Which of the premises in this argument is
P1. Everest is determinately a mountain
P2. Something is Everest
C. So, something is determinately a
There must be a false premise, since the
argument is valid, even if ‘Everest’ is a description rather than a proper
name, and the conclusion is obviously false. There is no thing such that it
rather than one of its mereological siblings is determinately a mountain. So
which is it?
It has to be P1, right? But isn’t it
determinately true that Everest is a mountain? Yes, but that doesn’t imply P1.
P0 does not imply P1, as we can tell by noting that P0 is true and P1 false.
Everest is a mountain
is determinately a mountain
Interesting to note how this compares to K0
knows that Everest is a mountain
is such that Jack knows it is a mountain
It is either an argument for or a
consequence of the theory that names are directly referential that K0 does entail
K1. (It could be both an argument for the theory and a consequence of it.)
Assuming there is a connection between ‘determinately’ and ‘knows that’ (a
connection that everyone on the ‘conservative’ end of the vagueness spectrum
endorses) then the failure of P0 to entail P1 suggests that perhaps K0 does not