Erkenntnis

, Volume 72, Issue 2, pp 281–293

Vagueness and Naturalness

Original Article

Abstract

I attempt to accommodate the phenomenon of vagueness with classical logic and bivalence. I hold that for any vague predicate there is a sharp cut-off between the things that satisfy it and the things that do not; I claim that this is due to the greater naturalness of one of the candidate meanings of that predicate. I extend the thought to the problem of the many and Benacerraf cases. I go on to explore the idea that it is ontically indeterminate what the most natural meanings are, and hence ontically indeterminate where the sharp cut-off in a sorites series is.

References

  1. Barnes, E. (2006). Conceptual room for ontic vagueness. PhD thesis, University of St Andrews.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, E. (forthcoming). Ontic vagueness: A guide for the perplexed, Nous.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, E., & Williams, R. (forthcoming). A theory of metaphysical indeterminacy. Oxford Studies in Metaphysics.Google Scholar
  4. Benacerraf, P. (1965). What numbers could not be. The Philosophical Review, 74(1), 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breckenridge, W., & Magidor, O. (ms.). Arbitrary reference.Google Scholar
  6. Eklund, M. (2008). Deconstructing ontological vagueness. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 38(1), 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kearns, S., & Magidor, O. (2008). Epistemicism about vagueness and meta-linguistic safety. Philosophical Perspectives, 22, 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kearns, S., & Magidor, O. (ms.). Semantic sovereignty.Google Scholar
  9. Lewis, D. (1983). New work for a theory of universals. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61, 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McGonigal, A. (ms.). Vagueness and context.Google Scholar
  11. Weatherson, B. (2003). Many many problems. Philosophical Quarterly, 53(213), 481–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Williamson, T. (1994). Vagueness. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Wright, C. (1975). On the coherence of vague predicates. Synthese, 30, 325–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations