The Ordinary Language Basis For Contextualism And Its Argument

In the low-standards, contextualists make sure the judgment for knowledge, and in the high-standards, they deny knowledge, because they believe that knowledge will varies with the context. However, Scepticism thinks, in the context of low standards, knowledge does not exist. Facing the astoundingly high epistemic standards of philosophical skeptics, DeRose propose the ordinary language basis for contextualism.This method provides a good demonstration for the contextualism. This article is mainly to ordinary language basis for contextualism, and to explore the methodology of ordinary language.The first chapter, first of all, through the combing of the history of Contextualism, to understand the development background of contextuali sm; Secondly, through the overview of contextualism, we can have a c omprehensive grasp about the debate among Contextualism,Invariantism, Skepticism, and SSI, and to grasp the DeRose’attitude of Invariantism and Skepticism.The second chapter, firstly, we have a discussion about the main argument for contextualism;secondly,we will discuss typical banking case and office case, the key is how to use the method to the analysis of the specific cases from ordinary language. By the cases,we can concretely understand the contextualism of DeRose,and prove the methodology is feasible and effective.The third chapter, the research of methodology from ordinary language is to explore the contextualism basis of ordinary language, and how to carry on the demonstration.lt illustrates the importance of ordinary language argument, and the significance of the development of the theory of context. DeRose argues that the fundamental issue in the contextualism and skepticism is:can we have knowledge in ordinary language. DeRose thinks knowledge is existent in everyday language.He expound his views and positions about contextualism by analyzing the ordinary language cases.Finally,though a brief overview of the DeRose’thoughts, we will grasp its core ideas and the development of the main line. He thinks that the best grounds for accepting contextualism come from the ordinary talk. The knowledge exists in ordinary language, because we can do a strong argument for the existence of the knowledge, which effectively counter the skepticism. He demonstrated skepticism for knowledge of all negation is wrong.