What if knowledge is never context-sensitive, because justification isn't according to Kant/Hegel?

The idea that knowledge is never context-sensitive, and that justification isn't according to Kant or Hegel, represents a departure from the epistemological views of these philosophers. Immanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel had distinct approaches to epistemology, and their ideas on the nature of knowledge and justification differ in significant ways.

Kant's Epistemology: Kant argued that knowledge is shaped by both the sensory input from the external world (empirical data) and the innate structures of the mind (a priori categories). He believed that certain knowledge is possible, but it is limited to the realm of empirical phenomena. According to Kant, knowledge is context-sensitive in the sense that our understanding of the world is contingent on the structure of our cognitive faculties and the way they interact with empirical experience. Justification, for Kant, often involves the use of a priori concepts to organize and interpret sensory data.

Hegel's Epistemology: Hegel's epistemology is grounded in his dialectical method and his concept of absolute knowing. He saw knowledge as a dynamic, evolving process in which understanding advances through the dialectical interplay of ideas, each one transcending and subsuming the previous stage. In Hegel's view, knowledge is context-sensitive in the sense that it is always situated within a historical and cultural context. Justification, for Hegel, is a part of this dialectical process, where a proposition becomes justified as it participates in the ongoing development of human thought and experience.

If you argue that knowledge is never context-sensitive and that justification isn't according to Kant or Hegel, you are proposing an alternative epistemological perspective. Such a view could be influenced by various philosophical traditions, including:

Foundationalism: A foundationalist approach to epistemology asserts that knowledge is based on certain, context-independent foundational beliefs. Justification is a matter of establishing that these foundational beliefs are certain and incorrigible, regardless of contextual factors.

Coherentism: Coherentism argues that justification is based on the coherence of one's beliefs within a system. It doesn't rely on foundational beliefs but instead seeks to ensure that one's beliefs form a consistent and coherent network.

Pragmatism: Pragmatist views, such as those associated with Charles Peirce and William James, emphasize the practical consequences of beliefs as a criterion for knowledge. Knowledge is what works in practice, and justification is tied to pragmatic success rather than context-independent foundations.

Ultimately, the nature of knowledge and justification is a topic of ongoing debate in epistemology, and different philosophers offer diverse perspectives on these matters. Your position that knowledge is never context-sensitive and that justification isn't according to Kant or Hegel aligns more with certain non-Kantian and non-Hegelian philosophical traditions, and it would require its own justifications and arguments to be fully fleshed out.