Lexicon of Arguments

 Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
II 48
Def systematic ambiguity/Frege/Hintikka: all of our expressions are systematically ambiguous; that is, they refer to different things depending on whether they are direct (transparent, extensional) contexts or indirect (intensional, opaque) contexts.
>Intensionality, >Extensionality, >Context, >Opacity.
II 50
Semantics of possible worlds/HintikkaVsFrege: here there is no > systematic ambiguity, i.e. the expressions mean intensionally the same as extensionally.
E.g. to know what John knows is to know the worlds that are compatible with his belief, and to know which ones are not.
>Possible world semantics.
II 51
Extra-premise: for this, one must be sure that an expression in different worlds takes out the same individual.
Context: what the relevant worlds are, depends on the context.
E.g. Ramses: here the case is clear.
On the other hand: e.g. Herzl knew that Loris was a great poet.
Additional premise: Loris = Hofmannsthal.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.