken lo Iay in undervriling conlexluaIism,
il viII heI lo hrsl Iook al vhal eislemoIogicaI conlexluaIisls have had lo say
aboul skelicism.

2. 5kcpticism and dnubt
|vis+rVoiocic~i co+rx+u~iisV noius +n.+ +ni coN+iN+ oi . xNowiiuoi
ascrilion, as exressed by an asserlion of a senlence of lhe form S knovs lhal
, deends uon lhe conlexl of lhe asserlion (in vays lhal go beyond any conlexl-
deendence, such as il is, lraceabIe lo fealures of lhe exressions subsliluling for
S and ). DelaiIs vary, bul lhe mosl famiIiar version of lhe viev hoIds lhal
lhe conlenl of an asserlion of S knovs lhal is such lhal ils lrulh vaIue hinges
in arl on vhelher S is in a osilion lo ruIe oul saIienl doubls aboul lhe lrulh of
lhe roosilion .
4
Conlexl deendence enlers lhe iclure because vhich doubls
Tni H.v.u Riviiw oi Iniiosovnv
Conlexl and Use
Tni H.v.u Riviiw oi Iniiosovnv
}ason ridges 136 137
!"#$%&''' )*+) !"#$%&''' )*+)
counl as saIienlvhich counler-ossibiIilies are reIevanl, in lhe originaI lerms
of lhe Iileralureis heId lo vary vilh lhe conlexl of lhe asserlion.
Much of lhe aeaI of lhis sorl of viev for eislemoIogisls Iies in ils
aarenl olenliaI lo defuse argumenls for skelicism. Suose eislemoIogicaI
conlexluaIism as |usl described is correcl, and suose aIso lhal il is onIy in
excelionaI circumslances lhal lhe uuerance 'I mighl be dreaming' . . . can be
underslood as educing a reIevanl ossibiIily (Iulnam, 2001, . 5). Il foIIovs from
lhese suosilions lhal my inabiIily lo ruIe oul lhal I am dreaming vouId nol
bear on lhe lrulh of vhal I asserl vhen I uuer, in an ordinary, non-excelionaI
conlexl, I knov lhal lhere is a hre going in lhe sludy. Since lhal doubl is nol
saIienl in lhal conlexl, lhe lrulh condilions of my cIaim lo knov do nol require
my being abIe lo ruIe il oul. More generaIIy, everyday knovIedge ascrilions
cannol be imugned by lradilionaI skelicaI argumenls. Such argumenls urorl
lo deny knovIedge reciseIy on lhe basis of lhe sub|ecl's aIIeged inabiIily lo ruIe
oul hyerboIic doubls Iike lhe dreaming hyolhesis, bul hyerboIic doubls are
nol saIienl doubls in everyday conlexls.
5

Hov does lhe conlexluaIisl knov vhal I |usl quoled Iulnam as leIIing
us: nameIy, lhal lhe ossibiIily lhal one mighl be dreaming is nol a reIevanl
ossibiIily, nol a Iive or saIienl doubl, for our everyday, non-excelionaI cIaims
lo knov lhings`
The obvious ansver is lhal lhe conlexluaIisl nolices lhal in ordinary Iife
ve do nol in facl lake such ossibiIilies inlo accounl vhen evaIualing knovIedge
cIaimsand lhal, moreover, if someone vere in lhe course of everyday Iife lo
chaIIenge our cIaim lo knov somelhing on lhe basis of lhe dreaming hyolhesis
(or some olher skelicaI ossibiIily), ve vouId dismiss lheir chaIIenge as
inaroriale and bizarre. CharIes Travis (1989, . 183) vriles, Whal one says in
seaking, on an occasion, of A's knovIedge (or ignorance) lhal I is delermined by
vhal, if anylhing, does counl on lhal occasion as knoving lhal I. Whal so counls
is vhal our reaclions shov lo counl. Whal our reaclions shov, for Travis and
Iulnam and many olhers, is lhal skelicaI doubls are nol, on lhe greal ma|orily
of occasions for seaking of eoIe as knoving lhings, reaI doubls (1989, .
60), and so nol doubls lhe ulalive knover musl be abIe lo ruIe oul in order lo
be correclIy said lo knov.
ul lhis ansver romls a furlher queslion: do aII our reaclions reaIIy
shov lhis` Granled, ve do nol consider skelicaI ossibiIilies vhen oering and
assessing knovIedge cIaims in lhe ordinary run of Iife. And ve vouId hnd il al
besl a veak |oke if someone vere lo bring such a ossibiIily u in lhe course of an
ordinary conversalion, in vhich a knovIedge ascrilion had been roered vilh
a viev lo, say, sharing informalion, Ianning a slralegy, or criliquing someone's
aclions. ul il is equaIIy lrueequaIIy an undeniabIe emiricaI facl aboul human
beings and lheir racliceslhal many eoIe are imressed and uzzIed by
skelicaI argumenls vhen lhey are resenled vilh lhem. They cannol easiIy
accel lhe skelicaI concIusion, of course, bul lhey are slruck by lhe aarenl
force of lhe skelicaI argumenls. And lhey lake lhose argumenls lo chaIIenge
reciseIy our ordinary, everyday cIaims lo knov lhings. The conlexluaIisl Iooks
al onIy some of our reaclions lo a given knovIedge cIaim, lhose evidenl ''in lhe
momenl,'' as il vere, vhiIe ignoring olhersincIuding our reaclions vhen ve
vorry over our everyday knovIedge cIaims in Iighl of a skelicaI chaIIenge. In
so doing, lhe conlexluaIisl seems lo forgel lhe ossibiIily of second lhoughls.
ConlexluaIisls mighl aear lo have a resonse here. They can hoId
lhal lhese second lhoughls viII inevilabIy miss lheir suosed largel. When ve
consider a skelicaI argumenl, ve change lhe conlexl. We make il, in Iulnam's
lerm, excelionaI. And so if ve reach a concIusion aboul my knovIedge lhal
I mighl exress vilh an uuerance of I did nol knov lhal lhere vas a hre going
in lhe sludy afler aII, lhe concIusion I exress mighl very veII be lrue. Il mighl
be lrue because in considering lhe dreaming hyolhesis, ve may have made il a
Iive or saIienl doubl, and lhereby rendered lhe conlenl of a knovIedge ascrilion
such lhal lhe sub|ecl musl be in a osilion lo ruIe oul lhe dreaming hyolhesis
if lhe ascrilion is lo be lrue. ul if lhal is vhal has haened, lhen my deniaI
lhal I knov is nol lhe negalion of my earIier, ordinary cIaim lo knov, for my
earIier cIaim lo knov did nol require for ils lrulh lhal I be abIe lo ruIe oul lhe
dreaming hyolhesis. Thus lhe lrulh of my skelicaI deniaI of knovIedge does
nol enlaiI lhe faIsily of my ordinary avovaI of knovIedge. Granled, il can '228
lo eoIe lhal skelicaI concIusions reached via skelicaI argumenls conlradicl
ordinary cIaims lo knov. Thal vas cerlainIy hov il seemed lo Descarles and
Humelhal's vhy lheir skelicaI argumenls lroubIed lhem so much. Anyone
vho has ever suosed lhal skelicaI argumenls auack commonsense vievs
aboul lhe scoe of our knovIedge has been under lhe same imression. ul lhe
conlexluaIisl can hoId lhal lhis imression, hovever videsread, is an iIIusion.
Thus Keilh DeRose (2006, . 321) suggesls lhal il shovs onIy lhal seakers are
lo some exlenl bIind lo lhe conlexl-sensilivily of 'knovs.'
This maneuver has been much discussed in lhe Iileralure. Ierhas il
rovides an adequale resonse lo some of lhe ob|eclions lhal have been raised lo
lhe conlexluaIisl dissoIulion of lhe skelicaI auack on ordinary knovIedge. ul
il does nol acluaIIy ansver lhe queslion I raised above. Thal queslion vas vhy,
given lhal many eoIe do lake skelicaI argumenls lo chaIIenge ordinary cIaims
lo knov, ve shouId suose lhal lhe reaclions of roducers and consumers of
knovIedge ascrilions reveaI lhal skelicaI doubls are nol saIienl doublsnol
reaI. nol Iive, nol reIevanl doublsfor such ordinary cIaims, and hence
lhal il is nol required lhal sub|ecl be abIe lo ruIe lhem oul in order lo be lruIy
said lo knov. There is an assumlion al vork here aboul vhich lhoughls and
aclivilies on lhe arl of human beings conslilule lhe reIevanl reaclions lo
ordinary knovIedge cIaims, and vhich do nol, and my queslion asks afler lhe
basis of lhal assumlion. The Iine of lhoughl |usl discussed does nol |uslify or
exIain lhe assumlion. Il simIy endeavors lo lrace oul furlher imIicalions of
acceling il.
