Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Refine search results

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  HYPERINTENSIONALITY
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
Filozofia (Philosophy)
|
2019
|
vol. 74
|
issue 8
652 – 662
EN
A plenitude of motivations can and has been enlisted to speak for the hyper intensionality of epistemic modals. This fact is well-known and many logical frameworks have been introduced to capture the fine-grained nature of epistemic modals. Recently, hyper intensionality of deontic modals has been brought into the focus. Paradoxes of deontic logic and the failure of substitution of classical equivalents have been enlisted to motivate hyper intensionality in deontic logic. This paper formulates a new argument for hyper intensionality of deontic modals. The argument is based on an over-looked analogy between epistemic logic and deontic logic. This leads us to the question whether any hyper intensional framework apt for epistemic modals would be apt for deontic modals as well. The paper argues that many, but not all would be.
EN
We are often told that the meaning of a definiendum of an adequate definition is identical to the meaning of its definiens. This claim appears in Frege’s theory of definitions, and so it appears in Russell’s theory. However, it is worthwhile to remember both philosophers were advocates of the extensional semantics. Yet, the claim is often accepted beyond the realm of extensional theories. Admittedly, the claim is sustainable in the intensional semantics. However, as the author will argue, it is untenable in the theory of definitions based on hyperintensional semantics.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.