  The adequacy of this analysis is a matter of lively debate that  focuses chiefly upon whether or not intensions, so defined, are too  “coarse-grained” to serve their intended purposes. (See,  e.g., Stalnaker 1987 and 2012 for a strong defense of the analysis.)  However, Lewis (1986, §1.5) argues that, even if the above  analysis fails for certain purposes, it does not follow that  intensions cannot be analyzed in terms of possible worlds, but only  that more subtle constructions might be required. This reply appears  to side-step the objections from granularity while preserving the  great advantage of the possible worlds analysis of intensions, viz.,  the rigorous definability of these philosophically significant  notions. 