tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post93389040693944563..comments2024-03-18T20:24:18.935-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Presentism and vaguenessAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-64072456397245778502013-02-07T13:45:38.750-06:002013-02-07T13:45:38.750-06:00Clever! I am strongly inclined to say that there ...Clever! I am strongly inclined to say that there is no vagueness in respect of anything fundamental, though.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-30276128574240268542013-02-07T11:39:34.660-06:002013-02-07T11:39:34.660-06:00Shoot. The second 'exist' in the second se...Shoot. The second 'exist' in the second sentence of the second paragraph should be '*exist*'. And it took out the proposition markers in the parenthetic. The either or should be "either \the pain exists\ or \the pain *exists*\".Jonathan D. Jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02913077212736834794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-19737742746419944592013-02-07T11:37:13.749-06:002013-02-07T11:37:13.749-06:00For a while now I've thought that what present...For a while now I've thought that what presentists should say is that while it is true that, say, there were dinosaurs, this is not a fundamental truth. It's true, but not fundamentally so. If that move is open, then the following move is open in response to the vagueness worry: It's not vague whether anything exists, it's only vague which proposition, the fundamental one or the non-fundamental one, is true (or perhaps which one we're expressing). <br /><br />Say 'exists' when speaking non-fundamentally, and '*exists*', fundamentally. Then it's not vague whether the pain exists, and it's not vague whether it exists. It's vague whether the pain exists or *exists*. (Or, it's vague whether "the pain exists" expresses or .) <br /><br />There's lots of ways this could go, but the basic move, if plausible, seems to reply well to your worry.Jonathan D. Jacobshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02913077212736834794noreply@blogger.com