Scholarlink

<p>Ruth Chang believes that one can intrinsically resolve the question of whether a vague predicate <i>F</i> applies to its borderline case <i>a</i> through arbitrary stipulation—one can resolve it by fiat. First, I clarify what it is to intrinsically resolve a question by arbitrary stipulation. Next, I argue that Chang’s view is wrong. Cases that involve vagueness are cases of (what I’ll call) competing similarity. For this reason, for any borderline case <i>a</i> of a vague predicate <i>F</i>, we have intrinsic reason to classify <i>a</i> as <i>F</i> and intrinsic reason to classify <i>a</i> as not-<i>F</i>. If we have such reasons, then we cannot intrinsically resolve the question of whether <i>a</i> is <i>F</i> by arbitrary stipulation. My conclusion has significant upshots: it undermines Chang’s case for parity as a fourth relation of comparability, and it suggests that supervaluationists ought to distance their view from Chang’s. Moreover, this paper makes progress on the so-called characterization problem of vagueness.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Against metaphysics by fiat

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月22日

查看全文
  • Kaj André Zeller

摘要

Ruth Chang believes that one can intrinsically resolve the question of whether a vague predicate F applies to its borderline case a through arbitrary stipulation—one can resolve it by fiat. First, I clarify what it is to intrinsically resolve a question by arbitrary stipulation. Next, I argue that Chang’s view is wrong. Cases that involve vagueness are cases of (what I’ll call) competing similarity. For this reason, for any borderline case a of a vague predicate F, we have intrinsic reason to classify a as F and intrinsic reason to classify a as not-F. If we have such reasons, then we cannot intrinsically resolve the question of whether a is F by arbitrary stipulation. My conclusion has significant upshots: it undermines Chang’s case for parity as a fourth relation of comparability, and it suggests that supervaluationists ought to distance their view from Chang’s. Moreover, this paper makes progress on the so-called characterization problem of vagueness.