If philosophy process, yes. If philosophy product, then one hopes vagueness squeezed out.

So, is vagueness itself a philosophy? — Don Wade

It could be but I guess vagueness can be absorbed by two big branches of philosophy: scepticism and nihilism because when we have vague thoughts sometimes depends in our uncertainty so vagueness, itself, could be more developed inside these two.

If philosophy product, then one hopes vagueness squeezed out. — tim wood

Is there a metric as to how one would do that?

I guess vagueness can be absorbed by two big branches of philosophy — javi2541997

Could you give a little more detail as to how you could absorb vagueness?

Is there a metric as to how one would do that? — Don Wade

I'd start with the question, defining/refining, testing, until I had an answer. Then seeing if that in fact answered the question.

If you're asking is there is some direct method, I think there is not, and there are results in some areas of study that suggest that generally there cannot be. What do you think?

Yes. For example: The concept of time. When we are living a period of uncertainty we have nihilistic feelings or thoughts about what the future could holds. This symptom of vagueness make us feel so uncertain about us. Nevertheless, vagueness, itself, it is already absorbed previously by nihilism because this is the main premise or thought about uncertainty.

Nevertheless, vagueness, itself, it is already absorbed previously by nihilism because this is the main premise or thought about uncertainty. — javi2541997

Nihilism seems to have a specific definition - however, vagueness is just...vague. I don't see your thinking in reference to vagueness being absorbed by nihilism. To me; Nihilism is a skepticism that anything in the world is real. That doesn't seem real, or vague.

Vagueness is often illustrated by the sorites paradox, or "problem of the heap". — Don Wade

Yeppity.

There seems to be a problem with our (human) ability to think in terms of exactness (focus) - as in a grain of sand, and in terms of generalities - such as a pile of sand - (at the same time). — Don Wade

So you say. But this is more about your proposed solution of the puzzle than about the problems actually created or revealed by the puzzle. Fair enough, you have a theory. But several people in your other thread pointed out that ability may be less relevant than need or inclination. So it's not clear (ha) that you are really answering the puzzle.

So, is vagueness itself a philosophy? — Don Wade

It's a feature of natural language.

So, not surprisingly there are philosophies of vagueness, yes.

Or do you mean, has anyone thought of basing their philosophy on vagueness? Yes, all the time, because it's a feature of language.

If you're asking is there is some direct method, I think there is not, and there are results in some areas of study that suggest that generally there cannot be. What do you think? — tim wood

I think the subject of vagueness is a "re-newed" field of study in philosophy. For the last 2,500 years man has pretty much accepted the findings of the early philosophers (especially Aristotle). We looked at objects as being defined as having boundaries (whole objects). Now, we can visualize there may be a vagueness involved. But, our "foundational knowledge" is based on a reality of bordered objects - not vauge objects.

Or do you mean, has anyone thought of basing their philosophy on vagueness? Yes, all the time, because it's a feature of language. — bongo fury

I like your comment. I believe features of our language are based on our "perception" of what we define as reality. (That is, a non-vague reality). Which is why I'm asking the question - "Is vagueness iteslf a philosophy"? And, yes, it would help in my understanding of other posts I've made.

Research in my country says that about one third of the people believe in something. We call it 'somethingism'. Perhaps that resembles vagueness?

Perhaps that resembles vagueness? — TaySan

Thanks, yes, lol, that is something!

:)

I recommend a book which I read a few years ago on the usefulness of fuzziness in thinking, by Bart Kosko (1993), 'Fuzzy Logic.'

I recommend a book which I read a few years ago on the usefulness of fuzziness in thinking, by Bart Kosko (1993), 'Fuzzy Logic.' — Jack Cummins

Thanks Jack. Good to hear from you on this post. Yes, I'm familiar with the book, and the subject, and refer to the literature often. It seems the fuzzy logic researchers current attempt at researching "vagueness" - but still can't quite give up the concept of formal logic. It's almost like one has to re-train their brain to think - (another concept). Keep posting. I believe you are good at this stuff.

Research in my country says that about one third of the people believe in something. We call it 'somethingi — TaySan

Interesting! I will check out more information about it.

So, is vagueness itself a philosophy? — Don Wade

Vagueness is a lack of clarity.

Almost all people are confused by the continuous conversation they have with little voice inside their head. Instead of seeing what's actually going on, they listen to the voice that tells them the up is down, right is left, and black is white.

When you think about it, it's amazing that anybody can present a confident persona.

I was impressed with the book at the time but not entirely convinced by it. I think that fuzziness can be a way of brainstorming. However, I am more in favour of trying to gain as much clarity as possible. But, of course, we face so much uncertainty in life.

But, of course, we face so much uncertainty in life. — Jack Cummins

And there-in lies the beauty.

I find that the more I try to plan life, with possible courses of action, something different to what I expected seems to arise. Perhaps it is captured in the quantum physicist Heisenberg's principle of indeterminancy. In the thread I started about a real philosopher, people were discussing a saying, possibly attributed to Socrates, about not knowing anything. I am not sure that it is helpful to go as far as saying that, but it does seem that we need to live with some flexibility because reality is unpredictable.

