Three objections to Smith on vagueness
| Abstract | F-relevant respects are never precisely defined, but the intuitive idea is clear enough. Smart- relevant respects are mental abilities, Philosopher-relevant respects presumably include where one is employed, what kinds of things one writes, etc, and, most importantly for this paper, the only Tall-relevant respect is height. | |||||||||
| 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: 5,709 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesPeter van Inwagen (2002). Why Vagueness is a Mystery. Acta Analytica 17 (1).
Michael Heidelberger (2010). Functional Relations and Causality in Fechner and Mach. Philosophical Psychology 23 (2):163 – 172.
Pablo Cobreros (2011). Varzi on Supervaluationism and Logical Consequence. Mind 120 (479):833-43.
Susanne Bobzien (2010). Higher-Order Vagueness, Radical Unclarity, and Absolute Agnosticism. Philosophers' Imprint 10 (10):1-30.
Christopher Woodard (2009). What's Wrong with Possibilism. Analysis 69 (2):219-226.
Trenton Merricks (2001). Varieties of Vagueness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (1):145-157.
Christian Fermüller (2010). Review: Vagueness and Degrees of Truth. [REVIEW] Australasian Journal of Logic 9:1-9.
Nicholas J. J. Smith (2008). Vagueness and Degrees of Truth. Oxford University Press.
Nicholas J. J. Smith (2005). Vagueness as Closeness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83 (2):157 – 183.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads8 ( #123,255 of 549,754 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,754 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
