Implicit comparatives and the Sorites

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
A person with one dollar is poor. If a person with n dollars is poor, then so is a person with n + 1 dollars. Therefore, a person with a billion dollars is poor. True premises, valid reasoning, a false a conclusion. This is an instance of the Sorites-paradox. (There are infinitely many such paradoxes. A man with an IQ of 1 is unintelligent. If a man with an IQ of n is unintelligent, so is a man with an IQ of n+1. Therefore a man with an IQ of 200 is unintelligent.) Most attempts to solve this paradox reject some law of classical logic, usually the law of bivalence. I show that this paradox can be solved while holding on to all the laws of classical logic. Given any predicate that generates a Sorites-paradox, significant use of that predicate is actually elliptical for a relational statement: a significant token of "Bob is poor" means that Bob is poor compared to x, for some value of x. Once a value of x is supplied, a definite cutoff line between having and not having the paradox-generating predicate is supplied. This neutralizes the inductive step in the associated Sorites argument, and the would-be paradox is avoided.
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
First archival date: 2013-05-15
Latest version: 2 (2015-10-31)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Vagueness.Williamson, Timothy
Truth and Other Enigmas.Dummett, Michael A. E.
Blindspots.Sorensen, Roy A.

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
127 ( #19,677 of 39,026 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #26,859 of 39,026 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.