Towards a hybrid conception of the tolerance principle
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2026iss30.4732Keywords:
vagueness, Sorites paradox, Tolerance, Paracomplete logic, EpistemicismAbstract
This paper addresses the principle of tolerance, the central premise of the sorites paradox, which states that if two objects differ marginally with respect to a property P, then the corresponding vague predicate for P should apply to both or to neither. While semantic theories explain vagueness as a deficiency at the level of meaning and propose a many-valued logic to solve the sorites paradox, epistemic theories attribute this phenomenon to human limitations and get to keep classical logic, explaining the paradox away. This paper proposes a hybrid reading of the principle of tolerance, combining both approaches in order to overcome the limitations that each of them have (individually) and to provide an alternative yet more comprehensive conception of vagueness.
Downloads
References
Alxatib, S. & Pelletier, F. J. (2011). The Psychology of Vagueness: Borderline Cases and Contradictions. Mind and Language, 26(3), 287-326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01419.x
Beall, J. (2013). LP+, K3+, FDE+, and their ‘classical collapse’. Review of Symbolic Logic, 6(4), 742-754. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755020313000142
Dummett, M. (1975). Wang's paradox. Synthese, 30, 301-324. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485048
Eklund, M. (2005). What vagueness consists in. Philosophical Studies, 125(1), 27-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-7773-1.
Field, H. (2003). No Fact of the Matter. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 81(4), 457-480. https://doi.org/10.1080/713659756
Fine, K. (1975). Vagueness, truth and logic. Synthese, 30, 265-300. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485047.
Gómez-Torrente, M. (2014). La paradoja sorites. En E. A. Barrio (Ed.), Paradojas, paradojas y más paradojas (pp. 287-301). College Publications.
Keefe, R. (2003). Theories of vagueness. Cambridge UP.
Kleene, S. C. (1980 [1952]). Introduction to metamathematics. North Holland.
Lanzet, R. (2018). Chain-Arguments and the sorites paradox. Australasian Journal of Philoso-phy, 97(3), 589-604. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.2018.1502332
MacFarlane, J. (2009). Fuzzy epistemicism. En R. Dietz & S. Moruzzi (Eds.), Cuts and clouds: Vagueness, its nature and its logic (pp. 438-463). Oxford UP.
Priest, G. (2019). Dialetheism and the sorites paradox. En S. Oms & E. Zardini (Eds.), The sorites paradox (pp. 135-150). Cambridge UP.
Ripley, D. (2011). Contradictions at the borders. In R. Nouwen, R. van Rooij, U. Sauerland & H-C. Schmitz (Eds.), Vagueness in Communication, 169-188, Springer.
Sainsbury, R. M. (2009). Paradoxes (3ra Ed.). Cambridge UP.
Smith, N. J. J. (2008). Vagueness and degrees of truth. Oxford UP.
Smith, N. J. J. (2017). Undead argument: the truth-functionality objection to fuzzy theories of vagueness. Synthese, 194(10), 3761–3787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0651-7
Soames, S. (1999). Understanding Truth. Oxford UP.
Tappenden, J. (1993). The liar and sorites paradoxes: toward a unified treatment. Journal of Philosophy, 90, 551-577. https://doi.org/10.2307/2940846
Teijeiro, P. (2015). Lógicas no clásicas de la vaguedad, Revista de Humanidades de Valparaíso, 5, 7-16. https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2015iss5pp7-16
Tye, M. (1994). Sorites paradoxes and the semantics of vagueness. Philosophical Perspectives, 8, 189-206. https://doi.org/10.2307/2214170
Williamson, T. (1992). Vagueness and ignorance. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 66, 145-162. https://doi.org/10.1093/aristoteliansupp/66.1.145
Williamson, T. (1994). Vagueness. Routledge.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
