more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
A precise language is often assigned a classical semantics, in which the semantic value of a name is its referent, the semantic value of a predicate is its extension (the objects of which it is true), and the value of a sentence is True or False.
Gist of Idea
Classical semantics has referents for names, extensions for predicates, and T or F for sentences
Source
Kit Fine (Vagueness: a global approach [2020], 1)
Book Ref
Fine,Kit: 'Vagueness: a global approach' [OUP 2020], p.6
A Reaction
Helpful to have this clear statement of how predicates are treated. This extensionalism in logic causes trouble when it creeps into philosophy, and people say that 'red' just means all the red things. No it doesn't.
23539 | Classical semantics has referents for names, extensions for predicates, and T or F for sentences [Fine,K] |
23541 | Supervaluation can give no answer to 'who is the last bald man' [Fine,K] |
23544 | Local indeterminacy concerns a single object, and global indeterminacy covers a range [Fine,K] |
23540 | Conjoining two indefinites by related sentences seems to produce a contradiction [Fine,K] |
23542 | Identifying vagueness with ignorance is the common mistake of confusing symptoms with cause [Fine,K] |
23543 | We identify laws with regularities because we mistakenly identify causes with their symptoms [Fine,K] |
23545 | We do not have an intelligible concept of a borderline case [Fine,K] |
23546 | Standardly vagueness involves borderline cases, and a higher standpoint from which they can be seen [Fine,K] |
23548 | Indeterminacy is in conflict with classical logic [Fine,K] |
23547 | It seems absurd that there is no identity of any kind between two objects which involve survival [Fine,K] |