more from this thinker
|
more from this text
Single Idea 13961
[filed under theme 19. Language / C. Assigning Meanings / 10. Two-Dimensional Semantics
]
Full Idea
'Primary' truth-conditions tell us how the actual world has to be for an utterance of the statement to be true in that world; ....'secondary' truth-conditions give the truth-value in counterfactual worlds, given that the actual world turned out some way.
Gist of Idea
We have 'primary' truth-conditions for the actual world, and derived 'secondary' ones for counterfactual worlds
Source
David J.Chalmers (The Conscious Mind [1996], 1.2.4)
Book Ref
Chalmers,David J.: 'The Conscious Mind' [OUP 1997], p.63
A Reaction
This is the reinterpretation of the truth-conditions account in terms of two-dimensional semantics. My first reaction is not very positive. Why can't we fix our references in counterfactual worlds, and then apply them to the actual (like inventions)?
Related Ideas
Idea 13958
The 'primary intension' is non-empirical, and fixes extensions based on the actual-world reference [Chalmers]
Idea 13959
The 'secondary intension' is determined by rigidifying (as H2O) the 'water' picked out in the actual world [Chalmers]
The
20 ideas
with the same theme
[giving meaning by possible worlds with two separate components]:
14893
|
Rigid designation creates a puzzle - why do some necessary truths appear to be contingent?
[Kripke, by Macià/Garcia-Carpentiro]
|
14894
|
Indexicals have a 'character' (the standing meaning), and a 'content' (truth-conditions for one context)
[Kaplan, by Macià/Garcia-Carpentiro]
|
14700
|
'Content' gives the standard modal profile, and 'character' gives rules for a context
[Kaplan, by Schroeter]
|
16430
|
Two-D says that a posteriori is primary and contingent, and the necessity is the secondary intension
[Stalnaker]
|
16431
|
In one view, the secondary intension is metasemantic, about how the thinker relates to the content
[Stalnaker]
|
13972
|
Two-dimensionalism reinstates descriptivism, and reconnects necessity and apriority to analyticity
[Soames]
|
14708
|
Rationalist 2D semantics posits necessary relations between meaning, apriority, and possibility
[Chalmers, by Schroeter]
|
13958
|
The 'primary intension' is non-empirical, and fixes extensions based on the actual-world reference
[Chalmers]
|
2399
|
Meaning has split into primary ("watery stuff"), and secondary counterfactual meaning ("H2O")
[Chalmers]
|
13959
|
The 'secondary intension' is determined by rigidifying (as H2O) the 'water' picked out in the actual world
[Chalmers]
|
13957
|
Primary and secondary intensions are the a priori (actual) and a posteriori (counterfactual) aspects of meaning
[Chalmers]
|
13961
|
We have 'primary' truth-conditions for the actual world, and derived 'secondary' ones for counterfactual worlds
[Chalmers]
|
14739
|
'Water' is two-dimensionally inconstant, with different intensions in different worlds
[Chalmers, by Sider]
|
16351
|
In 2-D semantics, reference is determined, then singularity by the truth of a predication
[Recanati]
|
16350
|
Two-D semantics is said to help descriptivism of reference deal with singular objects
[Recanati]
|
14701
|
Array worlds along the horizontal, and contexts (world,person,time) along the vertical
[Schroeter]
|
14702
|
If we introduce 'actually' into modal talk, we need possible worlds twice to express this
[Schroeter]
|
14705
|
Do we know apriori how we refer to names and natural kinds, but their modal profiles only a posteriori?
[Schroeter]
|
14715
|
2D fans defend it for conceptual analysis, for meaning, and for internalist reference
[Schroeter]
|
14716
|
2D semantics can't respond to contingent apriori claims, since there is no single proposition involved
[Schroeter]
|