![]() And the worst bit is the explanation of the Latin 'original meaning'. Thus there is a de re reading of a particular sentence, or a de dicto. And the distinction itself is a distinction in reading or sense, which the introduction does not explain properly. The standard use of the term 'intensional' qualifies not a statement but a context. So is "The distinctions are most recognized in philosophy of language and metaphysics", although it is not clear whether recognised is meant, as though writers outside those subjects are aware of the distinction, but refuse to recognise it, or whether made is intended, in the sense that writers outside those areas simply aren't aware of the distinction at all.īut some of it is just wrong. The plural 'important distinctions' is merely clumsy, given that there is just one distinction. It is a mixture of the horribly clumsy and the horribly wrong. Note the article doesn't have any warning sign that something is wrong (to preempt a complaint that William made about the Maverick post yesterday. The distinction is best understood by examples of intensional contexts of which we will consider three: a context of thought, a context of desire, and a context of modality.This is horrible. The original meaning of the Latin locutions is useful for understanding the living meaning of the phrases, in the distinctions they mark. The literal translation of the phrase "de dicto" is "of (the) word", whereas de re translates to "of (the) thing". The distinctions are most recognized in philosophy of language and metaphysics. Yes of course, John! How else would readers of Wikipedia understand the use of Latin phrases like de dicto and de re? I discussed this in an earlier post, but let's see what Wikipedia has to say about this important distinction.ĭe dicto and de re are two phrases used to mark important distinctions in intensional statements, associated with the intensional operators in many such statements. ![]() John Vandenberg, who is president of Wikimedia Australia, and who is slightly more sane and mature than the bunch of teenagers who run the place, has left a kind comment on the spam blacklist page, saying that "The Logic Museum is scholarly work, of exceptional quality and utility to Wikipedia". I'm glad to see that something may (possibly) be done about the current ban on links from Wikipedia to the Logic Museum.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |