Russell’s Theory of Definite Descriptions
نویسنده
چکیده
The theory of definite descriptions Bertrand Russell presented in “On Denoting” one hundred years ago was instrumental in defining the then newly emerging philosophy of language, but a more remarkable achievement is that this centenarian theory is the currently dominant theory of definite descriptions. But what, ex actly, is this theory? The question needs to be asked because the theory Russell presented in 1905 is not acceptable in the form in which he then stated it, and while we have little trouble in deciding whether a theory of definite descriptions is sufficiently like the one Russell formulated to be worth calling Russellian, it happens that what question one thinks a semantic theory of definite descriptions needs to answer will depend on how one thinks certain foundational issues in the theory of meaning need to be resolved. There is no consensus as to how those issues should be resolved. I elaborate on this a little in section I and in section II propose as a working hypothesis a conception of meaning for which I have argued elsewhere and in terms of whose architecture a Russellian theory of definite descriptions may be formulated. How the theory should be formulated in terms of that architecture is then the topic of section III. Section IV confronts my formulation of the Russellian theory with the apparent problem for it implied by certain referential uses of definite descriptions. There are at the most general level of abstraction two possible Russellian responses to this problem, and one of them is the standard Russellian response to the referential-use problem. Section V critically discusses that response and argues for its rejection. Section VI critically discusses the other possible Russellian response and argues for its rejection, too. The final section, VII, gives a brief summary and discusses what the correct positive theory of definite descriptions might be, if it is not the Russellian theory.
منابع مشابه
R Ussell and F Rege on the L Ogic of F Unctions
I compare Russell’s theory of mathematical functions, the “descriptive functions” from Principia Mathematica ∗30, with Frege’s well known account of functions as “unsaturated” entities. Russell analyses functional terms with propositional functions and the theory of definite descriptions. This is the primary technical role of the theory of descriptions in PM . In Principles of Mathematics and s...
متن کاملA Note on Analysis and Circular Definitions
In some cases, even a whole theory may be regarded as a constituting an analysis. For example, Russell’s celebrated theory of definite descriptions may be viewed as an analysis of that formal concept which in natural language can be expressed by means of the definite article. Analyses are also called philosophical, real, or simply analyzing definitions. This is appropriate, since analyses are i...
متن کاملEmbedded Definite Descriptions: Russellian Analysis and Semantic Puzzles
paper. Iotas replace inverted iotas. Capital roman letters for specific predicates (with numerical superscripts indicating degree when they are not unary) often replace Russell’s lower case Greek letters for propositional functions. Dot notation is eliminated in favor of parentheses and brackets. Parentheses around description operators and those around their atomic arguments are dropped, so th...
متن کاملAndrew Botterell Knowledge by Acquaintance and Meaning in Isolation
The Meaning in Isolation Thesis features prominently in Russell’s writings on definite descriptions.1 In those writings Russell sets out to defend the view that definite descriptions “never have any meaning in themselves.” (Russell, 1905, pg. 42) He proceeds to say that a definite description “is essentially part of a sentence, and does not, like most single words, have any significance on its ...
متن کاملINCOMPLETE SYMBOLS IN PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICAz AND RUSSELL’S “DEFINITE PROOF”
Early in Principia Mathematicaz Russell presents an argument that “z‘the author of Waverleyz’ means nothing”, an argument that he calls a “deWnite proofz”. He generalizes it to claim that deWnite descriptions are incomplete symbols having meaning only in sentential context. This Principiaz “proofz” went largely unnoticed until Russell reaUrmed a near-identical “proofz” in his philosophical auto...
متن کامل