Abstract

COUNTERREVOLUTIONARY RESPONSES to the twentieth-century revolution in logic have usually started from the assumption that there is in fact a body of theory for which the name 'extensional logic' is appropriate. Debate has centered not on that assumption but rather on such questions as whether that logic includes every important feature that belongs in a proper logic and whether it excludes all features that should be excluded from that ordered realm. Revisionist logicians have usually supposed that extensional logic, for all its power and versatility, does not express the tight bond between meanings that is of the very essence of the logical connection; and they have labored to provide an alternative intensional logic that does indeed express it.