Supervaloracionismo e vaguidade
implicações epistemológicas e semânticas indesejáveis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23925/2316-5278.2026v27i1:e74401Palavras-chave:
Supervaloracionismo, Vaguidade, Conhecimento formal e das instâncias, Classicismo semântico e epistemológicoResumo
Tentaremos mostrar que a concepção supervaloracionista de tratamento da vaguidade apresenta implicações epistemológicas e semânticas indesejáveis, que, se tomadas em conjunto, mostram que ela é inadequada para um correto tratamento do fenômeno. As implicações de ordem epistemológica não são exatamente decisivas, mas estão longe de ser irrelevantes. Isso porque elas apontam para uma desvantagem importante do supervaloracionismo perante a concepção bivalente clássica. Por outro lado, as implicações semânticas indesejáveis nos parecem decisivas e recomendam o abandono da proposta supervaloracionista.
Downloads
Métricas
Referências
BLACK, M. Vagueness: an exercise in logical analysis. Philosophy of Science. v. 4, n. 4, p. 427-455, 1937. https://doi.org/10.1086/286476.
CARGILE, J. The sorites paradox. In: KEEFE, R.; SMITH, P. (eds.). Vagueness: a reader. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996. p. 89-98.
DUMMETT, M. Wang’s paradox. Synthese, v. 30, p. 301-324, 1975. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485048
EDGINGTON, D. Vagueness by degrees. In: KEEFE, R.; SMITH, P. (eds.). Vagueness: a reader. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996. p. 294-317.
FERREIRA, S. S. Vagueza como arbitrariedade: esboço de uma teoria da vagueza. 2017. 166 f. Tese (Doutorado em Filosofia) - Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 2017.
FINE, K. Vagueness, truth, and logic. In: KEEFE, R.; SMITH, P. (eds.). Vagueness: a reader. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996. p. 119-150.
GRAFF, D. Gap principles, penumbral consequence, and infinitely higher-order vagueness. In: BEALL, J. C. (edit.). Liars and heaps: new essays on paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. p. 195-221.
GRAFF, D. Shifting sands: an interest-relative theory of vagueness. Philosophical Topics, v. 28, n. 1, p. 45-81, 2000. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics20002816.
HORGAN. T. Robust vagueness and the forced-march sorites paradox. Philosophical Perspectives, v. 8, Logic and Language, 1994. p. 159-188.
HYDE, D; COLYVAN, M. Paraconsistent vagueness: why not?. Australasian Journal of Logic, v. 6, p. 107-121, 2008. https://doi.org/10.26686/ajl.v6i0.1798.
KEEFE, R. Theories of vagueness. Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 2004.
KEEFE, R.; SMITH, P. (eds.). Vagueness: a reader. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996.
LUDLOW, P. Implicit comparison classes. Linguistics and Philosophy v. 12, p. 519-533, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00632474.
MCGEE, V.; MCLAUGHLIN, B. Distinctions without a difference. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, v. XXXIII, supplement, p. 203-251, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1995.tb00771.x
PRIEST, G. A site for sorites. In: BEALL, J. C. (edit.). Liars and heaps: new essays on paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. p. 9-23.
RAFFMAN, D. Vagueness and observationality. In: RONZITTI, G. (ed.). Vagueness: a guide. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York: Springer, 2011. p. 107-121.
RAFFMAN, D. Vagueness without paradox. The Philosophical Review, v. 103, n. 1, p. 41-74, 1994. https://doi.org/10.2307/2185872.
RONZITTI, G (ed.). Vagueness: a guide. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London and New York: Springer, 2011.
RUSSELL, B. Vagueness. The Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy, v. 1, n. 2, p. 84-92, 1923. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402308540623.
SAINSBURY, R. M. Concepts without boundaries. In: KEEFE, R.; SMITH, P. (eds.). Vagueness: a reader. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996. p. 251-264.
SANFORD, D. H. Vague numbers. Acta Analytica, v. 17, n. 29, p. 63-73, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-002-1004-6.
SANFORD, D. H. Infinity and vagueness. The Philosophical Review, v. 84, n. 4, p. 520-535, 1975. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183852.
SHAPIRO, S. Vagueness and conversation. In: BEALL, J. C. (edit.). Liars and heaps: new essays on paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. p. 39-72.
SOAMES, S. Higher-order vagueness for partially defined predicates. In: BEALL, J. C. (edit.). Liars and heaps: new essays on paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. p. 128-150.
SORENSEN, R. Vagueness. In: ZALTA, E. N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2022. Disponível em: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/vagueness/>. Acesso em 20/06/2023.
SORENSEN, R. A. Vagueness and contradiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
TYE, M. Sorites paradoxes and the semantics of vagueness. In: KEEFE, R.; SMITH, P. (eds.). Vagueness: a reader. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996. p. 281-293.
UNGER, P. There are no ordinary things. Synthese, v. 41, p. 117-154, 1979. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00869568.
VALCARENGHI, E. C. Epistemicismo e semanticismo, vaguidade e sorites. Filosofia Unisinos, v. 25, n. 3, p. 1-25, 2024. https://doi.org/10.4013/fsu.2024.253.03.
VARZI, A. C. Cut-offs and their neighbors. In: BEALL, J. C. (edit.). Liars and heaps: new essays on paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 24-38, 2003.
WEATHERSON. B. Supervaluationism. Disponível em: https://brian.weatherson.org/Ch_3.pdf. Acesso em 15/04/2025, [s.d.].
WILLIAMSON, T. Identity and Discrimination, revised ed., Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2013.
WILLIAMSON, T. Vagueness. London and New York: Routledge, 1994 (reimp. em 2001).
WILLIAMSON, T. Inexact knowledge. Mind, new series, v. 101, n. 402, p. 217-242, 1992. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/101.402.217.
WRIGHT, C. Further reflections on the sorites paradox. In: KEEFE, R.; SMITH, P. (eds.). Vagueness: a reader. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1996. p. 204-250.
WRIGHT, C. The epistemic conception of vagueness. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol. XXXIII, supplement, 1994. p. 133-159,.
WRIGHT, C. On the coherence of vague predicates. Synthese, v. 30, p. 325-365, 1975. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485049.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2026 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
