• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.23-54
• /
• 2011

In this paper, I introduce what Boundary-Shifting theories of vagueness (or Contextualism about vagueness) are and what the Context-Fixing Argument is, which is the most powerful and plausible objection to Boundary-Shifting theories. The basic idea of the Context-Fixing Argument is that vagueness still remains even if we hold the context fixed. Many objections based on this simple idea can be found in the literature on Boundary-Shifting theories. It seems that, without a convincing response to the Context-Fixing Argument, Boundary-Shifters must be in trouble. But, oddly, defenders of Boundary Shifters have said very little about this matter. In this situation, ${\AA}$kerman and Greenough try to defend Boundary-Shifting theories of vagueness by suggesting several answers. In this paper, I critically examine their suggestions and develop a new answer to the Context-Fixing Argument.