Multiplicities of Meaning: Waismann on Open Texture, Vagueness, and Ambiguity

Across his writings, Friedrich Waismann articulates his notion of “open texture” by contrasting it with a phenomenon he calls “vagueness”, claiming that while vague terms fluctuate in their actual usage, open terms may be stable, and that while vagueness can be “remedied” through the provision of more precise rules, open texture is ineliminable. He qualifies this contrast by stating that open texture is “something like possibility of vagueness”, i.e. that open terms can always come to fluctuate in their actual usage despite previous periods of stability. Due to his use of the examples “pink” and “heap” there is a strong temptation to read Waismann as claiming that open texture is the possibility of that vagueness that forms the foundation of Sorites paradoxes, i.e. that open texture is the possibility of something like “degree” vagueness. I argue that this temptation is a mistake. As his own examples of open texture make evident, open texture cannot be the possibility of degree vagueness in particular. Indeed, once we pay attention to his many illuminating examples of various semantic indeterminacies, we find instead, I argue, that open texture is the possibility of no form of vagueness as we understand the notion today. Instead, open texture emerges more plausibly as the possibility of polysemy.