Qualitative versus quantitative representation: a non-standard analysis of the sorites paradox

Linguistics and Philosophy 44 (5):1013-1044 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of the sorites paradox for collective nouns and gradable adjectives within the framework of classical logic. The paradox is explained by distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative representations. This distinction is formally represented by the use of a different mathematical model for each type of representation. Quantitative representations induce Archimedean models, but qualitative representations induce non-Archimedean models. By using a non-standard model of \ called \, which contains infinite and infinitesimal numbers, the two paradoxes are shown to have distinct structures. The sorites paradox for collective nouns arises from the use of infinite numbers, whereas the sorites paradox for gradable adjectives arises from the use of infinitesimal numbers. Each paradox can be traced to a different source of vagueness. The sorites paradox for collective nouns is caused by \, and the sorites paradox for gradable adjectives is caused by \ \. If correct, this analysis implies that infinite and infinitesimal numbers are cognitively real, and that they play a role in the semantic interpretation of natural language.

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

Similar books and articles

Semantic Indecision.Timothy W. Grinsell - 2019 - In Richard Dietz (ed.), Vagueness and Rationality in Language Use and Cognition. Springer Verlag. pp. 135-152.
A cognitive neuroscience, dual-systems approach to the sorites paradox.Leib Litman & Mark Zelcer - 2013 - Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 25 (3):355-366.
A note on the sorites paradox.Graham Priest - 1979 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 57 (1):74 – 75.
Verities, the sorites, and Theseus’ ship.Igor Douven - 2017 - Synthese 194 (10):3867-3878.
A Topological Sorites.Zach Weber & Mark Colyvan - 2010 - Journal of Philosophy 107 (6):311-325.
Consonance and Dissonance in Solutions to the Sorites.Nicholas J. J. Smith - forthcoming - In Otavio Bueno & Ali Abasnezhad (eds.), On the Sorites Paradox. Springer.
The Pre-Analytic History of the Sorites Paradox.Ricardo Santos - 2019 - In Sergi Oms & Elia Zardini (eds.), The Sorites Paradox. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. pp. 289-306.
Strict Finitism and the Happy Sorites.Ofra Magidor - 2012 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (2):471-491.
Supervaluationism, Subvaluationism and the Sorites Paradox.Pablo Cobreros & Luca Tranchini - 2019 - In Sergi Oms & Elia Zardini (eds.), The Sorites Paradox. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. pp. 38-62.
Remarks on the Current Status of the Sorites Paradox.Richard DeWitt - 1992 - Journal of Philosophical Research 17:93-118.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-06-01

Downloads
32 (#502,127)

6 months
9 (#315,924)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Vagueness.Timothy Williamson - 1996 - New York: Routledge.
Non-standard Analysis.Gert Heinz Müller - 2016 - Princeton University Press.
Vagueness.Timothy Williamson - 1995 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46 (4):589-601.
Précis of Vagueness.Timothy Williamson - 1997 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57 (4):921-928.

View all 18 references / Add more references