The role of background knowledge in human intelligence, knowledge, and consciousness has been a topic of discussion among several philosophers, including Ludwig Wittgenstein, John Searle, Martin Heidegger, and Hubert Dreyfus. Hubert Dreyfus criticizes what he calls the mediational approach and offers the contact theory to clarify the concept within his theoretical framework. In alignment with Heidegger’s existential phenomenological perspective, he posits that our contact and our embodied coping with the world constitute a background by which we become acquainted with preunderstanding (...) that encompasses both prelinguistic and pre-propositional understandings. In this article, Dreyfus’s analysis of background knowledge is criticized by focusing on his latest writings. It is argued that, although Dreyfus claims to be defending horizontal foundationalism rather than vertical foundationalism, he primarily emphasizes the foundational nonlinguistic role of motor intentionality in absorbed coping. Furthermore, it is asserted that nonlinguistic embodied coping alone cannot provide the basis for linguistic communication and a humanly way of understanding. Rather than serving as a foundation, embodied coping is more appropriately situated within a linguistic context, because we perform deeds with words. (shrink)

Perspicuous representation, Wittgenstein offers, is not another methodology, but it consists in seeing the connections. The Wittgensteinian perspicuous representation is therapeutic. The method he suggests for philosophy is the same method he suggests for social sciences. In both of these cases, he tries to get us to see the confusions we become entangled in when philosophizing and theorizing. In both of these disciplines he warns us not to advance explanatory, metaphysical theories. In this paper, I connect this concern with Wittgenstein’s (...) critique of Frazer. In criticizing Frazer, Wittgenstein adopts the important part of Spengler’s view. Nonetheless, there are differences between Wittgenstein’s views and those of Spengler; this paper aims to show similarities as well as these differences. The first part of the paper briefly summarizes Frazer’s views. The second part focuses on Wittgenstein’s critique of Frazer concerning science and technology. The third part gives an account of his critique regarding method of social sciences and philosophy. The last part concentrates on Wittgenstein’s critique of Frazer pertaining to the tolerance towards alternative forms of life. Key Words: context-free vacuum • evolutionary explanation • incommensurability • methodology of social sciences • perspicuous representation • science • technology • tolerance • totem and taboo. (shrink)