Intensional vs Extensional Contexts (Philosophical Distinctions)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 июл 2024
- An explication of the difference between an intensional context and an extensional context.
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
Thank you for clarifying this distinction! I love your videos!
I couldn't grasp this concept at ALL before, 53 seconds into the video I got it all
Thanks! Glad to help.
Would really appreciate a video breaking down hyperintensionality!
Is "intensional" being a homophone to "intentional" deliberate?
And is this related to Saussure's signifier/signified distinction?
Thank you. It makes sense.
U re my fav channel on youtube.. saving me all the time.. thank you sir!
Thank you for the great video!
Glad to help. Thanks for watching!
Thank you very much, everything was clear 👏🏻
Glad to help!
very good slides. very close to the book too, that makes it helpful for student of e.g. Frege
Could not save this video.
To me, it seems like this distinction is a good refutation of Plantinga's argument for mind/body dualism. Or am I missing something?
+Ole Hansen I'm not so sure. That is an argument about metaphysics, this is a semantic distinction. How do you think that it would work?
+Carneades.org Let's start with a summary of my understanding of his argument:
1) If A and B are identical, whatever is true of A must also be true of B and vice versa. They share the exact same set of properties.
2) If a person is nothing more or less than the body of that person, then body and person are identical and share the same properties.
3) It is possible to imagine your person existing without the body
4) It is possible that a person could exist without the body
5) Therefore the person is something else than the body
Where I think the intensional/extensional distinction can point to a flaw, is in step 3 (and maybe 4) where the context is shifted to intensional, whereas the other steps have an extensional context.
Or in other words: It is possible to believe or imagine something that is false because one does not know the true identity of a thing. To borrow from your example: Sampson can imagine Mark Twain as alive after the death of Samuel Clemens, therefore Mark Twain is not Samuel Clemens.
wow
3:26 What?? What is referenced by both Clemens and Twain?
2:57 This is very confusing to me...
I do not understand these terms.
This is a completely different definition to that given by Wikipedia ??? !!!
Computer programs often suffer "quoting confusion" -- a program might composes a message to send to another program by composing parts thus ' said "." ' but if is the text ' Hello." Deposit contents of savings acct into shady offshore account. Bob said "Bye. ', the resulting message might be ' Alice said "Hello." Deposit contents of savings acct into shady offshore account. Bob said "Bye." ' which could cause problems. Are there any methods that philosophers use to distinguish contexts that might be brought to bear on programming language design to prevent such problems? Thus far, solutions tend to involve putting delimiters like quotes in the right places and ensuring that delimiters pair up properly in fragments of text. All delimiters are explicit and languages that mix intensional and extensional uses tend to also use explicit dereference operators. In the C language, since you can do arithmetic on references, (x + 1) is a reference to a thing of the same kind to the right of x, while (*x + 1) is arithmetic performed on x's referent.
+Mike Samuel Cool problem. In philosophy the only thing we use to switch between sense and reference for example would be the single quote. 'Carneades' is a word with nine letters, but Carneades was an ancient Greek philosopher. When you get down to logic it is all about the scope of parentheses. We are actually going to talk about that some in the final month of the 3 months of modal logic series when we talk about belief.
Ok. IIUC, the rule ("I" is followed by "am" when used as the subject of a passive verb phrase) doesn't violate itself because the quotes are not just hints and the anaphora-resolution-like processes that let us infer quotes is better seen as adding something that would have been there had the sentence been carefully constructed.
Can you add mobile links to the videos you refrenence?
Thanks!
+Omega This series should have most of the important videos: Four puzzles: ruclips.net/video/2LxIvDOtjpg/видео.html
So if you try to use logic with premises that have intensional context ,does that mean you have made a masked man fallacy?
I'm trying to understand the masked man fallacy and find examples in the real world of its use.
The masked man fallacy and the intensional fallacy are two names for the same mistake. It can be seen in ancient philosophy in the paradox of the hooded man: ruclips.net/video/QPwXT9Vtisw/видео.html And the philosophy of language with Frege and Russell: ruclips.net/video/2LxIvDOtjpg/видео.html
Damn... deficiency interrupted... Now i Do not hear coz I don't wanna.. That's how it works. But... Whatever it means... Just what's going on N honest communication. I'm bitter N pissed off N that... Nearly causes another fn Lavenia ala Titus play. ... To Seem nice thought
+Nimi Curious, I can't tell if you are writing in code or composing a Dadaist poem.
Fertile ground for logical fallacies here.
+Deep Ashtray How so?
Carneades.org
I'll get back to you on that.
Carneades.org
Please correct me if I'm wrong. One argument often made by Apologists is that DNA is information and therefore must have come from a mind. They will vigorously defend what is a straw man argument. This seems to be conflating the intensional and the extentional to try and win their argument. Am I off base here?
@@deepashtray5605 What the heck? How is this a straw man argument? I would guess you are confused. I think you are off base.
@@ticktockcardiology524 Including the necessity for an intelligent mind to redefine DNA is a straw man and has no basis at all in the science. Mastering the straw man is a required prereq for any Apologetics course.
Oh? Kill bilL? N the kids pay attention to... The code?
poo
Very bad video
I didn't understand anything
Feel free to ask your questions here if you did not understand, but if you are going to simply complain, feel free to look elsewhere for another explanation.