Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The Fregean view that vagueness is negligent under-definition is mistaken.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Supervaluationists argue that indecision about meaning can be intentional rather than negligent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Speakers rationally defer full semantic commitment in order to refine meanings as new information and interests arise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A practice that is both intentional and functional cannot be correctly characterized as negligent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's family resemblance concepts show that terms like 'game' function successfully without sharp boundaries, demonstrating non-negligent vagueness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a concept performs its classificatory work across all clear cases without failure, the absence of sharp boundaries reflects semantic design, not defect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Frege's negligence charge presupposes that precision is always the communicative ideal, but Austin's ordinary language philosophy shows context-sensitivity often outperforms precision.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Williamson's epistemic theory establishes that vague predicates have sharp extensions unknowable to us, meaning vagueness is a feature of cognition, not definition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If vagueness tracks genuine cognitive limitations rather than authorial carelessness, the negligence framing misidentifies the phenomenon's source entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42