note on Sorites series

Archive.Org (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Vagueness does not necessarily come in with vague predicates, nor need it be expressed by them , but undoubtedly 'vague predicates' are traditionally in the focus of main stream discussions of vagueness. In her current modal logic presentation and discussion of the Sorites paradox Susanne Bobzien[1] lists among the properties of a Sorites series a rather weak modal tolerance principle governing the 'grey zone' containing the borderline cases of the Sorites series, which later proves crucial for her solution of the Sorites paradox by use of epistemic interpreted modal operators in 1st order modal logic. We suggest (for different research interest) instead a non-modal description of the switch in the grey zone (respecting tolerance), by resort to similarity sequences, thus getting tangent to two other areas of research in the field. Let's say -any way- the Sorites paradox vanishes, the Sorites series does not.

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

A generic Solution to the Sorites Paradox.Susanne Bobzien - 2024 - Erkenntnis 2024 (Online):1-40.
The No-Proposition View of Vagueness.Paula Sweeney - 2016 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 93 (2):179-195.
Higher-Order Sorites Paradox.Elia Zardini - 2013 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (1):25-48.
Contextualism and the Principle of Tolerance.Paula Sweeney - 2014 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 90 (1):289-306.
Chrysippus and the epistemic theory of vagueness.Susanne Bobzien - 2002 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102 (1):217-238.
Defeasible Tolerance and the Sorites.Ivan Hu - 2020 - Journal of Philosophy 117 (4):181-218.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-08-22

Downloads
464 (#65,059)

6 months
139 (#36,793)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

First-Order Logics for Comparative Similarity.Timothy Williamson - 1988 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29 (4):457-481.

Add more references