Boundaries and prudence
|dc.contributor.author||Snyder, Eric Paul|
|dc.description.abstract||The following concerns vagueness and the Sorites Paradox. It attempts to deflate the significance of the paradox via broadly ‘pragmatic’ considerations. First, I argue that vagueness is a necessary feature of natural languages, i.e. we could not do without vague expressions. Second, I give necessary conditions for Sorites construction and argue that its plausibility relies on our presupposing a certain metalinguistic imperative, itself deriving from the necessity of vagueness. Finally, I give the prevailing semantics for gradable predicates and show that, in general, if this semantics is correct, then the Sorites poses no threat to the semantics of prototypical vague predicates. If my arguments are on track, we have a nice explanation for why this paradox has remained obstinate for so long: We are searching for ‘hidden’ boundaries that do not and, in fact, could not exist. Rather, the problem is essentially with classical logic and set-theory.|
|dc.title||Boundaries and prudence|
|dc.title.alternative||why you don't care about the Sorites Paradox|
Files in this item
There are no files associated with this item.