You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Ordinals as indexicals

WhiteFinch June 15, 2017 at 13:58 1400 views 1 comments
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?

Comments (1)

Srap Tasmaner June 15, 2017 at 14:27 #77834
Reply to WhiteFinch
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.