Grice Goes to Alonzo

---

I was going to write "to Church" but changed my intensions.

Anyway, I think Carnap is being cute when he writes that 'one could just as well use 'sense' here --" He does NOT mean 'some common sense'. His actual phrasing, in case you google, is, "Another alternative would take 'sense', as Church uses it".

One wonders: about Grice WoW:iii --

"[Sensa] should not be multiplied beyond necessity." ("Senses," writes Grice).

I KNOW R. B. Jones will say that, for Carnap, intensions should not be feared. We are discussing Grice's betes noires elsewhere and we have decided Grice couldn't have meant 'Carnapianism' for "Extensionalism" seeing that one of Carnap's claims to fame is indeed the 'belnap' as it were -- the intensionally isomorphic belief, or something.

----

----


Kramer was wondering about 'senses', and I think he is right. Senses should NOT be feared. I would still like, from a Gricean pragmatic perspective, to be offered one item of an expression as having TWO senses:

sense 1


sense 2


and NO WAY to derive one from the other Griceanly (via implicatura, of the most CONVERSATIONAL, particularised, type). I too grant that the 'way' from one 'sense' to the 'other' "alleged" sense is immaterial -- 'senso contrario' as the Italians would have it, is just as valid.

JLS