I'd like to discuss the material recently presented by Speranza on Grice's views on minimalism and extensionalism.

I'd like to take this in small chunks, so here is a first question.

Speaking of "Reply to Richards" Speranza tell is:

On p. 68, Grice refers to  "Extensionalism" as a

"position imbued with the spirit of Nominalism [another demon], and dear both to those who feel that 'Because it is red' is no more informative as an anser to the question 'Why is an English mail-box called 'red'?' than would 'Because he is Paul Grice' is an answer to the question 'Why is that distinguished-looking philosopher called 'Paul Grice'?', AND also to those whe are particularly impressed by the power of set theory."

I guess I must be one of the extensionalists to which Grice refers here, for I can't see what distinction is between the two examples cited.

So I'm wondering whether Speranza can offer some more elucidation of what Grice is saying here.

RBJ