Skip to main content

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Theories of Intensionality
  • 293 Accesses

Abstract

Intensional logics are formal systems that differentiate an expression’s intension (broadly, its connotation or sense) from its extension (its ordinary referent or denotation).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Of course, scientists now assert that the number of planets is 8 rather than 9. However, the old numbering is assumed here and throughout the rest of this work simply to facilitate discussion of the intensionality literature of the past in which (10) and (11) were popular examples, and it was held that 9 numbered the planets.

References

  • Anderson, C. A. (1984). General intensional logic. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 2, pp. 355–385). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Arnauld, A. (1964). The Art of Thinking: Port Royal Logic (J. Dickoff & P. James, Trans.). Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, F. H. (1922). The principles of logic (2nd ed.). London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bealer, G. (1982). Quality and concept. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carnap, R. (1956). Meaning and necessity (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Church, A. (1951). A formulation of the logic of sense and denotation. In P. Henle, H. H. Kallen, & S. K. Langer (Eds.), Structure, method and meaning: Essays in honor of Henry M. Scheffer (pp. 3–24). New York: Liberal Arts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, M. J. (1967). The interpretation of some lewis systems of modal logic. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 45(2), 198–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, M. J. (1972). Intensional logics and logical truth. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 1(1), 2–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, M. J. (1985). Structured meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. (1984). On saying that. In Inquiries into truth and interpretation (pp. 93–108). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1999). Intentionality. In R. Audi (Ed.) The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (p. 441). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frege, G. (2001). On sense and reference. In A. P. Martinich & D. Sosa (Eds.), Analytic philosophy: An anthology (pp. 7–18). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallin, D. (1975). Intensional and higher-order modal logic. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garson, J. W. (1998). Intensional logics. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopaedia of philosophy (pp. 807–810). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grayling, A. C. (1998). An introduction to philosophical logic (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquette, D. (1999). Extensionalism. In R. Audi (Ed.) The Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (p. 300). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keynes, J. N. (1928). Studies and exercises in formal logic. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibniz, G. W. (1976). In H. G. Alexander (Ed.) The Leibniz-Clarke correspondence. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linsky, L. (1983). Oblique contexts. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackie, J. L. (1985). Problems of intentionality. In J. Mackie & P. Mackie (Eds.), Logic and knowledge: Selected papers (Vol. 1, pp. 102–116). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. M. (1958). Truth and denotation: A study in semantical theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, J. S. (1979). A system of logic. London: Longmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R. (1974). Pragmatics and intensional logic. In R. H. Thomason (Ed.), Formal philosophy: Selected papers of Richard Montague (pp. 119–147). New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, G. (2005). Towards non-being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. O. (1971). Reference and modality. In L. Linsky (Ed.), Reference and modality (pp. 17–34). London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, W. V. O. (1981). Intensions revisited. In Theories and things (pp. 113–123). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffler, I. (1963). The anatomy of inquiry. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zalta, E. N. (1988). Intensional logic and the metaphysics of intentionality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zalta, E. N. (1997). A classically-based theory of impossible worlds. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 38(4), 640–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Parsons .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Parsons, D. (2016). Introduction. In: Theories of Intensionality . Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2484-9_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics