Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Search  
 
Author Item Excerpt Meta data

 
Books on Amazon
169/70
Synonymy/Criteria/propositional identity/Geach: we know that strict reciprocal implication is not a sufficient criterion for synonymy - e.g. "Necessarily either both, p and q, or neither p nor q" usually does not suffice: that does not justify the conclusion: Everyone believes that p iff and only if he believes that q". - ((s) because of lack of identity criteria for intensional objects.) Geach: entailment as a substitute for strict implication is complicated, but does not help. - Transitivity must be abolished - even from reciprocal entailment, the identity of propositions does not follow. - Geach: no one knows what he says when he says that two propositions are identical. If the difference between two propositions is not an obstacle, that both are believed at the same time, why should it be an obstacle being expressed simultaneously by one and the same proposition? - Problem: then the whole apparatus of synonymy and non-ambiguity threatens to collapse. On the other hand, if we cannot recognize the same meaning (sense) in different linguistic disguises, there is also little purpose in postulating propositions.

Gea I
P.T. Geach
Logic Matters Oxford 1972


> Counter arguments against Geach
> Counter arguments in relation to Synonymy



> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX Datei
 
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-05-25