The ancient Sorites paradox,
1 grain of wheat does not make a heap. If 1 grain doesn’t make a heap, then 2 grains don’t. If 2 grains don’t make a heap, then 3 grains don’t. … If 999,999 grains don’t make a heap, then 1 million grains don’t. Therefore, 1 million grains don’t make a heap.
can be easily applied to all terms with vague boundaries: being tall, old, red, fat and so on. In short, it can be applied to any thing that is subject to change over time or composed by parts.
The term "heap", however, as well as the others, refers to a flexible range, related to the observer and the context of the observation. A person may perceive a group of grains differently from another one, depending on their personal attitudes or the context in which they are located - in the same way as the same amount of money looks scarce to a rich and abundant to a poor one. Even a single observer can perceive a certain number of grains sometimes as a heap and sometimes not, depending on the context. Similarly, it is very likely that, faced with the same situation, similar brains who have undergone a similar education will agree to the use of the word "heap". It's the use of the term "heap" that decrees what a heap is, not vice versa. Although the word occurs on similar circumstances, its use is always specific and must be evaluated one situation at a time, because any identity is precisely defined only through the totality of its relations. The paradox easily applies to any term isolated from a relational context, but it dissolves as soon as it is situated in a relationship ('being taller than', 'less bald than', 'old for', etc): vagueness appears if we consider just a part of the relationships that define something.
Does accepting relationism resolve the Sorites paradox?