PhilGoetz comments on Transhumanism and the denotation-connotation gap - Less Wrong

19 Post author: PhilGoetz 18 August 2010 03:33PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (29)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 18 August 2010 08:21:49PM *  1 point [-]

I don't understand the first sentence one bit, but agree with the second sentence. The use of "connotation" as a synonym for "intension" is horrible IMHO. Connotation already had an established usage before logicians ever used it; and that usage is both very different from and used in the same very specific area of discourse as this new definition. If definitions were trademarks, this would be a violation.

Comment author: thomblake 18 August 2010 08:49:34PM 1 point [-]

Connotation already had an established usage before logicians ever used it; and that usage is both very different from and used in the same very specific area of discourse as this new definition. If definitions were trademarks, this would be a violation.

You're using 'new' in an interesting way here. This usage of 'connotation' was arguably first taken up by Mill in 1829. The word 'connotation' was first used by logicians in the 17th century, though it tended to mean something more like "the proper category to put something in", and Mill was explaining he'd like to use the word more sensibly than that. The 'common usage' you refer to was possibly a bit earlier, 16th century if I'm to believe OED. And it was not a term of art.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 19 August 2010 02:40:12AM *  1 point [-]

I was evidently using 'new' in an uninformed way.