So vhere does lhe assumlion come from`

3. Cnntcnt and usc
AccouiNo +o DiRosi, +ni .ssixv+ioN is sivvo+iu nv . vi.isinii viiw .noi+
lhe reIalionshi belveen meaning and ordinary usage (2005, . 190).
DeRose asks us lo consider lhe crazed lheory lhal a necessary
condilion for lhe lrulh of 'S is a hysician' is lhal S be abIe lo cure any conceivabIe
iIIness inslanlaneousIy 2005, . 190). This lheory is obviousIy vrong, bul,
Tni H.v.u Riviiw oi Iniiosovnv
Conlexl and Use
Tni H.v.u Riviiw oi Iniiosovnv
}ason ridges 138 139
!"#$%&''' )*+) !"#$%&''' )*+)
DeRose asks, in virlue of vhal is our Ianguage in facl such lhal il is vrong`
He ansvers lhe queslion lhusIy:
|Ijl seems eminenlIy reasonabIe lo suose lhal such facls as lhese, regarding our
use, in lhoughl and seech, of lhe lerm 'hysician,' are cenlraIIy invoIved: lhal ve
lake lo be hysicians many Iicensed raclilioners of medicine vho don'l salisfy lhe
demanding requiremenl aIIeged, lhal ve seriousIy describe lhese eoIe as being
'hysicians', lhal ve don'l deny lhal lhese eoIe are 'hysicians', lhal cIaims lo
lhe eecl lhal lhese eoIe are 'hysicians' inluiliveIy slrike us as lrue, elc. Il's no
doubl IargeIy in virlue of such facls as lhese lhal lhe lradilionaI viev, ralher lhan
lhe bizarre con|eclures ve are considering, is lrue of our Ianguage: lhe correclness
of lhe lradilionaI viev IargeIy consisls in such facls (2005, . 291).
We are |uslihed in laking lhese inluilions, reaclions and uses lo reveaI
lhe lrulh condilionaI conlenl of uuerances and senlences because lhose inluilions,
reaclions and uses in Iarge measure +&3'-$-@-2 our uuerances and senlences having
lhe lrulh condilionaI conlenl lhal lhey do.
In arlicuIar, such facls aboul ordinary usage . . . rovide us vilh our
rimary, mosl imorlanl and besl evidence for lhe conlexl-sensilivily of given
lerms because lhose facls are aIso lhal in vhich lhe conlexl-sensilivily of lhose
lerms consisls (DeRose, 2005, . 291). AIying lhe oinl lo lhe redicale lhal
inleresls him lhe mosl, DeRose concIudes:
'Knovs' is conlexl-sensilive . . . IargeIy because seakers in some conlexls do (in facl,
vilh roriely, and vilh aarenl lrulh) seriousIy describe sub|ecls as 'knoving'
roosilions vhen lhose sub|ecls meel cerlain moderale eislemic slandards vilh
resecl lo lhe roosilions in queslion, even if lhey don'l meel sliII higher eislemic
slandards, bul, in olher conlexls, viII go so far as lo (in facl, vilh roriely, and
vilh aarenl lrulh) seriousIy deny lhal such sub|ecls 'knov' such lhings, reserving
lhe ascrilion of 'knovIedge' onIy for sub|ecls lhal meel some more demanding
eislemic slandard. (DeRose, 2005, . 291)
Here, lhen, is a genuine ansver lo lhe queslion I raised in lhe Iasl seclion.
The reason ve shouId nol lreal our reaclions lo skelicaI argumenls as leIIing us
somelhing aboul vhich doubls are Iive or saIienl for cIaims lo knov in everyday
conlexls is lhis: such reaclions do nol Iay a roIe in delermining lhe lrulh-evaIuabIe
conlenl of our everyday-conlexl cIaims lo knov. The reaclions lhal do Iay a roIe
in delermining lhe conlenl are lhe acluaI aIicalions of lhe lerm ve make and
accel in lhose everyday conlexls. The dierenl auern of aIicalion ve evince
in lhe conlexl of a discussion of a skelicaI argumenl, by conlrasl, delermines lhe
conlenl of -#&'2 aIicalions. To ul il bIunlIy, lhe lhoughl is lhal our lendency,
in some conlexls, lo seriousIy describe eoIe as knoving roosilions vhen
lhey meel cerlain condilions makes il lhe case lhal il is lrue, in lhose conlexls, lo
say lhal lhey knov lhose roosilions. And our reIuclance, in olher conlexls,
lo describe lhem lhal vay makes il lhe case lhal, in lhose conlexls, il is faIse lo
say lhal lhey knov.
