Infinite Contextualism

The view that contexts are infinite—that any phenomenon exists within an unbounded network of contexts, each of which shapes its meaning. You can't fully understand anything because you can't exhaust its contexts: historical context, cultural context, personal context, linguistic context, and on and on, without end. Infinite Contextualism doesn't despair at this—it celebrates the inexhaustibility of meaning. You can always learn more by expanding context, and you'll never reach the end. Understanding is infinite regress, but the regress is the point.

Infinite Contextualism "You think you understand why I said that thing? Infinite Contextualism says: you'd need to understand my childhood, my morning, my relationship with you, the history of the word I used, the phase of the moon, and infinite other contexts. You'll never fully understand—and neither will I. But we can keep trying, and that trying is relationship."

by Dumu The Void February 24, 2026

Scientific Contextualism

The position that scientific findings are always true relative to specific contexts, and that exporting them to new contexts requires care. A drug that works in clinical trials may fail in real-world contexts with different patients, different diets, different stressors. A psychological finding from WEIRD populations may not hold in other cultural contexts. Scientific Contextualism doesn't reject generalization—it insists on specifying the conditions under which generalizations hold, and testing them when conditions change. Context isn't noise—it's part of the finding.

Scientific Contextualism"This parenting technique works, the study says. Scientific Contextualism asks: works where? For whom? Under what conditions? With what support? Because what works in suburban Connecticut with two parents and a therapist might destroy a single mom in a cramped apartment with no support. Context isn't footnote—it's the whole story."

by Dumu The Void February 24, 2026

Epistemological Contextualism

The theory that the standards for knowing shift with context—that what counts as knowledge in one situation may not in another. In everyday life, "I know the car is parked outside" requires a glance. In a courtroom, it requires more. In a philosophy seminar, it requires Cartesian certainty. Epistemological Contextualism explains why knowledge attributions vary without relativism: the knowledge is the same; the standards for claiming it differ with context. Knowing is always knowing-for-a-purpose, in-a-situation, with-particular-stakes.

"You say you know he's lying. Epistemological Contextualism asks: know for what purpose? In casual conversation, your intuition might count. In court, you'd need evidence. In a relationship, you'd need something else. The 'knowing' isn't fixed—it depends on the context of the claim. Stop pretending your standards are universal."

by Dumu The Void February 24, 2026

Logical Contextualism

The position that the validity of logical inferences depends on context—that what counts as a good argument shifts with domain, purpose, and situation. In mathematics, classical logic rules. In legal reasoning, different standards apply. In everyday conversation, informal logic governs. Logical Contextualism doesn't reject logic—it recognizes that logic is always logic-in-context, and that exporting logical rules across contexts without adjustment produces error. The context isn't external to logic—it's part of what logic means.

"That argument works in a philosophy paper but fails in a marriage counseling session. Logical Contextualism says: different contexts, different logical standards. You're using the right logic for the wrong context, which is just another way of being wrong. Read the room before you syllogize."

by Dumu The Void February 24, 2026