Hyperintensional semantics: a Fregean approach

Skipper, Mattias; Bjerring, Jens Christian

doi:10.1007/s11229-018-01900-4

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The development of a single unified semantics restricted to representational hyperintensionality only (i.e., a unified semantics for at least all propositional attitudes) already appears just as ambitious as unlikely. Moving to the prima facie non-representational realm, even the most explicit attempt towards a hyperintensional Fregean semantics to date (Skipper & Bjerring, 2020) is not used for worldly hyperintensionality, as its proponents openly admit: we are not claiming that our framework can be used to shed light on all hyperintensional phenomena that one might want to reason about. For instance, Nolan (2014) surveys a number of interesting and important issues in the area of hyperintensional metaphysics that lie beyond the scope of our framework.…”

Section: Extensibility and Granularitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Against Byrne and Thompsonmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sources of hyperintensionality

Lenta

2023

Theoria

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A wide variety of concepts are nowadays considered to be hyperintensional, and some of them do not seem to involve our representational attitudes. This led some philosophers to identify and defend a notion of worldly hyperintensionality: the idea that some hyperintensional phenomena derive from features of objective reality, independently of how we represent it. Against this view, Darragh Byrne and Naomi Thompson argue that the correct understanding of such phenomena must be conceptualist in nature, and claim that hyperintensionality always derives from features of representations. In the present work I defend the genuine distinction between worldly and representational hyperintensionality through a new framing of the issue: the comparison with worldly intensionality. I argue that locating the sources of hyperintensionality should not be affected by preferences towards any specific semantic framework, and reject Byrne and Thompson's argument against worldly hyperintensionality.

show abstract

Section: Extensibility and Granularitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Against Byrne and Thompsonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sources of hyperintensionality

Lenta

2023

Theoria

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Part A of this series, we axiomatized a minimal logic of hyperlogic. In Part B, we extended these results to stronger logics over a restricted class 13 For discussion of this problem, see Hintikka 1975;Stalnaker 1976aStalnaker ,b, 1984Duc 1997;Alechina et al 2004;Berto 2010;Ripley 2012;Bjerring 2013;Jago 2007Jago , 2014Jago , 2015Bjerring and Schwarz 2017;Yalcin 2018;Bjerring and Skipper 2019;Hawke et al 2019;Skipper and Bjerring 2020;Elga and Rayo 2021;Hoek 2022;Soysal 2022. 14 Sedlár (2015 likewise explores a doxastic logic where the belief operator is nonclassical, though the base logic is classical.…”

Section: B4 Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Logic of Hyperlogic. Part B: Extensions and Restrictions

Kocurek¹

2022

The Review of Symbolic Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the second part of a two-part series on the logic of hyperlogic, a formal system for regimenting metalogical claims in the object language (even within embedded environments). Part A provided a minimal logic for hyperlogic that is sound and complete over the class of all models. In this part, we extend these completeness results to stronger logics that are sound and complete over restricted classes of models. We also investigate the logic of hyperlogic when the language is enriched with hyperintensional operators such as counterfactual conditionals and belief operators.

show abstract

“…For discussion, seeSoames 1987Soames , 2008Berto 2010;Ripley 2012;Bjerring 2013;Jago 2015;Bjerring and Schwarz 2017;Yalcin 2018;Bjerring and Skipper 2019;Hawke et al 2019;Skipper and Bjerring 2020;Elga and Rayo 2021. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Logic of Hyperlogic. Part A: Foundations

Kocurek¹

2022

The Review of Symbolic Logic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hyperlogic is a hyperintensional system designed to regiment metalogical claims (e.g., “Intuitionistic logic is correct” or “The law of excluded middle holds”) into the object language, including within embedded environments such as attitude reports and counterfactuals. This paper is the first of a two-part series exploring the logic of hyperlogic. This part presents a minimal logic of hyperlogic and proves its completeness. It consists of two interdefined axiomatic systems: one for classical consequence (truth preservation under a classical interpretation of the connectives) and one for “universal” consequence (truth preservation under any interpretation). The sequel to this paper explores stronger logics that are sound and complete over various restricted classes of models as well as languages with hyperintensional operators.

show abstract

Hyperintensional semantics: a Fregean approach

Cited by 5 publications

References 18 publications

Sources of hyperintensionality

Sources of hyperintensionality

The Logic of Hyperlogic. Part B: Extensions and Restrictions

The Logic of Hyperlogic. Part A: Foundations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About