The main thesis of this paper is that we sometimes are disposed to accept false and even jointly inconsistent claims by virtue of our semantic competence, and that this comes to light in the sorites and liar paradoxes. Among the subsidiary theses are that this is an important source of indeterminacy in truth conditions, that we must revise basic assumptions about semantic competence, and that classical logic and bivalence can be upheld in the face of the sorites paradox.

Some philosophers plaintively wonder why there is something rather than nothing. Others refuse to wonder: Explaining has its field of application outside of which the activity makes no sense.

Some philosophers plaintively wonder why there is something rather than nothing. Others refuse to wonder: Explaining has its field of application outside of which the activity makes no sense.