Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Identity of intension (L-equivalence) is insufficient as ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Identity of intension (L-equivalence) is insufficient as a criterion of synonymy for resolving the paradox of analysis

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Addressing the paradox of analysis requires distinguishing expressions that are L-equivalent but not synonymous
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A stronger, finer-grained notion of synonymy than L-equivalence is needed to make such distinctions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Carnap's intensional isomorphism already provides a finer-grained criterion than L-equivalence by requiring structural correspondence of designators.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The paradox of analysis dissolves when synonymy is cashed out via intensional isomorphism, since 'brother' and 'male sibling' differ in intensional structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the claim that L-equivalence is insufficient presupposes that no refinement within Carnap's own framework can do the required work.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's critique shows that no notion of analyticity or L-equivalence is well-defined without a prior account of synonymy, making the paradox irresolvable at a deeper level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the paradox of analysis cannot be stably formulated without circular appeal to synonymy, the demand for a criterion stronger than L-equivalence targets a pseudo-problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Frege's original distinction between sense and reference already handles informativeness asymmetry without requiring a novel synonymy criterion beyond what intensional logic provides.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A stronger, finer-grained notion of synonymy than L-equivalence is needed to mak...Addressing the paradox of analysis requires distinguishing expressions that are ...Carnap's intensional isomorphism already provides a finer-grained criterion than...Frege's original distinction between sense and reference already handles informa...
    +4 moreShow less
    If the paradox of analysis cannot be stably formulated without circular appeal t...Quine's critique shows that no notion of analyticity or L-equivalence is well-de...The paradox of analysis dissolves when synonymy is cashed out via intensional is...Therefore, the claim that L-equivalence is insufficient presupposes that no refi...

    Similar

    Just as the Russellian response to intensional equivalence held that t...80%Addressing the paradox of analysis requires distinguishing expressions...79%From the premises that two expressions differ in intension but share a...76%All candidate explanations of synonymy — definition, intension, possib...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: carnap
    View source passageHide passage
    Carnap (1946, 1947) worked out an intensional semantics for necessity and possibility operators for different example languages, and for the modal logic S5 that C.I. Lewis (1944) had previously discussed (see the supplement Semantics (Section 1) for the details). He also started exploring areas that are presently of special interest, such as “hyperintensional” semantics (see, e.g., Yablo 2014): In the context of addressing the paradox of analysis, he found that a stronger or finer-grained noti
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit