Quandary and intuitionism: Crispin Wright on vagueness

Abstract

SI is a paradox because it presents four appearances that cannot all be veridical: first, it appears to be valid—after all, it’s both classically and intuitionistically valid; second, its sorites premiss, (2), seems merely to state the obvious fact that in the sorites march from 2¢ to 5,000,000,000¢ there is no precise point that marks the cutoff between not being rich and being rich; third, premiss (1), which asserts that a person with only 2¢ isn’t rich, is surely true; and fourth, the conclusion (3), which asserts that a person with 5,000,000,000¢—i.e. $50 million—isn’t rich, is surely false.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,227

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

On what it is to be in a quandary.Patrick Greenough - 2009 - Synthese 171 (3):399 - 408.
Where do mirror neurons come from.Cecilia Heyes - forthcoming - Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews.
Strict Finitism and the Happy Sorites.Ofra Magidor - 2012 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (2):471-491.
Semantic Accounts of Vagueness.Richard Heck - 2003 - In J. C. Beall (ed.), Liars and Heaps. Oxford University Press. pp. 106-27.
Schiffer on vagueness.Matti Eklund - 2006 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (1):12–23.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
88 (#193,963)

6 months
12 (#219,036)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Stephen Schiffer
New York University

Citations of this work

Vagaries about Vagueness.Nathan Salmon - 2010 - In Richard Dietz & Sebastiano Moruzzi (eds.), Cuts and Clouds: Vaguenesss, its Nature and its Logic. Oxford University Press.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references