David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Mind 110 (1):45--98 (2001)
This paper addresses three problems: the problem of formulating a coherent relativism, the Sorites paradox and a seldom noticed difficulty in the best intuitionistic case for the revision of classical logic. A response to the latter is proposed which, generalised, contributes towards the solution of the other two. The key to this response is a generalised conception of indeterminacy as a specific kind of intellectual bafflement-Quandary. Intuitionistic revisions of classical logic are merited wherever a subject matter is conceived both as liable to generate Quandary and as subject to a broad form of evidential constraint. So motivated, the distinctions enshrined in intuitionistic logic provide both for a satisfying resolution of the Sorites paradox and a coherent outlet for relativistic views about, e.g., matters of taste and morals. An important corollary of the discussion is that an epistemic conception of vagueness can be prised apart from the strong metaphysical realism with which its principal supporters have associated it, and acknowledged to harbour an independent insight.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Max Kölbel (2009). The Evidence for Relativism. Synthese 166 (2):375-395.
Elizabeth Barnes & Ross P. Cameron (2011). Back to the Open Future1. Philosophical Perspectives 25 (1):1-26.
Ragnar Francén (2010). No Deep Disagreement for New Relativists. Philosophical Studies 151 (1):19--37.
Andy Egan (2014). There's Something Funny About Comedy: A Case Study in Faultless Disagreement. Erkenntnis 79 (1):73-100.
Rosanna Keefe (2015). II—Modelling Higher‐Order Vagueness: Columns, Borderlines and Boundaries. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 89 (1):89-108.
Similar books and articles
Patrick Greenough (2009). On What It is to Be in a Quandary. Synthese 171 (3):399 - 408.
Crispin Wright (2003). Rosenkranz on Quandary, Vagueness and Intuitionism. Mind 112 (447):465-474.
C. J. G. Wright (2001). On Being in a Quandary. Relativism Vagueness Logical Revisionism. Mind 110 (437):45--97.
Robert A. Miller (1998). Lifesizing in an Era of Downsizing: An Ethical Quandary. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 17 (15):1693-1700.
Edmund Pincoffs (1971). Quandary Ethics. Mind 80 (320):552-571.
Hillel Steiner (1980). A Libertarian Quandary. Ethics 90 (2):257.
Myrna Goldenberg (2002). Quarrel and Quandary (Review). Philosophy and Literature 26 (2):456-458.
T. Shelby (2003). "I'm Not a Racist, But...": The Moral Quandary of Race. Philosophical Review 112 (1):124-126.
Robert Post (1993). Managing Deliberation: The Quandary of Democratic Dialogue. Ethics 103 (4):654-678.
J. L. A. Garcia (2008). Book Reviews:“I'm Not a Racist, but …”: The Moral Quandary of Race. [REVIEW] Ethics 118 (2):332-337.
Alan Berger (2003). The Quinean Quandary and the Indispensability of Nonnaturalized Epistemology. Philosophical Forum 34 (3-4):367–382.
Cynthia D. Coe (2003). Suffering Witness: The Quandary of Responsibility After the Irreparable (Review). Journal of Speculative Philosophy 17 (1):68-70.
Denis G. Arnold (2003). Exploitation and the Sweatshop Quandary. Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (2):243-256.
Added to index2011-07-28
Total downloads16 ( #164,005 of 1,725,422 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #211,008 of 1,725,422 )
How can I increase my downloads?