The vagueness argument for mereological universalism
Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (3):357–368 (2006)
| Abstract | In this paper, I critically discuss one of the more influential arguments for mereological universalism, what I will call ‘the Vagueness Argument’. I argue that a premise of the Vagueness Argument is not well supported and that there are at least two good reasons for thinking that the premise in question is false. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDaniel Z. Korman (2010). The Argument From Vagueness. Philosophy Compass 5 (10):891-901.
Daniel Nolan (2006). Vagueness, Multiplicity and Parts. Noûs 40 (4):716–737.
Dan López de Sa (2006). Is 'Everything' Precise? Dialectica 60 (4):397–409.
Michael C. Rea (1998). In Defense of Mereological Universalism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58 (2):347-360.
Maureen Donnelly (2009). Mereological Vagueness and Existential Vagueness. Synthese 168 (1):53 - 79.
Nikk Effingham (forthcoming). Sider, Hawley, Sider and the Vagueness Argument. Philosophical Studies.
Hud Hudson (2000). Universalism, Four Dimensionalism, and Vagueness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (3):547-560.
Nikk Effingham (2009). Universalism, Vagueness and Supersubstantivalism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (1):35 – 42.
Yuri Balashov (2005). On Vagueness, 4d and Diachronic Universalism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83 (4):523 – 531.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads34 ( #35,318 of 549,065 )Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,099 of 549,065 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
