Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …


International Journal for Ontology and Metaphysics

Managing Editor: Koridze, Georg

Ed. by Hüntelmann, Rafael / Meixner, Uwe / Tegtmeier, Erwin

Editorial Board: Addis, Laird / Davies, Brian / Hochberg, Herbert / Johansson, Ingvar / Kanzian, Christian / Klima, Gyula / Koons, Robert C / Künne, Wolfgang / Löffler, Winfried / Mulligan, Kevin / Nef, Frederic / Oaklander, Nathan / Oderberg, David / Orilia, Francesco / Plantinga, Alvin / Potrc, Matjaz / Rapp, Christof / Reicher-Marek, Maria Elisabeth / Schantz, Richard / Scholz, Oliver R. / Seibt, Johanna / Simons, Peter / Smith, Barry / Stoecker, Ralf / Strobach, Niko / Trettin, Käthe / Wachter, Daniel

2 Issues per year

CiteScore 2016: 0.12

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.111
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.530

See all formats and pricing
More options …

How (Not) To Argue Against Vague Object

Ali Abasnezhad
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver Campus, E370–1866 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1 Canada
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2016-09-09 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2016-0015


In a series of papers, Elizabeth Barnes and Robert Williams have developed a theory of metaphysical vagueness in which they argue for legitimacy of vague object and indeterminate identity. In his recent paper, Ken Akiba raises two objections against Barnes-Williams theory, concluding that it is ill-conceived and wrong-headed. In one objection, he argues that the theory implies indeterminate identity between referentially determinate objects to which λ-abstraction is applicable, and hence Evans’ argument ultimately goes through. In the other, he objects that Barnes-Williams theory also fails to block Salmon’s argument. This paper discusses the two objections. It argues that there are legitimate reasons for rejecting both, and hence to revive Barnes-Williams theory. Furthermore, it is shown that the objections, while unsuccessful, are helpful in revealing the limitations of Barnes-Williams theory.

Keywords: metaphysical vagueness; vague object; indeterminate identity; Evans’; argument; Salmon’s argument


  • Abasnezhad, A., and D. Hosseini. 2014. “Vagueness in the World; a Supervaluationist Approach.” In Vague Objects and Vague Identity: New Essays on Ontic Vagueness, edited by K. Akiba and A. Abasnezhad, 239–56. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Akiba, K. 2015. “Referential Indeterminacy with an Ontic Source? – A Criticism of Williams’s Defense of Vague Objects.” Metaphysica 16:167–78.Google Scholar

  • Barnes, E., and R. Williams. 2009. “Vague Parts and Vague Identity.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 90:176–87.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Barnes, E., and R. Williams. 2011. “A Theory of Metaphysical Indeterminacy.” In Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, Volume 6, edited by K. Bennett and D. Zimmerman, 103–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Evans, G. 1978. “Can There Be Vague Objects?” Analysis 38:208.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fine, K. 1975. “Vagueness, Truth and Logic.” Synthese 54:235–59.Google Scholar

  • Lewis, D. 1988. “Vague Identity: Evans Misunderstood.” Analysis 48:128–30.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Parsons, T., and P. Woodruff. 1995. “Worldly indeterminacy of identity.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 95:171–191.Crossref

  • Parsons, T. 2000. Indeterminate Identity: Metaphysics and Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Salmon, N. 1981. Reference and Essence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Williams, R. 2008a. “Multiple Actualities and Ontically Vague Identity.” The Philosophical Quarterly 58:134–54.Google Scholar

  • Williams, R. 2008b. “Ontic Vagueness and Metaphysical Indeterminacy.” Philosophy Compass 3:763–88.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Williamson, T. 1994. Vagueness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Wilson, J. 2013. “A Determinable-Based Account of Metaphysical Indeterminacy.” Inquiry 56:359–85.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-09-09

Published in Print: 2016-09-01

Citation Information: Metaphysica, Volume 17, Issue 2, Pages 195–205, ISSN (Online) 1874-6373, ISSN (Print) 1437-2053, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2016-0015.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Ali Abasnezhad and C.S.I. Jenkins
Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 2018

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in