IS HIGHER-ORDER VAGUENESS A PSEUDO-PROBLEM?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18372/2412-2157.17.9782Abstract
This article proposes a critical analysis and evaluation of discussions concerning validity and importance of arguments pro et contra the possibility of higher-order vagueness.References
Sainsbury R. M. Is There Higher-Order Vagueness? // Philosophical Quarterly 41 (1991) : pp. 167-182
Keefe R. Theories of Vagueness − Cambridge: CUP, 2000. – 233p.
Russell B. Vagueness // The Australian Journal of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (1923): pp. 84-92
Black M. Vagueness: an Exercise in Logical Analysis // Philosophy of Science 4 (1937): pp. 427-55
Raffman D. Demoting Higher-Order Vagueness // Cuts and Clouds: Vagueness, its Nature and its Logic/ Ed. by R. Dietz & S. Moruzzi. – Oxford: OUP, 2010. – pp. 509-522
Wright C. Is Higher Order Vagueness Coherent? // Analysis 52 (1992) : pp. 129-139
Sorensen R. An Argument for the Vagueness of 'Vague' // Analysis 45 (1985): pp. 134 – 137
Hyde D. Why Higher-Order Vagueness is a Pseudo-Problem // Mind 103 (1994): pp. 35-41
Hyde D. Vagueness, Logic and Ontology – Farnham: Ashgate, 2008. – 226p.
Tye M. Why the Vague Need Not Be Higher-Order Vague // Mind 103 (1994): pp. 43-45
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The scientific journal adheres to the principles of Open Access and provides free, immediate, and permanent access to all published materials without financial, technical, or legal barriers for readers.
All articles are published in Open Access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
Copyright
Authors who publish their works in the journal:
-
retain the copyright to their publications;
-
grant the journal the right of first publication of the article;
-
agree to the distribution of their materials under the CC BY 4.0 license;
-
have the right to reuse, archive, and distribute their works (including in institutional and subject repositories), provided that proper reference is made to the original publication in the journal.
