- In the third chapter2 I present my case against the standard ontology.
- The objects of our standard ontology are vague, and of all the possible ways of handling vagueness, the only acceptable one is to accept the conventionality of the standard ontology.
- If we assume that the standard objects are not conventional, then they must either have precise temporal boundaries or imprecise temporal boundaries.
- I argue that the boundaries of a nonconventional object cannot be imprecise. If the boundaries are precise, then they must either be knowable or unknowable. I argue that there is a sense of 'knowable' in which it is obvious that no standard object's precise boundaries are knowable. I then argue that, in that same sense of 'knowable', the boundaries cannot be unknowable, unless we are prepared to accept an extreme skepticism about diachronic identity.
- I conclude that the vagueness of our standard ontology is the result of the vagueness of our conventions governing our everyday use of language - the standard ontology is conventional.
Footnote 1: Footnote 2:
Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)
- Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2020
- Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)