Considerações sobre o método de extensão e intensão

Abstract

Rudolf Carnap in Meaning and Necessity (1956) develops a method of extension and intension, in which he aims to make a semantic analysis adequate to the language. Thus, the Carnapian semantic method will be applied in expressions called designators (declarative sentences, predicates and individual expressions) of the symbolic language system S1. Carnap understands that approaches such as semantics that use the name-relation method incorporate imprecise and ambiguous concepts for semantic analysis; therefore, the need to make the concepts precise is understood. It is based on these concepts that Carnap modifies and expands the concepts that will be fundamental for the development of his method of extension and intension. In this way, Rudolf Carnap develops L-concepts (true-L, false-L, L-implies, L-equivalent), which can be developed specifically by logical rules without reference to extralinguistic facts. These concepts are explained for analytic concepts. The concepts of L-equivalence that were only applicable for sentences, will be extended to other expressions in order to carry out the method and its application to other expressions of the S1 system. Posteriorly we extend the concept of L-determined to other designators besides declarative sentences. Soon after, we will work on the advantages of the extension and intension method in relation to the name-relation method. Because based on the principles of the name-relation method to speak of an entity we will need two expressions, while in the method of extension and tension in we only need one expression. In this way, as Frege's semantic method considers as the foundation of the name-relation method, Carnap pointed out this approach, as we are faced with infinite chains of entities when we deal with the nominatum; while the extension and intension method avoids this problem by making use of metalanguage. However, we will discuss whether there are advantages of the extension and intension method over the Fregean semantic method, based on these thesis: 1) there is no ambiguity in the intuitive field, 2) Fregean semantics does not necessarily imply an infinite chain. The objective of this dissertation is to make a comparison between the relation between the name method and the extension and intension method, in order to know if there are advantages of the Carnapian method over the Fregean method. And we ended up concluding that there is no advantage of one method over another, but we must choose which method is fruitful for that particular purpose. We defend a pragmatic use among semantic methods.