We sometimes discuss philosophy at work. I'm ok with that because ideas are important and I like talking about them. However, there are some very fundamental concepts that are either understood only at an implicit level or not at all by some of the participants in these discussions. I'm going to blog about some of these things in hopes that they will be more widely recognized and understood. The first idea that I'm going to cover is the idea that all knowledge is contextual.
It's my view that all knowledge has perceptual data at its base. That is, there is no other means to knowledge than our senses. Or, our senses are our only contact with reality. This being the case, ideas which have no context or ideas being used outside the context which support them are not knowledge. Or, to put it another way, meaningful statements about reality are tied directly to the context that supports them and are not usable outside of that context.
An idea with no context is an idea that can't be traced back to reality or is not supportable by facts of reality when it is traced back. Here are some ideas that have no context:
- There is a Sears catalog on the surface of the moon.
- Bowling balls float on water.
- An elf ate my sandwich last Saturday.
Ideas with context are knowledge and are valid but they cannot be used outside of their context. For example, it makes no sense to say that unicorns eat hay because horses eat hay. This statement is not logical. It's not a statement about reality. There is no place in reality that I can go to see unicorns eat hay. It's true that horses eat hay. It's true that unicorns are an imaginary creature that can be described as a horse with a horn. However, it makes no sense to try to prove that unicorns eat hay because horses eat hay. Arguments about what unicorns eat are not arguments about reality. You can't apply your knowledge of what horses eat to unicorns.
The examples above are sort of contrived to illustrate what I'm trying to communicate. Some more realistic consequences of the contextual nature of knowledge follow.
Morality is derived in what I call the "normal context" of everyday human life. Morality is thus only valid in that context. This fact has some not well recognized consequences. Emergency situations are not part of the "normal context" and thus morality doesn't apply. For example, if a person's car breaks down in the middle of a blizzard and the only way he can survive is to break into a hunting cabin and use the supplies he finds there, it's not wrong for him to do that. It would be wrong in the "normal context". Emergency situations must be handled in an ad hoc manner. The principles of morality do not apply.
Hypothetical situations are often floated in discussions and they are often misused. If you are arguing against an idea, you must recognize its context. Hypothetical situations that are outside of an idea's context are irrelevant. For example, suppose you are arguing against the idea that government should not provide universal health care. A hypothetical situation in which technology advances to such an extent that health care can be provided at no cost is not something that is meaningful. We do not live in such a context. The idea that universal health care should not be provided by government was not derived in that context.
Since knowledge is contextual, knowledge can change if the context changes. What was true in the past is not necessarily true now. What is true now will not necessarily be true in the future. If you think knowledge is forever or universal or contextless, you're wrong. What you know can and should change to reflect new knowledge. This is the way knowledge works. You might wish that humans were infallible and all knowing. You might wish you could think about things for a few years and figure everything out for all time. Keep wishing. That's not reality.
Another consequence of the contextual nature of knowledge is that an idea that is valid in one context can be invalid in another. This doesn't mean the idea is false. It's true in its context. For example, Newtonian physics is true when applied to macroscopic objects traveling far below the speed of light. However, it doesn't work in other contexts. It'd be wrong to say that Newtonian physics is invalid because it only works in its context. All knowledge is contextual.
I think everybody who participates in our philosophical discussions at work knows some of or all of the above at an implicit level at least. However, that's not good enough. In order to be right about the things we discuss and to discuss them in a way that's not a waste of time, you need to know all of the above (and more) explicitly. You need to be able state and use a whole host of fundamental ideas from philosophy in order to even have a chance of being right about anything as abstract as morality, politics, or knowledge.
If any of the above is new to you, I suggest there are more important things you need to think about than whether or not the government should provide universal health care or the problem of universals or the ideas of Immanuel Kant.
