Legg, Catherine2009-08-122009-08-121999Legg, C. (1999). Extension, intension and dormitive virtue. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 35(4), 654-677.1558-9587https://hdl.handle.net/10289/2811Would be fairer to call Peirce’s philosophy of language “extensionalist” or “intensionalist”? The extensionalisms of Carnap and Quine are examined, and Peirce’s view is found to be prima facie similar, except for his commitment to the importance of “hypostatic abstraction”. Rather than dismissing this form of abstraction (famously derided by Molière) as useless scholasticism, Peirce argues that it represents a crucial (though largely unnoticed) step in much working inference. This, it is argued, allows Peirce to transcend the extensionalist-intensionalist dichotomy itself, through his unique triadic analysis of reference and meaning, by transcending the distinction between (as Quine put it) “things” and “attributes”.application/pdfenThis is an author’s accepted version. This article was published as Legg, C. (1999). Extension, intension and dormitive virtue. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 35(4), 654-677. No part of this article may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or distributed, in any form, by any means, electronic, mechanical, photographic, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Indiana University Press. For educational re-use, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center (508-744-3350). For all other permissions, please visit http://iupress.indiana.edu/rights.PeirceextensionalismintensionalismQuineCarnapdormitive virtuehypostatic abstractionJournal Article