Skip to main content

Introduction: Vagueness and Ontology


The article introduces a special issue of the journal Metaphysica on vagueness and ontology. The conventional view has it that all vagueness is semantic or representational. Russell, Dummett, Evans and Lewis, inter alia, have argued that the notion of “ontic” or “metaphysical” vagueness is not even intelligible. In recent years, a growing minority of philosophers have tried to make sense of the notion and have spelled it out in various ways. The article gives an overview and relates the idea of ontic vagueness to the unquestioned phenomenon of fuzzy spatiotemporal boundaries and to the associated “problem of the many”. It briefly discusses the question of whether ontic vagueness can be spelled out in terms of “vague identity”, emphasizes the often neglected role of the difference between sortal and non-sortal ontologies and suggests a deflationary answer to the ill-conceived question of whether the “ultimate source” of vagueness lies either in language or in the world.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    Almost all of these phrases can be found in the titles of the books and papers in the list of references. For an overview over the debate, see Sainsbury (1989), Zemach (1991), Tye (2000), Edgington (2000), Morreau (2002), Williamson (2003), Akiba (2004), Rosen and Smith (2004), Hyde (2008), and Barnes (2010).

  2. 2.

    In this introduction, I will use the expressions “metaphysical vagueness” and “ontic vagueness” interchangeably.

  3. 3.

    “We may express this metaphorically as follows: the concept must have a sharp boundary. If we represent concepts on extension by areas on a plane, this is admittedly a picture that may be used only with caution, but here it can do us good service. To a concept without sharp boundary there would correspond an area that had not a sharp boundary-line all around, but in places just vaguely faded away into the background. This would not really be an area at all; and likewise a concept that is not sharply defined is wrongly termed a concept.” (Frege 1903, p. 159 [§ 56]).

  4. 4.

    “We might try to define the category-inappropriateness of a predicate to an individual directly as follows: an individual i and a predicate P are category-mismatched if, and only if, P and the denial of P are alike a priori rejectable for every adequate identifying designation of i.” (Strawson 1970, p. 190)

  5. 5.

    See for example Garrett (1988), Garrett (1991), Parsons and Woodruff (1995), Parsons (2000).

  6. 6.

    See also Wittgenstein, Tractatus, 5.5303.

  7. 7.

    For a more substantial treatment of the topic of vague, indeterminate or indefinite identity, see the contributions of Cobreros et al. (2013), Noonan (2013) and Weber (2013). See also the papers in the fourth part of Akiba's (2013) collection.

  8. 8.

    “There can be no borderline cases of existence, because an object has to be there to be a borderline case of anything, and if it's there it exists” (van Inwagen 2009, p. 6). Van Inwagen himself rejects what he calls “the sensible theory of indeterminacy (which denies that there can be indeterminate cases of identity and existence)”, on the grounds that it “cannot accommodate a workable metaphysic of the material world” (ibid., 7). In particular, the sensible theory cannot adequately handle “the Special Composition Question: ‘When are things proper parts—when do things together compose some larger whole?’” (ibid.). For a discussion of van Inwagen's view, see Noonan's paper in this issue.

  9. 9.

    I cannot argue for these bold Fregean claims here. For a defence, see Cappelen and Hawthorne (2009) and Keil (2010). See also Noonan (2013, p. 240): “The apparatus of first-order logic with identity—the truth-functional connectives, the quantifiers and the identity predicate—is not vague, so predicates constructed from this apparatus are not vague. So ‘x = x’, ‘∃y(x = y)’ and ‘x = y’ are not vague, i.e., are not referentially indeterminate. The first two predicates denote the property of existence and the last the relation of identity. Since this is so, there are no borderline cases of existence or borderline cases of identity.”

  10. 10.

    Merricks himself does not advocate this view.

  11. 11.

    For a discussion, see Salmon (2010) and López de Sa (2013) in this issue.

  12. 12.

    For the topic of vagueness in geography, see for example Varzi (2001), Bittner and Stell (2002) and Galton (2003).

  13. 13.

    In this volume, mountains figure prominently in the contributions of Noonan, Sattig and Weber.

  14. 14.

    See for example Tye (1990, pp. 535–536): “I shall classify a concrete object o as vague […] if, and only if, (a) o has borderline spatio-temporal parts and (b) there is no determinate fact of the matter about whether there are objects that are neither parts, borderline parts, nor non-parts of o”.

  15. 15.

    “Thus take the general term ‘mountain’: it is vague on the score of how much terrain to reckon into each of the indisputable mountains, and it is vague on the score of what lesser eminences to count as mountains at all.” (Quine 1960, p. 126)

  16. 16.

    For a discussion of the problem of the many, see the contributions of Lowe (2013), Noonan (2013) and Sattig (2013). A radical reaction to the problem of the many is existence monism, which argues that since the ordinary objects that common sense commits us to are vague, and since the world cannot contain vague objects, the whole cosmos is but one large concrete object without proper parts. Lowe discusses and dismisses this view in his paper.

  17. 17.

    Aristotle, Categories, 3b32, transl. Ackrill.

  18. 18.

    Simons (2013, p. 275), this issue.

