David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy East and West 50 (2):208-228 (2000)
The Mohist School's logical study focuses mainly on the following inference rule: suppose that N and M are coextensive terms, or N a subset of M; it follows that if a verb can appear in front of N, it can also appear in front of M. That is, if 'VM' then 'VN', where V is some extensional verb. Such an approach to logical inference necessitates the study of logical relations among nouns, verbs, and the relations between these two types of words. Evidence is offered here that the Mohists clearly distinguished extensional verbs from intensional verbs, and that this insight enabled them to say, among other things, that VN does not follow from VM, even in cases where N is M or contained in M, as long as the V in question is an intensional verb
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Graeme Forbes (2002). Intensionality: Graeme Forbes. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 76 (1):75–99.
Chris Fraser, Mohist Canons. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Imre Ruzsa (1981). An Approach to Intensional Logic. Studia Logica 40 (3):269 - 287.
Pavel Tichý (1986). Indiscernibility of Identicals. Studia Logica 45 (3):251 - 273.
Graeme Forbes (2008). Intensional Transitive Verbs. In Edward Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Graeme Forbes (2010). Intensional Verbs in Event Semantics. Synthese 176 (2):227 - 242.
Eric Russert Kraemer (1980). Intensional Contexts and Intensional Entities. Philosophical Studies 37 (1):65 - 66.
J. M. Saul (2002). Intensionality. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 76:75 - 119.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #126,509 of 1,003,886 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,617 of 1,003,886 )
How can I increase my downloads?