Sorites Paradox
In this paper, I will explain the sorites paradox as well as provide two responses to vagueness and write an objection to both of them. The two response vagueness that I will cover are Epistemicism and Supervaluationism. An example of the sorites paradox is a forest. You start to cut a single tree from the forest and slowly, you reduce the amount of trees from the forest one by one. A factor in this paradox is to assume that cutting down a single tree from the forest does not reduce the forest to a non-forest, at what point does the forest turn into a non-forest? The logic of the argument is that since removing only a single tree from the forest does not reduce the forest into a non-forest. You are cutting the trees down one after the other
…show more content…
Therefore, it is difficult to determine how to solve the gray area between definite words. My response to the paradox would be a mixture between epistemicism and supervaluationism. I believe that vague words exist because of the lack of knowledge that we have when using the vague words and I agree with that aspect of epistemicism. Another factor that I agree with is that by defining and setting precise boundaries on the vague words, they will no longer be vague. For example, If Tom asks for a few grapes, he may receive more than a few or one grape. If he specifically asks for a certain amount of grapes, then he will receive the amount that he asked for and not any more or less. A drawback to precise definitions is that it requires more thought on the subject. I feel as though I agree more with the supervaluationism viewpoint compared to the epistemic viewpoint because I believe that we can define the boundaries. With defining the boundaries, it would be difficult as well as impractical as a heap of sand may be defined as at least 300 grains. It is unreasonable to count out every separate grain. Therefore, I believe the best possible way to eliminate vague words is to have boundaries that are not too precise where it has to be a specific number. I believe it is more reasonable to have a range of numbers it can fall
Therefore, it is difficult to determine how to solve the gray area between definite words. My response to the paradox would be a mixture between epistemicism and supervaluationism. I believe that vague words exist because of the lack of knowledge that we have when using the vague words and I agree with that aspect of epistemicism. Another factor that I agree with is that by defining and setting precise boundaries on the vague words, they will no longer be vague. For example, If Tom asks for a few grapes, he may receive more than a few or one grape. If he specifically asks for a certain amount of grapes, then he will receive the amount that he asked for and not any more or less. A drawback to precise definitions is that it requires more thought on the subject. I feel as though I agree more with the supervaluationism viewpoint compared to the epistemic viewpoint because I believe that we can define the boundaries. With defining the boundaries, it would be difficult as well as impractical as a heap of sand may be defined as at least 300 grains. It is unreasonable to count out every separate grain. Therefore, I believe the best possible way to eliminate vague words is to have boundaries that are not too precise where it has to be a specific number. I believe it is more reasonable to have a range of numbers it can fall