more from this thinker
|
more from this text
Single Idea 12796
[filed under theme 5. Theory of Logic / F. Referring in Logic / 2. Descriptions / c. Theory of definite descriptions
]
Full Idea
It is sometimes claimed that the behaviour of definite non-count descriptions shows Russell's Theory of Descriptions itself to be false. ....but it isn't a general theory of descriptions, but precisely a theory of singular descriptions.
Gist of Idea
Non-count descriptions don't threaten Russell's theory, which is only about singulars
Source
comment on Bertrand Russell (On Denoting [1905]) by Henry Laycock - Words without Objects 3.1
Book Ref
Laycock,Henry: 'Words without Objects' [OUP 2006], p.101
The
25 ideas
with the same theme
[rewriting of descriptive terms to show underlying logic]:
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]
|
11009
|
Russell's theory must be wrong if it says all statements about non-existents are false
[Read on Russell]
|
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]
|
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]
|
1611
|
Names can be converted to descriptions, and Russell showed how to eliminate those
[Quine]
|
6413
|
'The present King of France is bald' presupposes existence, rather than stating it
[Strawson,P, by Grayling]
|
8354
|
Russell asks when 'The King of France is wise' would be a true assertion
[Strawson,P]
|
4568
|
If 'Queen of England' does not refer if there is no queen, its meaning can't refer if there is one
[Cooper,DE]
|
11989
|
For Russell, expressions dependent on contingent circumstances must be eliminated
[Kaplan]
|
13815
|
Names do not have scope problems (e.g. in placing negation), but Russell's account does have that problem
[Bostock]
|
15157
|
Recognising the definite description 'the man' as a quantifier phrase, not a singular term, is a real insight
[Soames]
|
4098
|
The theory of descriptions supports internalism, since they are thinkable when the object is non-existent
[Crane]
|
7697
|
On Russell's analysis, the sentence "The winged horse has wings" comes out as false
[Jacquette]
|
21727
|
Definite descriptions theory eliminates the King of France, but not the Queen of England
[Linsky,B]
|
18947
|
Definites descriptions don't solve the empty names problem, because the properties may not exist
[Sawyer]
|