Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
[There are several corollaries and further points. Firstly, many of the problems that are taken to be insuperable in the case of nonentities arise equally in the case of entities, especially natural objects such as clouds and storms and waves, mountains and waterfalls and forests. But the problems are not usually seen as – and should not be seen as – discrediting entities. Thus a double standard is being applied. Questions which are realised not to present insuperable problems for entities are taken to do so in the case of nonentities, which are required to be determinate, distinct, and so on, in a way that entities are frequently not. But recall all the decision questions for entities that Wittgenstein and Wisdom introduced us to (see especially Wisdom’s neglected 1953), and add some more, e.g. How wide is Mt. Egmont? Where do its slopes end? How long is a leech? How long is Plato’s beard? Is this a new wave? How many mountain peaks are in the range? Questions as to precise boundaries, in particular, are very common with natural entities: these are sometimes settled by decision or convention, and sometimes not. Sometimes they call only for cheerful indecision. ]
Published: Oct 23, 2019
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.