|Fine-grained, logic, philosophy: statements can be be more or less detailed. E.g. the fine-grained statement (x)(y)(x = y > (N(x = x) > N(x = y))) could be displayed in a coarse-grained way as A > B. For the decision of problems the coarse-grained form is often inadequate. See also decidability, possible worlds, situation semantics, possible world semantics, hyperintensionality._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. |
Books on Amazon
Fine-grained/Fodor/Lepore: for Frege s distinction intension/extension individuation must be finer than the individuation of extensions (evening star/morning star) - for Twin Earth/Putnam: it must not be as fine as the orthography: otherwise "unmarried man" unequal "bachelor" (-> narrow/broad content) -
Fine-grained/Fodor/Lepore: E.g. as fine as orthography: then not only evening star/morning star can be distinguished, but also unmarried man/bachelor - ((s) other than distinguishing object language/metalanguage). - Frege: (intention/extension) needs more fine-grained distinction - Putnam: twin earth requires less fine-grained - Closely synonymous expressions must be treated as extensionally different - e.g. Water/twin earth water._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.
J. Fodor/E. Lepore
Holism Cambridge USA Oxford UK 1992