I think the terms that come closest to empty intension are words like "thing", "entity", or "concept". As you explained it, it sounds as though the intension is just the list of necessary conditions for something to be a part of the extension. So the more things that a term can refer to, the smaller the intension. (In fact, my use of the word "something" in that previous sentence illustrates the point. I was actually trying to use a word with an empty intension in that sentence because I need a word that includes everything in the set of thjngs that it refrrs to, and "thing" is the best word for that).
So, a "term" is anything that can encompass a set of infinite members with similar qualities.? Like a "class" in programming with same type of objects derived?
Matthew Luis Antero - great question. The intension of a term signifies the essence of a term (think of a typical definition for a word), while the extension refers to the class members of the term (for example, “Abraham Lincoln is an extension of the term “president”). The species / genus distinction is a difference in terms of the class relations. So, every mammal is a species of the genus “animal”, for instance. Every species is a member of a greater genus category, but those categories do not have the same intension, although they may share extension (or class members), for instance, a dog is also an animal; in other words, if we took two terms: dogs and animal, any dog would be an extension of the original genus “animals”as well as being an extension of the term “dog”. Take a look at Aristotle’s discussion in the “Posterior Analytics” where I think Aristotle gives an account. I hope this helps somewhat. The account of these terms can be fairly tricky. Thanks for the question.
This lecture, in comparison with the previous ones, is easier for me to grasp. But I’m not sure if I have increased or decreased my subjective intention of logic😀
An empty intension might be something like a nonsense word such as desgrunfle. You might extend that to desgrunfle 1, desgrunfle 2, desgrunfle 3, etc. but might have a problem deriving any connotations from that other that. For without a definition of what a desgrunfle is one cannot even be sure if in fact one can have more than one so one cannot even infer from its extension that there could be more than one given that extension for it could be a misclassification of something other than a degrunfle.
According to the book increasing extension is tiger, feline, mammal, animal not animal, mammal, feline, tiger that is decreasing extension, you said the opposite.
Sorry , I came here to clarify things but you made them even more confusing to me, I have to run before you ruin all my remaining understanding 😂 thanks though. Schopenhauer said be careful of what you read and I say be careful what you watch!
A crazy co-worker of mine kept saying "that's racist" just because I was listing customer descriptions like skin color. I asked her to define the word and she shut up completely. If someone uses a word they won't define, you are dealing with a crazy moron trying to keep the term ambiguous in order to win an argument or press an agenda.
How could a term have an empty intension? If the intension is the essence of a term, then would that not imply that an empty intension would mean an empty essence. An empty essence would mean the term is essentially a vapid utterance and thus, not actually a term.
Intensions and extensions are somewhat related to linguistical notions of sememe. Sememes are said to come in 5 forms: 2 denotational and 3 connotational [definitions?]
Your explanation for intension and extension are mixed up what you explained for extension was for intension . Even the definition that you scrolled past (even though for some reason the example was missing), shows that you mixed up the meanings. increasiing intension: animal, mammal, feline, tiger increasing extension:tiger, feline,mammal, animal decreasing intnsion: tiger,feline, mammal animal decreasing extension:animal, mammal, feline , tiger
Thank you for such amazing videos professor Thorsby, I have gained a deep appreciation for Wittgenstein and logic!
For what i have learned here i think logical thinking should be mandatory class for everyone.
It was a fundamental subject in old ages till 19th century
Excellent Philosophy Teacher! Thanks for sharing your wisdom with us!
Absolutely wonderful explanation, thank you
I think the terms that come closest to empty intension are words like "thing", "entity", or "concept". As you explained it, it sounds as though the intension is just the list of necessary conditions for something to be a part of the extension. So the more things that a term can refer to, the smaller the intension.
(In fact, my use of the word "something" in that previous sentence illustrates the point. I was actually trying to use a word with an empty intension in that sentence because I need a word that includes everything in the set of thjngs that it refrrs to, and "thing" is the best word for that).
terms like entity(ens),thing(res),one,(unum),truth(verum) are transcendentals.they apply to everything.nothing could be more extended or intended.
@@mauriziogildoni5293 Applying to everything means it has the maximal extension, not intention.
great video sir. what's the book's title please?
thanks
So, a "term" is anything that can encompass a set of infinite members with similar qualities.?
Like a "class" in programming with same type of objects derived?
Exactly.
What is the difference between the concepts of Intension/Extension and the Aristotelian concept pf genus/species?
Matthew Luis Antero - great question. The intension of a term signifies the essence of a term (think of a typical definition for a word), while the extension refers to the class members of the term (for example, “Abraham Lincoln is an extension of the term “president”). The species / genus distinction is a difference in terms of the class relations. So, every mammal is a species of the genus “animal”, for instance. Every species is a member of a greater genus category, but those categories do not have the same intension, although they may share extension (or class members), for instance, a dog is also an animal; in other words, if we took two terms: dogs and animal, any dog would be an extension of the original genus “animals”as well as being an extension of the term “dog”. Take a look at Aristotle’s discussion in the “Posterior Analytics” where I think Aristotle gives an account. I hope this helps somewhat. The account of these terms can be fairly tricky. Thanks for the question.
This lecture, in comparison with the previous ones, is easier for me to grasp. But I’m not sure if I have increased or decreased my subjective intention of logic😀
Please make videos on Western Philosophy
An empty intension might be something like a nonsense word such as desgrunfle. You might extend that to desgrunfle 1, desgrunfle 2, desgrunfle 3, etc. but might have a problem deriving any connotations from that other that.
For without a definition of what a desgrunfle is one cannot even be sure if in fact one can have more than one so one cannot even infer from its extension that there could be more than one given that extension for it could be a misclassification of something other than a degrunfle.
According to the book increasing extension is tiger, feline, mammal, animal not animal, mammal, feline, tiger that is decreasing extension, you said the opposite.
I think so as well.
Excellent content
Can you go over 3.1-3.4
could a new spontaneously forged meaningless noun constitute an "empty intension" ?
Sorry , I came here to clarify things but you made them even more confusing to me, I have to run before you ruin all my remaining understanding 😂 thanks though. Schopenhauer said be careful of what you read and I say be careful what you watch!
2.2.3 definitions is not here can i find it anywhere please help
Start at 13:00
A crazy co-worker of mine kept saying "that's racist" just because I was listing customer descriptions like skin color. I asked her to define the word and she shut up completely.
If someone uses a word they won't define, you are dealing with a crazy moron trying to keep the term ambiguous in order to win an argument or press an agenda.
How could a term have an empty intension? If the intension is the essence of a term, then would that not imply that an empty intension would mean an empty essence. An empty essence would mean the term is essentially a vapid utterance and thus, not actually a term.
the term could be a nominality maybe(?)
What this guy said is empty extension and not empty intension. Do you sure you watch this video carefully?
I hope you edit the wiki pages for these things because you have more knowledge than the wiki pages present
Intensions and extensions are somewhat related to linguistical notions of sememe. Sememes are said to come in 5 forms: 2 denotational and 3 connotational [definitions?]
Not clear.
Your explanation for intension and extension are mixed up what you explained for extension was for intension . Even the definition that you scrolled past (even though for some reason the example was missing), shows that you mixed up the meanings.
increasiing intension: animal, mammal, feline, tiger
increasing extension:tiger, feline,mammal, animal
decreasing intnsion: tiger,feline, mammal animal
decreasing extension:animal, mammal, feline , tiger
Like
You're making things difficult. Go straight to the explanation
For non native speaker quite difficult to understand what are you talking about…
No hablo taka taka.