|Morning Star/Evening Star: Example for intensions from Frege's Über Sinn und Bedeutung (1982). The extension would be the planet Venus. Intensions may cause difficulties in relation to so called opaque contexts. E.g. a whitness maintains that she has seen the morning star. She may then not be quoted as having seen the evening star - while both are identical to the Venus. See also opacity, identity, intensions.|
Books on Amazon
|Morning Star/Evening Star||Fodor IV 168
Conceptual Role/Fine-Grained/Block/Fodor/Lepore: Problem: whether the conceptual (inferential) roles of morning star and evening star differ depends on how inferential roles themselves are individuated.
This, in turn, depends on how fine-grained or coarse-grained they are perceived.
a) as coarse-grained as the individuation of extensions: then the roles of MS/ES are not distinguished! (s) This is, in turn, distinguished from the distinction between the meta-language and the object language, for example, that "bachelor" starts with B).
E.g. Suppose our concept of inference was based on material equivalence:
Then all coextensive expressions will have the same inferential roles.
Conversely: E.g. if the inferential roles are as fine-grained as orthography (not only ES/MS but also distinction "bachelor" and "unmarried man"), then we lose the explanatory power for the (presumable) fact that synonymous expressions, other than merely coextensive ones, are substitutable salva veritate.
Fodor/LeporeVsBlock: 1) now we see: distinctions between inferential roles only solve Frege's problem if there is an adequate individualization principle for them. But there is no criterion for this! Block also called this the main problem.
Thus it is not easier to distinguish between inferential roles than between meanings.
> Fine grained/coarse grained.
Consciousness, Function, and Representation: Collected Papers, Volume 1 (Bradford Books) Cambridge 2007
J. Fodor/E. Lepore
Holism Cambridge USA Oxford UK 1992