more on this theme     |     more from this thinker

Single Idea 10433

[filed under theme 5. Theory of Logic / F. Referring in Logic / 2. Descriptions / b. Definite descriptions ]

Full Idea

Russell's reasons for saying that definite descriptions are not referring expressions are: some definite descriptions have no referent, and they cannot be referring when used in negative existential truths, or in informative identity sentences.

Gist of Idea

Definite descriptions fail to refer in three situations, so they aren't essentially referring

Source

report of Bertrand Russell (On Denoting [1905]) by Mark Sainsbury - The Essence of Reference 18.5

Book Ref

'Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language', ed/tr. Lepore,E/Smith,B [OUP 2008], p.411

A Reaction

The idea is that by 'parity of form', if they aren't referring in these situations, they aren't really referring in others. Sainsbury notes that if there are two different forms of definite description (referential and attributive) these arguments fail.

Related Idea

Idea 7754 Russell's theory explains non-existents, negative existentials, identity problems, and substitutivity [Russell, by Lycan]

The 46 ideas from 'On Denoting'

2612 Russell rewrote singular term names as predicates [Russell, by Ayer]
7757 "Nobody" is not a singular term, but a quantifier [Russell, by Lycan]
4945 Russell says names are not denotations, but definite descriptions in disguise [Russell, by Kripke]
18942 Russell says a name contributes a complex of properties, rather than an object [Russell, by Sawyer]
7745 Are names descriptions, if the description is unknown, false, not special, or contains names? [McCullogh on Russell]
10449 Logically proper names introduce objects; definite descriptions introduce quantifications [Russell, by Bach]
18943 Russell implies that all sentences containing empty names are false [Sawyer on Russell]
6411 Critics say definite descriptions can refer, and may not embody both uniqueness and existence claims [Grayling on Russell]
10433 Definite descriptions fail to refer in three situations, so they aren't essentially referring [Russell, by Sainsbury]
1608 The theory of descriptions eliminates the name of the entity whose existence was presupposed [Russell, by Quine]
7754 Russell's theory explains non-existents, negative existentials, identity problems, and substitutivity [Russell, by Lycan]
21529 Russell showed how to define 'the', and thereby reduce the ontology of logic [Russell, by Lackey]
6333 The theory of definite descriptions reduces the definite article 'the' to the concepts of predicate logic [Russell, by Horwich]
6412 Russell implies that 'the baby is crying' is only true if the baby is unique [Grayling on Russell]
7743 Russell explained descriptions with quantifiers, where Frege treated them as names [Russell, by McCullogh]
7310 Russell avoids non-existent objects by denying that definite descriptions are proper names [Russell, by Miller,A]
12006 Denying definite description sentences are subject-predicate in form blocks two big problems [Russell, by Forbes,G]
4569 Russell says apparent referring expressions are really assertions about properties [Russell, by Cooper,DE]
11009 Russell's theory must be wrong if it says all statements about non-existents are false [Read on Russell]
21549 The theory of descriptions lacks conventions for the scope of quantifiers [Lackey on Russell]
12796 Non-count descriptions don't threaten Russell's theory, which is only about singulars [Laycock on Russell]
7532 Denoting is crucial in Russell's account of mathematics, for identifying classes [Russell, by Monk]
11988 Russell's analysis means molecular sentences are ambiguous over the scope of the description [Kaplan on Russell]
6061 Existence is entirely expressed by the existential quantifier [Russell, by McGinn]
18775 Russell showed that descriptions may not have ontological commitment [Russell, by Linsky,B]
7533 The Theory of Description dropped classes and numbers, leaving propositions, individuals and universals [Russell, by Monk]
6063 Russell can't attribute existence to properties [McGinn on Russell]
18777 If the King of France is not bald, and not not-bald, this violates excluded middle [Linsky,B on Russell]
16385 A definite description 'denotes' an entity if it fits the description uniquely [Russell, by Recanati]
4567 Russell argued with great plausibility that we rarely, if ever, refer with our words [Russell, by Cooper,DE]
5810 Referring is not denoting, and Russell ignores the referential use of definite descriptions [Donnellan on Russell]
16987 By eliminating descriptions from primitive notation, Russell seems to reject 'sense' [Russell, by Kripke]
4570 Russell assumes that expressions refer, but actually speakers refer by using expressions [Cooper,DE on Russell]
16349 Russell rejected sense/reference, because it made direct acquaintance with things impossible [Russell, by Recanati]
7313 'Sense' is superfluous (rather than incoherent) [Russell, by Miller,A]
7767 The theory of definite descriptions aims at finding correct truth conditions [Russell, by Lycan]
11006 Russell started a whole movement in philosophy by providing an analysis of descriptions [Read on Russell]
18944 Russell's theories aim to preserve excluded middle (saying all sentences are T or F) [Sawyer on Russell]
18941 Names don't have a sense, but are disguised definite descriptions [Russell, by Sawyer]
15159 The meaning of a logically proper name is its referent, but most names are not logically proper [Russell, by Soames]
7758 'Elizabeth = Queen of England' is really a predication, not an identity-statement [Russell, by Lycan]
5772 The idea of a variable is fundamental [Russell]
5774 Denoting phrases are meaningless, but guarantee meaning for propositions [Russell]
5775 In 'Scott is the author of Waverley', denotation is identical, but meaning is different [Russell]
5773 The ontological argument begins with an unproven claim that 'there exists an x..' [Russell]
21726 In graspable propositions the constituents are real entities of acquaintance [Russell]