• WhiteFinch
    1
    Are ordinary language ordinals, 'first', 'second', 'third', etc., indexicals? (They don't seem to be included in standard lists of indexicals.) If you relate six individuals, say, all different in height, on the basis of 'between in height', you'll get an ordering with no first, and no last, just a shortest, a next taller, through to tallest, and equally, a tallest, a next shorter, through to shortest. Under the sequence from shortest to tallest, the shortest is first, but under the sequence from tallest to shortest, the tallest is first. Since 'first' here varies with the context - namely, which sequence - shouldn't it be classified as an indexical? So, as a general conclusion, aren't all ordinals indexicals?
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.6k

    I don't think so. They're defined relative to something, but that something is not so much the context of their utterance, but how the sequence is defined. Lots of definitions are relative to other definitions without being indexicals.

    It's a good question though. I'll bet there's something there.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.