I think that it should be possible to assign to all concepts a plausible intension, consisting of just one or two words. However, in textbooks or encyclopedias I never found such focused appointments of intensions. Or does somebody know such a book? – Hence, I started to formulate and collect such appointments of intensions for various concepts.

One example was, that the intension of “argumentation” is “explanation” (why one thinks, or purports, at all something that one thinks). When I continued my reflections, the following problem arouse: The intension of an appropriate explanation seems to be the “formulation of intensions (and/or intentions*) of the relating situations/themes”.

But, isn’t it true that the conclusion from this must be that the intension of the intension may be identified with “explanation”?

Why? Because: I of E is I ==> I of I is E (as explained above). Or is there some flaw in my consideration?

*) As explained here, in my answer, I consider intension and intention to be exactly the same.


1. Edit:

I and E are not variables, but just abbreviations of Intension and Explanation.


I would first say that the fact that "intention" and "intension" are not used in the same contexts is enough evidence to show that they are not identical concepts (they don't have the same intension, if you want to put it that way).

I'd say that using the word "must" is an exaggeration. It appears to me that in creating this table of intension you are really writing a thesaurus mixed with a dictionary, coming up with equivalent words for other words and definitions for terms. You're then asking does the definition or meaning of "intensional" have to involve "explanation." I would say it depends. I would say this is not an issue where you can be true or false really, it just depends on what way you want to frame this picture you have

It's certainly not logically true that intension is a reflexive function ie I(a) = b does not logically imply I(b) = a unless you set up the definition of the function to do that. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your problem though?

| improve this answer | |
  • The reflexive function is surely not valid generally. The intention (or intension) of my abbreviations is not to suggest statement forms (now I have made it plain in an edit). I just wrote it abbreviated in order to visualize this unusual or entangled idea very vividly. But I have the impression that the conclusion is true when E = explanation and I = intension. – user26880 May 21 '17 at 3:06