Vagueness in geography
- 1 February 2001
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Philosophy & Geography
- Vol. 4 (1) , 49-65
- https://doi.org/10.1080/10903770124125
Abstract
Some have argued that the vagueness exhibited by geographic names and descriptions such as ''Albuquerque,'' ''the Outback,'' or ''Mount Everest'' is ultimately ontological: these terms are vague because they refer to vague objects , objects with fuzzy boundaries. I take the opposite stand and hold the view that geographic vagueness is exclusively semantic, or conceptual at large. There is no such thing as a vague mountain. Rather, there are many things where we conceive a mountain to be, each with its precise boundary, and when we say ''Everest'' we are just being vague as to which thing we are referring to. This paper defends this view against some plausible objections.Keywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Fiat and Bona Fide BoundariesPhilosophy and Phenomenological Research, 2000
- Two Issues of VaguenessMonist, 1998
- Why the World Cannot be VagueThe Southern Journal of Philosophy, 1995
- Distinctions Without a DifferenceThe Southern Journal of Philosophy, 1995
- Vague ObjectsMind, 1990
- Sorensen's SoritesAnalysis, 1989
- Vague Identity: Evans MisunderstoodAnalysis, 1988
- An Argument for the Vagueness of 'Vague'Analysis, 1985
- Can There Be Vague Objects?Analysis, 1978
- Modality and descriptionThe Journal of Symbolic Logic, 1948