Logic, Semantics, Ontology consists of three papers concerned with ontological issues. The first, "That There Might Be Vague Objects", is a critical study of Gareth Evans's essay, "Can There be Vague Objects". The author argues that the formal argument presented in Evans's paper is valid and that a contradiction can indeed be derived from the statement that it is indeterminate whether a is b. However, the deduction theorem fails in the required logic: Hence, one can not derive the validity of (...) the statement that it is determinate whether a is b. ;One who holds the view that there are vague objects is committed to the legitimacy of those principals to which appeal is required in the proof. Hence, the view that there are vague objects is committed to the claim that no statement of the form "It is indeterminate whether a is b" can be true, but also to denying the validity of its negation. Possible motivations for such a position are sketched and its tenability is defended. ;The second paper, "Whether Structure May Be Misleading", is a critical study of Crispin Wright's Frege's Conception of Numbers as Objects, in which Wright defends Platonism, the view that there areObjects of various sorts. The author argues that Wright's view is too promiscuous, that Wright's view appears to commit us to the existence of far too may sorts of objects. The causes of this ontological extravagance are isolated, and the author suggests ways to avoid it. In the process, however, the author also argues that certain classical Reductionist arguments fail and that their failure is closely connected with the strongest motivations for Platonism. (shrink)

A discussion of Crispin Wright's 'paradox of higher-order vagueness', I suggest that the paradox may be resolved by careful attention to the logical principles used in its formulation. In particular, I focus attention on the rule of inference that allows for the inference from A to 'Definitely A', and argue that this rule, though valid, may not be used in subordinate deductions, e.g., in the course of a conditional proof. Wright's paradox uses the rule (or its equivalent) in this way.

The thesis that there can be vague objects is the thesis that there can be identity statements which are indeterminate in truth-value (i.e., neither true nor false) as a result of vagueness (as opposed, e.g., to reference-failure), "the singular terms of which do not have their references fixed by vague descriptive means". (if this is "not" what is meant by the thesis that there can be vague objects, it is not clear what "is" meant by it.) the possibility of vague (...) objects should not be taken, in itself, to imply the more radical thesis that the identity relation can be one of "degree". one can hold that the concept of degrees of identity is absurd (how can one thing be more or less identical to another?) "and" that indeterminacy in identity is possible; hence, any incoherence in the idea of degrees of identity does not thereby undermine the idea of indeterminate identity. (shrink)