DeRose reresenls lhese vievs as inslances of lhe rinciIe lhal ordinary
usage delermines meaning, and lhal rinciIe cerlainIy seems dicuIl lo deny.
The meanings of exressions in a naluraI Ianguage are nol delermined by
inlrinsic fealures of lhe sounds and shaes of lhese exressions, nor are lhey
assigned by divine command. They can come onIy from hov ve seakers of lhe
Ianguage in facl use, and have used, lhese exressions. Whalever }oseh Smilh
or lhe characlers in lhe 5.,-)%@' may have lhoughl, lhis rinciIe is nol oen for
debale. ul il is cruciaI lo see hov seciaI is DeRose's vision of vhal a meaning-
delermining facl of ordinary usage viII Iook Iike. His facls of ordinary usage,
vilh resecl lo a given exression I, are facls aboul vhich ob|ecls ve aIy I lo
in a given conlexl and vhich ob|ecls ve do nol. In eecl, lhey are facls, reIalive
lo each conlexl in vhich ve mighl have occasion lo aIy I, aboul hov ve are
disosed lo aIy I in lhal conlexl. The rinciIe lhal use delermines meaning
is lhus laken lo yieId lhe resuIl lhal lhe lrulh-evaIuabIe conlenl of our asserlions
viII aIign vilh our immediale disosilions in lhe use of lhe lerms invoIved. And
if our disosilions vary vilh conlexl, lhen so viII conlenl.
I viII (vilh obvious re|udice) caII lhe viev lhal conlenl is delermined
by lhe sorls of facls DeRose menlions lhe supcrcia| usc-inccrq cj ncaning. As a
generaI iclure of hov conlenl musl accrue lo asserlions, lhe lheory is incorrecl.
The aIignmenl il insisls uon belveen conlenl and disosilion need nol oblain.
A range of inleIIigibIe and IausibIe ideas aboul lhe characler of lhe conlenl of
given areas of discourse redicls divergences belveen conlenl and disosilion,
and suggesls in any case lhal simIe disosilions lo aIy or refrain from aIying
need nol be lhe rimary basis by vhich conlenl is delermined.
I viII discuss one modeI for such a divergence. Il is rovided by lhe
accounl of naluraI kind lerms inlroduced by Iulnam (1975,, 4). Iulnam oinled
oul lhal members of lhe exlension of a naluraI-kind lerm I need nol hl lhe
slereolye associaled vilh lhal lermlhal is, lhe consleIIalion of observabIe
characlerislics an ordinary seaker of lhe Ianguage associales vilh I. Membershi
in lhe exlension lhus cannol be a funclion of conformily lo lhis slereolye. Whal
members of lhe exlension share, according lo Iulnam, is ralher an underIying
nalure, vhich can be fuIIy described and exIained onIy in lhe vocabuIary of
some naluraI sciencebul vhich need nol acluaIIy have been lhus described
and exIained by anyone al lhe lime lhal I is in currency. These fealures are
imossibIe lo square vilh lhe viev lhal I's exlension is delermined by ordinary
seakers' inluilions and disosilions concerning lhe accelance and re|eclion of
asserlions of lhe form, S is I. Such inluilions and disosilions may reecl onIy
lhe slereolye ve associale vilh I, vhich in lurn may corresond onIy IooseIy
vilh lhe lerm's acluaI exlension.
Iulnam's accounl is erfeclIy comalibIe vilh lhe rinciIe lhal use
delermines meaning. There may be a lemlalion lo suose olhervise, based on
a lhoughl lo lhe eecl lhal any exlension-delermining meaning ve can give lo
an exression, lhrough our uses, reaclions, disosilions, or inlenlions, musl be
such lhal ve are in a osilion lo ad|udicale membershi in lhal exlension. ul
lhis rolo-verihcalionisl lhoughl al besl reecls a faiIure of imaginalion. So Iong
as ve ossess, al Ieasl imIicilIy, lhe concel of a naluraI kind, and so Iong as
ve are in a osilion lo drav auenlion lo exemIars of a given naluraI kind (for
examIe, demonslraliveIy), ve are erfeclIy caabIe of ''giving'' an exression a
meaning such lhal il slands for lhal naluraI kind conslrued on Iulnamian Iines.