For the last 2,500 years man has pretty much accepted the findings of the early philosophers (especially Aristotle). We looked at objects as being defined as having boundaries (whole objects). — Don Wade

CS Peirce made a big effort to bring vagueness into logic. And ironically, in my view, this demands being quite precise about a definition of the ultimately indefinite. The vague is the “other” of the crisp or bounded.

The ontological consequence of this is that nothing real can be either completely bounded nor completely indeterminate as both logical categories would be defined in dialectical relation to each other. So the most certain thing has some residue of vagueness, and vice versa.

For Peirce, it was also the cornerstone of a developmental approach to either epistemology or ontology. A process philosophy.

The ordinary view - as taken by Bertrand Russell - is that the world is always definite. Even a smudged photo of your mother is still exactly whatever it is as an image on close inspection. But from a process point of view, this would be the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

So Peirce equated vagueness with his firstness, or the fundamental spontaneity of possibility. At base, uncertainty exists as that which can then be shaped into counterfactual definiteness. Certainty then becomes the other limiting pole of this process of development. It is the world becoming as concretely what it is as much as is possible, or as much as it matters.

This developmental view is thus semiotic, or brings the further question of meaning and purpose into play within logic or ontology. Vagueness becomes negated to the degree there is some larger interest in play.

Is that a smudged photo of your mum? If it matters, more work can be done to sharpen the image somehow. A statistical view could be taken that assigns a probability.

So yes. Conventional logical thought hates the very notion of vagueness. It is set up to exclude it. That is what Aristotle’s three laws of thought are about.

But then, there has to be that vagueness to exclude. And you can move things up a meta level in logic by incorporating vagueness as something definite within your general epistemic system.

I am not sure that it is helpful to go as far as saying that, but it does seem that we need to live with some flexibility because reality is unpredictable. — Jack Cummins

Life is unpredictable. Not a long time ago many philosophers believed "if we we knew just 1 (one) thing everything else could be predicted" - but then along came a thing called uncertainty (along with a cat in a box - lol). Then things got "fuzzy". Along with fuzzy, things also got a little vague. Now, In the light of vagueness, I believe it's time to re-think what we believe we know.

I find that the more I try to plan life, with possible courses of action, something different to what I expected seems to arise. — Jack Cummins

It's not that you can't successfully plan things, it's just that you have to allow for those things that take place after your plan was designed (assuming you had a pretty good grasp on what was happening in the first place).

This is one of the reasons that people are so unskilled at predicting the future, that is, most things that determine the future have not taken place as of yet (even if you could do the necessary calculations).

I have found that they key for me was the realization that "attachment being the cause of all suffering" was literal. Planning could be considered the institutionalization of attachment (attaching to future things before they happen [and most that will never happen!]).

Do you think anything it has been a predominant idea that everything wasknowable? I would imagine that some philosophers and other thinkers in the past did think we could construct a clear picture However, this view has not been so clearcut since quantum physics replaced the Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm. If anything, I think that many do question the whole foundation of knowing, especially after postmodernism. I do believe that a lot is uncertain, but I do think a systems approach does provide some basis for sketching some foundations amidst our uncertainty.

This developmental view is thus semiotic, or brings the further question of meaning and purpose into play within logic or ontology. Vagueness becomes negated to the degree there is some larger interest in play. — apokrisis

Thanks for your input Apokrisis. You show great insight into early philosophy. In your writing you mentioned a "larger interest". I'm going to take your reference to larger interest and ask: could your larger interest example be similar to a reference to an analogy of a "grain of sand or a pile of sand"? If so, I would like to offer a solution of how to view the larger picture without reference to vagueness.

:up:

'Discoursive practices' seem to consist in something like (yeah Peirce et al, but this is my working distillation of) imbedded, or tangled, conceptual 'frames': random (noisy-symmetrical) <— vague (perceptual-fuzzy) <— sense (sign/al) <— meaning (contextual, (correlational) heuristic) <— ambiguous (symbolic, interpretative) <— model-modal (translational, (a/causal) algorithm) ...

Try as I might, still it's all so vague.

"Reason" in language – oh, what an old deceptive female she is! I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar. — Twilight of the Idols

:fire:

In the sorites-paradox example the group of sand-grains is at one level, and the sand-pile is at another level. We can have knowledge that both can exist at the same time but they exist, in the mind, only at different levels - hence the paradox. The concept of levels solves the paradox. — Don Wade

:up: Yeah, much like Tarski's unraveling of the "Liar's Paradox" (i.e. truth-values of self-referential sentences) by differentiating the meta-statement (2nd order) from the object-statement (1st order).

Discoursive practices' seem to consist in something like — 180 Proof

Are you asking a question...?

Strangely, I have found that some people do plan their lives in a very clear way. I have never felt able to do as much as I would like to, because I am aware of far too many waves. I think that a lot of people have felt life has been unpredictable since the time of the pandemic, but I feel that I am accustomed to it. Everything seems to change constantly, and I just try to go with the flow, and to the best of my abilities.

Wu wei, brutha. :up:

Not grammatically.

but I do think a systems approach does provide some basis for sketching some foundations amidst our uncertainty. — Jack Cummins

Yes! I believe we can construct a viable system that will serve us better than our present system. Our present system is based on 2500 year old concepts. That can change. I would like to introduce the system. Let's just call it "levels" - for lack of a better name.

Basically, Levels is a hierarchical system of property groupings based on information from the Gestalt era in Germany guring the early 1900]s.