  19. 19.

    Sattig (2013, p. 217), this issue.

  20. 20.

    For an explication of combinatory vagueness, see also Hyde (2008, 16–19).

  21. 21.

    See Sainsbury's afterword to his paper in this issue for a brief discussion of this topic.

  22. 22.

    Sainsbury (2013, p. 235), this issue.

  23. 23.

    The latter view is rare. Merricks (2001, p. 151) comes close to it: “I think linguistic vagueness does justice to the intuitions that standardly motivate it only when understood as a species of metaphysical vagueness.”

  24. 24.

    See for example Lewis (1986, pp. 212–213): “The reason it's vague where the outback begins is not that there's this thing, the outback, with imprecise borders; rather, there are many things, with different borders, and nobody has been fool enough to try to enforce a choice of one of them as the official referent of the word ‘outback’. Vagueness is semantic indecision.”

  25. 25.

    Eklund (2013, p. 176), this issue.

  26. 26.

    For similar explications of “ontic vagueness”, see Hawley (2001, p. 104) and Barnes (2010, p. 604). For a brief discussion of these negative characterizations, see López de Sa (2013), this issue.

  27. 27.

    Noonan (2013, p. 243), this issue. He continues: “To successfully refer requires not only that we engage in reference-fixing activities but also that there be eligible referents. But, even once we have done everything that we can do, there may still be ties in eligibility, and so referential indeterminacy. And such referential indeterminacy will be properly classified as ontic rather than semantic, for it will be the world, and not us, that is not playing its part” (ibid.).

  28. 28.

    See for example Sattig (2010) and Sattig (2013), in this issue.

  29. 29.

    Charles S. Peirce, Collected Papers vol. 1, Cambridge: HUP 1931, vii.

  30. 30.

    “Let us understand a physical object […] simply as the aggregate material content of any portion of space-time, however ragged and discontinuous.” (Quine 1976, p. 497)

  31. 31.

    See Eklund's distinction between a “robust” and a “deflationist” conception of ontology: “The robust ontologist holds that there are real metaphysical joints in nature. The deflationary ontologist, by contrast, subscribes to the ‘picture of reality as an amorphous lump’ as Michael Dummett puts it” (Eklund 2008, p. 383).

  32. 32.

    A theory's ideology, “to give a good sense to a bad word”, rests in its predicates, which determine “what ideas can be expressed in it”, whereas the theory's ontology is simply “the range of the variables of quantification of the theory” (Quine 1953, p. 131). Given this distinction, it is obvious why a sortal ontology is no option for Quine. It makes no sense to ask whether values of variables are sortal in character or not. Sortality is an attribute of terms or concepts, not of entities.

  33. 33.

    Eklund (2013, p. 171), this issue. See also Sainsbury (1994, p. 79).

  34. 34.

    The Lego example is vulnerable, though, to the Platonic argument that no physical surface is perfectly flat, no brick ever cubic, no edge ever straight. Regarding sharp boundaries, a Lego world is still infinitely worse off than a Pythagorean world of numbers. Hence, some idealisation is necessary to make the example work.


  1. Akiba K (2004) Vagueness in the World. Noûs 38: 407–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akiba K (ed.) (2013), Vague Objects and Vague Identity. Springer, New York/Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alston W P (1967) Vagueness. In: Edwards P (ed) Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Macmillan, New York: 218–221.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barnes E (2010) Ontic Vagueness. A Guide for the Perplexed. Noûs 44: 601–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barnes E, Williams J R G (2010) A Theory of Metaphysical Indeterminacy. In: Bennett K, Zimmerman D W (eds) Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, Vol. 6. OUP, Oxford: 103–148.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bittner T, Stell J G (2002) Vagueness and Rough Location. Geoinformatica 6/2: 99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cappelen H, Hawthorne J (2009) Relativism and Monadic Truth. OUP, Oxford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Cobreros P, Egré P, Ripley D, van Rooij R (2013) Identity, Leibniz's Law and Non-Transitive Reasoning”. Int Ontology Metaphysics 14 (2): 253–264.

  9. Dummett M (1975) Wang’s Paradox. In: Keefe R, Smith P (eds.) Vagueness. A Reader. MIT Press, Cambridge/London: 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dummett M (1981) The Interpretation of Frege’s Philosophy. Duckworth, London.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Edgington D (2000) Indeterminacy de Re. Philosophical Topics 28: 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eklund M (2008) The Picture of Reality as an Amorphous Lump. In: Sider T, Hawthorne J and Zimmerman D W (eds) Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics. Blackwell, Oxford: 382–396.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eklund M (2013) Metaphysical Vagueness and Metaphysical Indeterminacy. Int Ontology Metaphysics 14 (2): 165–179.

