3 ms·
Sure, but I don't think you've given a good model for vagueness. Either every unambiguous meta level up is still ambiguous, or one is not ambiguous and as such
by ikeboy 11y ago
Sure, but I don't think you've given a good model for vagueness. Either every unambiguous meta level up is still ambiguous, or one is not ambiguous and as such is subject to the paradox. The first seems not to describe our use of language.
(Btw, I'd appreciate if you only replied to one of these chains. I've seen how multiple chains can confuse things and want to cut it off now. I probably should have edited the above reply into my other one, but let's fix it now, ok?)
- mannykannot 11y agoYou are right to say that I haven't given a good model of vagueness, but all I am saying is that the argument in the pumpkin essay is flawed, and doing that doesn't require an alternative, and nor does the absence of one make the pumpkin argument more correct. N0us has pointed out in several places that formal theories with vagueness have issues, and maybe there isn't one that would satisfy all philosophers.
- ikeboy 11y ago>but all I am saying is that the argument in the pumpkin essay is flawed I don't think you've successfully pointed out a flaw. >N0us has pointed out in several places that formal theories with vagueness have issues I asked for an issue with my proposal and haven't gotten one yet.