Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Search  
 
Intensions: intensions are reference objects resulting from a linguistic description, in contrast to the material objects (extensions) that may differ therefrom, whether due to inaccuracies, or by the use of indexical expressions. Examples of intensions are “the oldest person in the room”, “the winner”, “John's favorite quote”, “the one who violates the speed limit”. See also morning star/evening star, extensionality, extension.
 
Author Item Excerpt Meta data

 
Books on Amazon
I 5
Belief/wishes/intension/Millikan: can be explained without reference to language.
---
I 111
Intension/Millikan: intension is something quite different from Fregean sense. It is not a rule, but an application criterion, relative to the speaker's state. We must take into account the speaker and his mechanisms. Its dispositions and its justification for the use of an icon.
---
I 112
Intension: has therefore to do with causation and justification of utterances.
Sense/Fregean Sense/Millikan: sense has nothing to do with the particular speaker and his situation, one does not have to know how he comes to map something, just how something is mapped.
Meaning/Intension/Millikan: Difference: e.g. Pegasus: has an intension, but as an empty name it can have no (Fregean) sense.
Adjective: correspondingly: "bewitched" has no sense, but intension.
---
I 143
Intension/Concept/Language/Quine/Millikan: our concepts cannot be based on intensions, and these in turn on other intensions etc.
Intrusive information/Quine: then we would be dealing with "intrusive information".
Quine: everything would always have to be tested at once.

Millk I
R. G. Millikan
Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories: New Foundations for Realism Cambridge 1987


> Counter arguments against Millikan
> Counter arguments in relation to Intensions



> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX Datei
 
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-05-28