Many theorists think nowadays that vagueness is a widespread phenomenon that affects and infects almost all terms and concepts of our thought and language, and for some philosophers degree of truth theories are the best way to cope with vagueness and sorites susceptible concepts. In this paper I argue that many of the allegedly vague concepts are not vague in the last analysis the philosopher or scientist could offer if compelled to, and that much of the vagueness of the properly (...) vague ones comes from its contextual dependence alone. I also argue that degree of truth approaches -- particularly the infinitist ones -- and fuzzy logics do not solve practically any of the puzzles brought about by vagueness and sorites arguments, and conversely they have many additional problems of their own. Concerning recalcitrant cases of vagueness, I would tentatively commend the epistemic theory of vagueness, from an inference to the best explanation. (shrink)

El uso de los términos vagos por la comunidad lingüística competente delimita con precisión la extensión de dichos términos, fijando en qué casos se aplican definidamente, en cuáles se aplican no definidamente y en cuáles es indeterminado si se aplican. Esto produce dos órdenes de vaguedad, con lo que se bloquean los argumentos sorites. La vaguedad se basa en una indeterminación determinada en la aplicación de ciertos términos por parte de los hablantes nativos.

Los dos grandes problemas del enfoque supervaluacionista para la vaguedad son determinar cuáles son las precisificaciones admisibles y la vaguedad de orden superior ilimitado. Apelando al uso de los términos vagos por la comunidad lingüística competente puede dividirse de forma tajante la extension de un término precisando en qué casos se aplica definidamente, en cuáles se aplica indefinidamente y en cuales es indeterminado si se aplica. Esto produce dos órdenes de vaguedad, con lo que se bloquean los argumentos sorites. Finalmente (...) se indaga qué semántica resulta más adecuada para una vaguedad de segundo orden. La vaguedad se basa en una indeterminación determinada en la aplicación de ciertos términos por parte de los hablantes nativos. The two main problems for the supevaluationationist approach to vagueness are deciding which precifications are admissible and unlimited higher-order vagueness. Resorting to the use of vague terms by the competent linguistic community the extension of a term can be sharply divided, making precise in which cases it applies definitely, when it applies indefinitely and when it is undetermined whether it applies. This produces two orders of vagueness, and as a result sorties arguments are blocked. Finally, it is enquired what semantic fits better to second order vagueness. Vagueness is based on a determined indeteminacy concerning the application of certain terms by native speakers. (shrink)

En el ámbito angloamericano destacan en el campo de la filosofía de la religión, por su calidad y originalidad aportaciones como las de John Hick, Anthony Flew, Alvin Plantinga, o Richard Swinburne. El presente libro recoge algunos de los artículos más destacados de estos y otros autores en torno a la racionalidad de las creencias religiosas.

Can two objects occupy completely the same space for all of their careers? Yes, according to the standard theory, as long as they fall under different sortals; this happens when an object constitutes another. Nevertheless, to avoid spatio-temporally coincident objects many hypothesis have been proposed, none of which has reached consensus. An unexplored way of answering that question in the negative is to claim that if one object constitutes another only the constituted exists. This commits one to intermittent existence, which (...) plausibility is argued for in here and its foundations surveyed. This notion is to be based on the sub-sistence of the constituting object when only the constituted exists, and on the super-sistence on the constituted object when this no longer exists but the constituting does under certain conditions. (shrink)

Various arguments have recently been put forward to support the existence of vague or fuzzy objects. Nevertheless, the only possibly compelling argument would support, not the existence of vague objects, but indeterminately existing objects. I argue for the non‐existence of any vague entities—either particulars or properties ‐ in the mind‐independent world. Even so, many philosophers have claimed that to reduce vagueness to semantics is of no avail, since linguistic vagueness betrays semantic incoherence and this is no less a problem than (...) is ontological incoherence. After spelling out why there are fewer essentially vague concepts than usually thought. I claim that only the linguistic competence of the whole speaking community for each word can draw the sharp boundaries for its concept, even if these are unknowable in practice and still leave a precise range of indetermination. This could explain both the existence of boundaries and our non‐removable ignorance of them, fulfilling the intuitions of the epistemic theory of vagueness with the supervaluationist's indeterminacy. (shrink)

Various arguments have recently been put forward to support the existence of vague or fuzzy objects. Nevertheless, the only possibly compelling argument would support, not the existence of vague objects, but indeterminately existing objects. I argue for the non‐existence of any vague entities—either particulars or properties ‐ in the mind‐independent world. Even so, many philosophers have claimed that to reduce vagueness to semantics is of no avail, since linguistic vagueness betrays semantic incoherence and this is no less a problem than (...) is ontological incoherence. After spelling out why there are fewer essentially vague concepts than usually thought. I claim that only the linguistic competence of the whole speaking community for each word can draw the sharp boundaries for its concept, even if these are unknowable in practice and still leave a precise range of indetermination. This could explain both the existence of boundaries and our non‐removable ignorance of them, fulfilling the intuitions of the epistemic theory of vagueness with the supervaluationist's indeterminacy. (shrink)

In focusing on the problem of evil from the viewpoint of theodicy, I argue that new conceptual regions are to be explored in order to get out of the permanent impasse. These possibilities respectively are: to reject the tenet that this world, if created by God, must be the best possible world; either to reject the tenet that human beings have had no previous existences to their present ones; or finally to reject causal determinism in the framework of the creation (...) of the world and accept the idea that God proceeds with a margin of randomness in a non-deterministic universe. Since these three tenets are all embedded in the philosophical tradition, and explicitly in Leibniz's Theodicy , my prospects are in this sense anti-leibnizian. (shrink)

Four-dimensionalism, the stage theory version in particular, has been defended as the best solution for avoiding vagueness in regards to composition, persistence and identity. Stage theory is highly problematic by itself, and the two views usually packed with it, unrestricted composition and counterpart theory, are a heavy burden. However, dispensing with these two views, four-dimensionalism could avoid vague persistence by issuing a criterion that would establish sharp temporal boundaries for the existence of genuine entities (simples, molecules and living organisms). This (...) would avoid vague existence and vague identity, but in a way that is still compatible with endurantism. Nevertheless, a minimal (substantialist) four-dimensionalism, a worm perdurantist ontology, would fit better with the unique way in which organisms persist: by retaining both identity and intrinsic change. (shrink)