Looking at objects from different context is often seen. One of them is that in humanities, people reinterpret the old works written by authors who wrote them in different social context. Even, to quote some passage from other authors’ works are to pull the sentences, and often context, of another and to connect it to the writing of one’s own.

The difference of language is not limited to the case of, for example, English and French. It also includes the case that even if they both speak English, if what they have in their background is different what they mean by using the same kind of words is different. Word is a box in which one can put the meaning into it.

The difference of context can be explained by the plus and quus functions. These functions were explained by Kripke. He described that a person, who has “never performed” the “computation” of “68+57” but has computed others in the past whose “numbers smaller than 57”, responded the answer of “68+57” is “125”(3). He meets another person who claims that the answer “should have been ‘5’!”, and suggests the misinterpretation(4).

Context changes over time in terms of social surroundings including norms, technology, and the changing characters of persons.

Depending on context, the meaning of a word changes.

Apart from the societal view, in individual view, context partly consists of one’s philosophy. As one reread the same book which they have read before, they may notice a new finding which they haven’t got in the previous reading because of their changing character and thoughts over time. Also, one can point out the wrong of another, the person told can recognise it but may not fully understand at the moment in their mind and may understand when their surroundings changed.

Some people come to become stubborn when getting older that is because they are surrounded by solid context from their past experiences. Their views are more fixed than when they were younger, having more factors that underpin them.

People do not talk to the person in front of them especially when they first meet. They talk with people of similar category they have met before. Categorisation and what is required to be said is processed in themselves. People change what they talk, imagining what is in necessity there. That is to say that they presuppose those who listen to it. Humour is in part what kind of speech you make towards a given context.

Whether one recognise it is a lie or not depends on the circumstance. Lying is often perceived negatively, however in some case it also is recognised as not merely negative, that is to say whose case is not able to be just condemned as the action of lying. Lying has arbitrariness in the expression. It is not simple failure or success, lying is different. Deception is intendedly to play different linguistic game between them. In addition, whether what one talked is perceived as arrogant or not depends on what the receiver thinks.

Take the meaning of words superficially, and claim that what it is written becomes an excuse in some cases. It attempts to take advantage of literal sense. The word “literally” is used because people often do not use the word literally.

In the societal perspective, a case is that interpretation of constitution changes depending on the time it is read. Around constitutional issue, in the late 18^th century in which US needed to abolish the Articles of Confederation to have the new Constitution in place, their basis on that move was what’s written in the Declaration of Independence that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”(1). The “rule was valid not because it was found in some authoritative rule book, but because it had become taken for granted by the Framers’ generation. Not by everybody, but by enough”(2). This rule is not likely to be accepted as valid in a different age, and demonstrates the relationship with social surrounding.

As social surroundings change, technological advancement such as computer enabled the rapid spread of information from one place to another. It can be spread in a moment, and peoples’ expressions are abundant in the lives of persons.

The negative aspects also need to be paid attention to. The problem of disinformation is one of them, which is also a problem of informational structure of how to manage the flows of information on the platforms. Besides, when speech is globalised, peoples of different contexts face each other. Compared with the previous ages, it is more likely for different peoples to interact each other with less context shared. It in some cases is beneficial to the development of some intelligence as such that scientific discovery can be shared rapidly in a global world through the communication tools, though some conflicts also arise.

While I feel that it is necessary to spend time in updating the policies put in place in our community, even if we (try to) erase hate speech from public places such as the walls that we see in a city or town, the prejudices or hate which at least partly are the cause of hate speech doesn’t get disappeared from society. In this respect too, the necessity to look at the inner part of oneself to cultivate their compassion towards others is required. Especially, the feeling of what if I were in that position is an essence for having this value in society.

The true creates the context. A true philosopher makes people aware of the important ideas or perspectives in their society, some of which they were even not aware of. Then, they make a history of ideas.

Footnotes

(1) Lawrence Lessig, Fidelity & Constraint: How the Supreme Court Has Read the American Constitution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp.12-13.

(2) Lawrence Lessig, Fidelity & Constraint: How the Supreme Court Has Read the American Constitution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), p.14.

(3) Saul A. Kripke, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1982), p.8.

(4) Saul A. Kripke, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1982), pp.8-9.