more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
On the metasemantic interpretation of the two-dimensional framework, the second dimension is used to represent the metasemantic facts about the relation between a thinker or speaker and the contents of her thoughts or utterances.
Gist of Idea
In one view, the secondary intension is metasemantic, about how the thinker relates to the content
Source
Robert C. Stalnaker (Conceptual truth and metaphysical necessity [2003], 4)
Book Ref
Stalnaker,Robert C.: 'Ways a World Might Be' [OUP 2003], p.209
A Reaction
I'm struggling to think what facts there might be about the relation between myself and the contents of my thoughts. I'm more or less constituted by my thoughts.
| 16422 | The necessity of a proposition concerns reality, not our words or concepts [Stalnaker] |
| 16423 | Conceptual possibilities are metaphysical possibilities we can conceive of [Stalnaker] |
| 16421 | Critics say there are just an a priori necessary part, and an a posteriori contingent part [Stalnaker] |
| 16429 | A 'centred' world is an ordered triple of world, individual and time [Stalnaker] |
| 16428 | Meanings aren't in the head, but that is because they are abstract [Stalnaker] |
| 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] |
| 16432 | One view says the causal story is built into the description that is the name's content [Stalnaker] |