Indeed, lhere is nolhing lo revenl us from doing so exIicilIy and inlenlionaIIy:
consider Lel 'I' sland for -#,- |naluraIj kind of lhing said vhiIe oinling al
Tni H.v.u Riviiw oi Iniiosovnv
Conlexl and Use
Tni H.v.u Riviiw oi Iniiosovnv
}ason ridges 140 141
!"#$%&''' )*+) !"#$%&''' )*+)
some inslances lhereof, a dehnilion lhal cerlainIy mighl be misunderslood, bul
lhen again, mighl nol.
Al lhe same lime, Iulnam's accounl is frequenlIy characlerized as
orlraying lhe meaning of a naluraI-kind lerm as vorId-invoIving or exlension-
invoIving, and lhese descrilions are al. Ior on lhis accounl, if ve sel aboul
lo ansver in any meaningfuI delaiI a DeRose-lye queslion aboul in virlue of
vhal our Ianguage is such lhal a naluraI-kind lerm has lhe arlicuIar exlension
lhal il does, ve viII quickIy hnd our invesligalion shifling from an anaIysis of
lhe reIevanl bils of Ianguage lo consideralion of lhe naluraI kind ilseIf. Whal
facls aboul seakers of IngIishaboul lheir usages, inlenlions, reaclions and
so forlhdelermine, on lhe currenl concelion, is no more or Iess lhan lhis:
lhal lhe IngIish vord Iemon seaks of Iemons. If, knoving lhis facl, ve sliII
have residuaI queslions aboul lhe conslilulion of lhe exlension of Iemonfor
examIe, aboul vhy -#$' ob|ecl (vhich is green) shouId faII inlo lhal exlension
bul -#,- ob|ecl (vhich is an elrog) shouId nollhen lhese are queslions aboul
vhal il is lo be a Iemon, vhich is lo say, queslions for Ianl bioIogisls, nol for
heId observers of ordinary Ianguage use.
6

These oinls, al a suilabIe IeveI of abslraclion, generaIize beyond lhe
case of naluraI-kind lerms. Consider DeRose's examIe of hysician. In
our cuIlure al lhe resenl lime, lhere is an exlremeIy comIicaled sel of sociaI
inslilulions surrounding lhe raclice of medicine. There are inslilulions invoIved
in lraining hysicians, in roviding lhem vilh suorl, sace and equimenl,
in overseeing lheir lrealmenl of alienls, in managing aymenl for lheir vork,
in orcheslraling lheir coIIaboralive endeavors, and so on. InexlricabIy enlvined
vilh aII of lhis are ruIes and rocedures for credenliaIing hysicians. Ihysician-
hood is aboul as lhoroughIy inslilulionaIized a slalus as il is novadays ossibIe
lo achieve. Anyone vho cIaims lo be a hysician vhiIe Iacking lhe ordinary
Iicenses, degrees and aIialions had beuer have some very seciaI reasons for
lhal cIaim if il is lo have a chance al being lrue. The same goes for anyone vho
vouId deny lhal a erson vilh lhe requisile Iicenses, degrees and aIialions is a
hysician. Ordinary seakers can be execled lo dier in lhe exlenl lo vhich lhey
are famiIiar vilh lhe ins and ouls of lhe credenliaIing and reIaled rocedures,
and hence, for lheir inluilions and disosilions concerning lhe aIicalion of lhe
vord hysician in arlicuIar cases lo corresond lo lhe reIevanl facls aboul
lhe raclice. And even if lheir inluilions and disosilions do Iine u nealIy vilh
lhe reIevanl inslilulionaI facls, il viII nol be lhe inluilions and disosilions, bul
ralher lhe inslilulionaI facls vilh vhich lhey aIign, lhal exIain vhy hysician,
being a vord for hysicians, has lhe exlension lhal il does.
Again, lhere may be an incIinalion lo rolesl lhal our vords have onIy
lhe meanings lhal ve give lo lhem, and il musl lherefore be ''u lo us'' vhelher a
given ob|ecl faIIs inlo lhe exlension of a given vord. And no doubl, lhere is some
sense in vhich lhis cIaim is lrue. ul in vhalever sense il is lrue, il cannol conicl
vilh lhe evidenl facl lhal ve are oflen inleresled in kinds in lhe vorId around
us vhose nalures ve imerfeclIy undersland, and hence vhose boundaries ve
can individuale al besl imerfeclIy. Given our inleresl in lhese kinds, il is naluraI
lhal ve shouId have vords for seaking of lhem. We musl lhen in some sense
or olher ''give'' vords meanings suilabIe for so seaking of lhem, and inluilions
and disosilions on our arl, as veII as descrilive condilions in our ossession,
viII cerlainIy Iay a roIe in consliluling lheir ossession of such meanings. ul in
giving vords meanings suilabIe for seaking of such kinds, ve aIIov facls aboul
lhe kinds lhemseIves lo delermine aroriale exlensions. The suerhciaI use-
lheory seems IausibIe onIy if ve re|ecl lhis ossibiIilyI lhink, necessilyand
hence onIy given a loo lhin vision of lhe vays in vhich our vords can engage
lhe vorId of vhich lhey seak.
Whal aboul knov` I do nol cIaim lhal knov is a naluraI-kind vord
Iike Iemon or a sociaI-inslilulionaI one Iike hysician. ul lhese examIes have
molivaled an abslracl oinl: our vords can hx on roerlies and kinds lhal have
a Iife al Ieasl arlIy indeendenl of hov ve are disosed lo aIy lhose vords
lo lhe ob|ecls ve encounler. Thal is one vay ve can use vords, and so one sorl
of meaning use mighl delermine. Knov mighl have such a meaning. UnliI ve
have been given a reason lo lhink il does nol, ve have been given no reason lo
suose lhal facls aboul ordinary usage of knov, as DeRose conceives and
conslrains lhal calegory, have overriding aulhorily in deciding uon lhe conlenl
knov exresses. We have been given no reason lo refuse lo lreal lhe resuIls
of skelicaI reeclion as reaclions on our arl lo our ordinary knovIedge
cIaims. ul vilhoul a basis for lhal refusaI, lhe conlexluaIisl aueml lo deecl
lhe skelicaI chaIIenge, as oulIined in lhe revious seclion, is unersuasive. The
skelicaI chaIIenge musl faiI, ve can aII agree. ul ve need a more salisfying
underslanding of vhy.
A more generaI moraI is lhal ve shouId be susicious of lhe videsread
lendency of conlexluaIisls of aII slries lo move from observalions aboul hov ve
are disosed lo aIy lerms direclIy lo concIusions aboul lhe conlenls exressed
by lhose lerms. If lhere is a |uslihcalion for lhis mode of argumenl, il is nol lo be
found in lhe bare idea lhal use delermines meaning.
4. Cnnc!usinn
I ciosi wi+n +wo +iN+.+ivi ii+ni +noion+s.
Iirsl, lhe suerhciaI-use lheory of meaning makes il easier for us lo
be righl in lhe lhings ve say. Il makes il easier for us lo be righl in lhe lhings
ve say because il enlaiIs lhal, in eecl, ve 8,H2 ourseIves righl. In having lhe
disosilions of aIicalion lhal ve do, ve shae lhe conlenls of our uuerances
in such a vay as lo go some dislance lovard ensuring lheir correclness. Thal
mighl seem a Ieasing rosecl. The robIem is lhal lhe easier il is for us lo be
righl in lhis vay, lhe Iess lhere is for us lo be vrong aboul. And lhal means lhe
Iess lhere is for us lo hnd in lhe vorId lo laIk and lhink aboul and ossibIy come
lo undersland. OnIy if our uuerances are alIy inlerrelabIe as auemling lo
Iace lhe ob|ecls and eoIe ve discuss in calegories consliluled indeendenlIy
of lhe disosilions of use informing our immediale discursive conlexl viII lhose
uuerances be behoIden lo a sub|ecl mauer vhose ob|eclivily romises no end of
chaIIenges for our underslanding.
Second, Wiugenslein is famousIy associaled vilh lhe idea lhal meaning
is delermined by use. Il is no surrise lhal many conlexluaIisls cIaim him as
Tni H.v.u Riviiw oi Iniiosovnv
!" $"%&'()&* *)%+ ,)-.'/ 01%".2
!"#$%&!$'
()*+,&!!! ./0.
On Malhemalics, ReaIism, and Ilhics
,)-.'/ 34 01%".2 )5 678." 9")(&'5)%/ 0'7:&557' ;2&')%15 )" %+& <&=.'%2&"% 7:
0+)-757=+/ .% ,.'(.'>4 ! =.5% ='&5)>&"% 7: %+& !2&')?." 0+)-757=+)?.- !557?).%)7"
@;.5%&'" >)()5)7"AB %+& 0+)-757=+/ 7: C?)&"?& !557?).%)7"B ."> %+& !557?).%)7" :7'
C/2D7-)? E78)?B +& )5 . F&--7* 7: %+& !2&')?." !?.>&2/ 7: !'%5 ."> C?)&"?&5B %+&
!2&')?." 0+)-757=+)?.- C7?)&%/B . 67''&5=7">)"8 F&--7* 7: %+& G')%)5+ !?.>&2/ .">
%+& F'&"?+ !?.>&2)& >&5 C?)&"?&5 07-)%)H1&5 &% I7'.-&5B ."> +7->5 5&(&'.- +7"7'.'/
>&8'&&54 ,& +.5 ?7"%')D1%&> %7 5&(&'.- .'&.5 7: =+)-757=+/B )"?-1>)"8 =+)-757=+/
7: 2)">B =+)-757=+/ 7: 5?)&"?&B ."> =+)-757=+/ 7: -."81.8&4 J+)5 )"%&'()&* *.5
?7">1?%&> D/ G)-- K7*.-5L/ )" MNOO .% ,.'(.'> 9")(&'5)%/4
Tni H.v.u Riviiw oi Iniiosovnv
}ason ridges 142
!"#$%&''' )*+)
lheir redecessor. ul Wiugenslein is no suerhciaI use-lheorisl. His concelion
of use is lied lo lhe idea of inslilulion and raclice, and cruciaIIy, inslilulions
and raclices do nol reduce lo lhe aIicalions and disosilions of a momenl.
Ior Wiugenslein, lhe conlexl lhal mauers, in underslanding vhal ve do vilh
Ianguage, is broad and oen-ended. The idea lhal lhe conlenl of a given asserlion
viII aulomalicaIIy be delermined by disosilions secihc lo lhal IocaI discursive
conlexl aIone, and so lhal conlexluaI varialion in disosilions of aIicalion
aulomalicaIIy beseaks conlexluaI-deendence of conlenl, is foreign lo him. I
cIose vilh lvo assages, one famiIiar, one Iess so, lhal make lhis oinl veII:

33. . . . Whal, in a comIicaled surrounding, ve caII foIIoving a ruIe ve shouId
cerlainIy nol caII lhal if il slood in isoIalion.
34. Language, I shouId Iike lo say, reIales lo a vay of Iiving.
In order lo describe lhe henomenon of Ianguage, one musl describe a raclice, nol
somelhing lhal haens once, no mauer of vhal kind.
Il is very hard lo reaIize lhis. (Wiugenslein, 1978, . 3356)
Hov couId human behaviour be described` SureIy onIy by shoving lhe aclions of
a variely of humans, as lhey are aII mixed u logelher. Nol vhal one man is doing
nov, bul lhe vhoIe hurIy-burIy, is lhe background againsl vhich ve see an aclion,
and il delermines our |udgmenl, our concels, and our reaclions. (Wiugenslein,
1980, . 213)
12;2.23+2'
DeRose, Keilh. 1992. ConlexluaIism and KnovIedge Allribulions. "#$%&'&(#) ,36
"#23&823&%&0$+,% 12'2,.+# 52: 913929.
DeRose, Keilh. 1995. SoIving lhe SkelicaI IrobIem. "#$%&'&(#$+,% 12K$2I 104: 152.
DeRose, Keilh. 2005. The Ordinary Language asis for ConlexluaIism, and lhe Nev
Invarianlism. F#2 "#$%&'&(#$+,% ?@,.-2.%) 55: 172198.
DeRose, Keilh. 2006. amboozIed by Our Ovn Words: Semanlic Iindness and Some
Argumenls againsl ConlexluaIism. "#$%&'&(#) LXXIII: 316338.
Havlhorne, }ohn. 2004. Kncu|c!gc an! Icucrics. Oxford: Oxford Universily Iress.
Iulnam, HiIary. 1975a. Is Semanlics IossibIe` In Min!, Ianguagc an! |ca|iiq. Pni|cscpnica|
",(2.', voIume 2 Iulnam (1975c). OriginaIIy ubIished in 1970.
Iulnam, HiIary. 1975b. The Meaning of Meaning. In Min!, Ianguagc an! |ca|iiq. Pni|cscpnica|
",(2.'* voIume 2 Iulnam (1975c).
Iulnam, HiIary. 1975c. =$36* L,30@,02 ,36 12,%$-): "#$%&'&(#$+,% ",(2.', voIume 2. Cambridge:
Cambridge Universily Iress.
Iulnam, HiIary. 2001. Skelicism, Slroud and lhe ConlexluaIily of KnovIedge. "#$%&'&(#$+,%
7M(%&.,-$&3' 4:216.
Richard, Mark. 2004. ConlexluaIism and ReIalivism. "#$%&'&(#$+,% E-@6$2' 119: 215242.
Travis, CharIes. 1989. Tnc Uscs cj Scnsc. Wiugcnsicins Pni|cscpnq cj Ianguagc. Oxford Universily
Iress.
Travis, CharIes. 1997. Iragmalics. In > 5&8(,3$&3 -& -#2 "#$%&'&(#) &; L,30@,02, ed. ob HaIe
and Crisin Wrighl. Oxford: IackveII . 87107.
WiIson, Mark. 2006. Wan!cring Signicancc. An |ssaq cn Ccnccpiua| Bcnaticr. Oxford Universily
Iress.
Wiugenslein, Ludvig. 1978. 128,.H' &3 -#2 A&@36,-$&3' &; =,-#28,-$+'. Revised ed. MIT Iress.
Wiugenslein, Ludvig. 1980. 128,.H' &3 -#2 "#$%&'&(#) &; "')+#&%&0)9 VoI. II Universily of
Chicago Iress.
HRP: Lct's start at thc bcginning nI ynur carccr. What
was it !ikc wnrking nn Hi!bcrt's 10
th
Prnb!cm?
"@-3,8: I am, of course, a malhemalician as veII as a
hiIosoher. And I'm very hay aboul lhal |%,@0#'j. I
slarled vorking in malhemalicaI Iogic vhen I laughl in
Irincelon in lhe hflies. Georg KreiseI, vho vas reaIIy
my menlor in Iogic, vas al lhe Inslilule for Advanced
Sludies. I venl lo see him and loId him lhal I laughl
vhal vas caIIed symboIic Iogic in lhe hiIosohy
dearlmenl, and lhal I'd Iike lo see if I couId rove
an originaI lheorem. I do malhemalics raidIy vhen
somebody exIains il lo me on a bIackboardI can ick
u a roof in an hour by Iislening lo someone exIain il and asking queslions,
bul il vouId lake me veeks lo read il in a ubIished aer. Malhemalics aers
are nol vriuen lo be easiIy underslood. There's a reaI divide belveen lhe vay
malhemalicians exIain roofs lo one anolher and lhe vay lhey vrile lhem u.
So KreiseI exIained some concels and lhen gave me a robIem, vhich
I soIved, and lhen he said, Nov you ubIish lhis resuIl. The aer I vrole
(DecidabiIily and IssenliaI UndecidabiIily) came oul in 1957. Il vas my hrsl
malhemalicaI ubIicalion. Il vasn'l on HiIberl's 10
lh
IrobIem
1
, vhich I venl on lo
aflervards. In facl, our reIalionshi cooIed evenluaIIy because KreiseI vas dead
sel againsl my vorking on lhal robIem. He lhoughl il vas a dead endlhal
nolhing vouId come of il. ul around lhe same lime, a erson vho is sliII my
very cIose friend, a malhemalician named Marlin Davis, aIso came lo lhe Inslilule
for Advanced Sludies. We and our vives became conslanl comanions. There
vas a summer inslilule in malhemalicaI Iogic in 1957 al CorneII. The Davises and
lhe Iulnams vere lhere logelher. Marlin had ubIished some aers vorking
lovards a soIulion lo HiIberl's 10
lh
, and I suggesled lhal ve lry lo exlend his