Second Essay for Philosophy

Second Essay for Philosophy
7 Professor PHI 101 February 18, 2022 Ted Sider’s Argument from Vagueness Against Moderate Answers to the Special Composition Question: A Criticism Introduction Academics and scholars focusing on the special composition question present significant views concerning when things compose various aspects. However, van Inwagen is primarily associated with presenting the special composition question (SCQ), where he explains that there are unique answers to this question. Specifically, he explains that the most notable answer is that composition always happens. In other words, for different objects that display disjoint characteristics, there are specific ones composed of similar objects. Therefore, based on this perspective, there is an object consisting of the moon and my left pinky. Meanwhile, other philosophers present distinct arguments against several aspects relating to SCQ. As an illustration, Ted Siders utilizes a view from vagueness to oppose the provision of moderate answers to SCQ. Sider explains that intermediate answers are ordinary and that the special composition question lacks a definitive or informative answer . In this sense, this essay criticizes Ted Sider’s argument from vagueness against providing moderate answers to the special composition question. Background An area of increased philosophical discourses is the view that objects of the finite class have specific things composed of the finite class objects . Notably, philosophers argue that composition displays unlimited or unrestricted aspects . Those who support this point of view stem their concerns about whether composition is vague. Nonetheless, Ted Sider presents a vagueness argument that challenges moderate answers to the special composition question. According to Tan (17), Ted Sider insists that composition can never be vague and moderate answers entail that composition is restricted, which the philosopher disagrees with in his argument. Even though Sider’s vagueness argument is logical , his argument against moderate answers is not sound. For this reason, while I agree with his point of view concerning vagueness, I firmly seek to criticize his opposition to sensible answers and explain that people can indeed use moderate responses when responding to the special composition question. Criticism of Ted Siders Argument Against Moderate Answers Understanding why Ted Sider’s argument fails to present significant logic requires assessing his vagueness argument, a point against moderate answers, and the correlation between the two. First, Ted Siders argues against moderate responses because of his approach and view of composition . By moderate, Siders means common sense and insists people should not be applied to the special composition question. I argue that Sider makes an error in applying a vagueness argument to the composition issue and that he does not consider a unique point of view (Quine, 19). Sider missteps because vagueness in itself calls for a distinct and accurate definition at a given point in time. The numerous direct and in-depth description of vague predicates is considered authentic founded on their specific elements . Yet, as Ted Sider explains, we cannot possess things that are not instances of vague predicates be accurate definitions of it. Chewbacca will never be a potentially accurate definition of “bald.” As an illustration, someone may say they come from the Chicago suburbs, even though they can inform people that they are from Chicag o. Their answer of Chicago is common or ordinary in an aspect like, “it takes less than an hour from Lake Shore Drive.” However, it would be extensively untrue for an individual in Los Angeles to state that they are in Chicago, even if they accurately indicate that it would take a year to settle for a Lake Shore Drive movement . Ted Siders makes this statement by explaining that composition can never be vague and moderate answers are inaccurate (Tan, 18). Sider’s argument does not stand the same reason an individual in Los Angeles cannot state they are from Chicago: they both give a too broad definition or precisification. Secondly, avoiding precisification will trigger an aspect that Ted Sider supports, which is not an ordinary or common answer. Yet avoiding accurate definition is introducing missteps and inviting confusion. For this reason, there must be moderate or common answers to the specific composition question if people are to achieve a meaningful understanding . Nonetheless, this argument presents unsurety regarding whether Ted Sider would consider it a counterintuitive moderation founded on composition (Tan, 19). Based on the example, a specific point in time would require a person heading towards Chicago to state their accurate position or location . The argument can also be applied to the hairs plucking and baldness example . However, as Ted Sider suggests, it is crucial to understand that the idea is a hard bullet to bite compared to accepting that things might be accurate definitions of vague predicates. Therefore, his moderate answer criticism does not present significant logic because it invites confusion when arguing from a vagueness point of view. Thirdly, another problematic aspect of Ted Sider’s argument is that he insists on associating determinate matter with composition. Sider explains that composition and existence have a similar or single definition. I respectfully disagree with the philosopher’s argument. I argue that Ted Sider should instead explain that each continuous pattern or series possesses a moderate answer concerning composition. The reason for such direction is that composition has only one accurate definition and, therefore, this is where moderation for composition happens (Tan, 19). For the philosopher , making his argument sound requires him to accept a minor retreat by admitting that composition carries, within itself, some vagueness. Acknowledging this aspect allows people to utilize moderate answers when responding to the special composition question. Thus, Ted Sider’s claim that composition lacks ambiguity makes his view about answering the special composition question unsound. Furthermore, Sider argues against moderate answers by explaining that they present counterintuitive outcomes. While I agree that sensible definitions can be contrary to intuition, the idea that composition lacks vagueness requires that there is a defined point where composition occurs. For this reason, the philosopher’s argument is not sound because the first and only accurate description must present concise borders or boundaries. Moreover, since composition can never be vague, at least according to Ted Sider, anything past a sensible answer must be the situation where composition happens. Therefore, the philosopher cannot and should not reject moderate responses without sacrificing certain parts or points that his argument makes . If Sider sacrifices some of his argument’s issues , he will lose the support of composition as a non-vague aspect (Tan, 19). In this sense, Ted Sider’s argument against moderate answers to the special composition question fails when he applies a vagueness perspective for composition. Conclusion In summary, Ted Sider’s argument from vagueness against moderate answers to the special composition question lacks a logical foundation founded on the philosopher’s missteps. For instance, the philosopher missteps by not considering that even vagueness requires accurate or specific definitions at some point. Secondly, to attain meaningful understanding, they have to present moderate answers to the special composition . Ted Siders also fails in his argument because he does not acknowledge that composition carries some vagueness. After all, if he does so, he loses a credible point of view and discussion against moderate responses. Thus, Ted Sider’s argument from vagueness against moderate answers to special composition question falls short and is not sound. Works Cited Quine, Willard V. From a logical point of view: Nine logico-philosophical essays. No. 566. Harvard University Press, 1980. Tan, Peter. “A Criticism of the Argument from Vagueness for Unrestricted Composition.” Res Cogitans, vol. no. 1, 2010, pp. 14-21.