  14. Evans G (1978) Can There Be Vague Objects? Analysis 38: 208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Frege G (1903) The Fundamental Laws of Arithmetic, Vol. II, partial Engl. transl. by P. T. Geach. In Geach P T and Black M (eds) Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Blackwell, Oxford, 1952.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Furth M (1988) Substance, Form and Psyche. An Aristotelian Metaphysics. CUP, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Galton A (2003) On the Ontological Status of Geographical Boundaries. In: Duckham M et al. (eds) Foundations of Geographic Information Science. Taylor and Francis, London: 151–171.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Garrett B J (1988) Vagueness and Identity. Analysis 48: 130–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Garrett B J (1991) Vague Identity and Vague Objects. Noûs 25: 341–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Geach P (1980) Reference and Generality. 3rd edition, Cornell Univ. Pr., Ithaca, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Grice H P (1989) Studies in the Ways of Words. Harvard Univ. Pr., Cambridge, MA/London.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hawley K (2001) How Things Persist. OUP, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hyde D (2008) Ontological Vagueness. In his Vagueness, Logic and Ontology. Ashgate, Aldershot: 105–151.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Keil G (2010) Halbglatzen statt Halbwahrheiten. Über Vagheit, Wahrheits- und Auflösungsgrade. In: Grajner M, Rami A (eds) Wahrheit, Bedeutung, Existenz. Ontos, Frankfurt am Main: 57–86.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lewis D (1986) On the Plurality of Worlds. Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lewis D (1993) Many, but Almost One. In his Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology. CUP, Cambridge 1999: 164–182.

  27. López de Sa D (2013) Vagueness as Semantic Indecision: Metaphysical Vagueness vs Indeterminate Reference. Int Ontology Metaphysics 14 (2): 197–209.

  28. Lowe E J (2013) Ontological Vagueness, Existence Monism, and Metaphysical Realism. Int Ontology Metaphysics 14 (2): 265–274.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Merricks T (2001) Varieties of Vagueness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62: 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Morreau M (2002) What Vague Objects are Really Like. Journal of Philosophy 99: 333–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Noonan H W (2011) Identity. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), http//

  32. Noonan H W (2013) In Defence of the Sensible Theory of Indeterminacy. Int Ontology Metaphysics 14 (2): 239–252.

  33. Parsons T (2000) Indeterminate Identity. Metaphysics and Semantics. Clarendon, Oxford.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Parsons T, Woodruff P (1995) Wordly Indeterminacy of Identity. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 95: 171–191.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Quine W V O (1953) From a Logical Point of View. Harvard Univ. Pr., Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Quine W V O (1960) Word and Object. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Quine W V O (1976) Whither Physical Objects? Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 39: 497–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Quine W V O (1985) Events and Reification. In: LePore E, McLaughlin B P (eds) Actions and Events. Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Backwell, Oxford/New York: 162–171.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Quine W V O (1987) Quiddities. An Intermittently Philosophical Dictionary. Harvard Univ. Pr., Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Quine W V O (2000) Quine’s Responses. In: Orenstein A, Kotatko P (eds) Knowledge, Language and Logic. Questions for Quine. Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston/London Kluwer: 407–430.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Rosen G, Smith N J J (2004) Worldly Indeterminacy. A Rough Guide. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 82: 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Russell B (1923) Vagueness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy and Psychology 1: 84–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sainsbury M (1989) What Is a Vague Object? Analysis 49 (3): 99–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Sainsbury M (1994) Why the World Could Not Be Vague. Southern Journal of Philosophy 33 (Suppl): 63–81.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sainsbury M (2013) Lessons for Vagueness from Scrambled Sorites. Int Ontology Metaphysics 14 (2): 225–237.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Salmon N (2010) Vagaries about Vagueness. In: Dietz R, Moruzzi S (eds) Cuts and Clouds. OUP, Oxford: 131–148.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. Sattig T (2010) Many as One. In: Zimmerman D (ed) Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, Vol. 5. OUP, Oxford: 145–179.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Sattig T (2013) Vague Objects and the Problem of the Many. Int Ontology Metaphysics 14 (2): 211–223.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Simons P (2013) Vague Kinds and Biological Nominalism. Int Ontology Metaphysics 14 (2): 275–282.

  50. Strawson P (1970) Categories. In: Wood O P, Pitcher G (eds) Ryle. A Collection of Critical Essays. Doubleday, New York: 181–211.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Tye M (1990) Vague Objects. Mind 99: 535–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tye M (2000) Vagueness and Reality. Philosophical Topics 28: 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Unger P (1979) There Are No Ordinary Things. Synthèse 41: 117–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Unger P (1980) The Problem of the Many. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 5: 411–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. van Inwagen P (2009) Indeterminacy and Vagueness Logic and Metaphysics. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 1 (2): 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Varzi A (2001) Vagueness in Geography. Philosophy & Geography 4: 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Weber A (2013) Interrelations and Dissimilarities Between Distinct Approaches to Ontic Vagueness. Int Ontology Metaphysics 14 (2): 181–195.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Williamson T (2003) Vagueness in Reality. In: Loux M J, Zimmerman D W (eds) Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics. OUP: Oxford: 690–712.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Zemach E M (1991) Vague Objects. Noûs 25: 323–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geert Keil.

About this article

Cite this article

Keil, G. Introduction: Vagueness and Ontology. Int Ontology Metaphysics 14, 149–164 (2013).

Download citation


  • Ontic vagueness
  • Vague identity
  • Problem of the many
  • Spatiotemporal boundaries
  • Sortal concepts