more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
If I am right, referring is not the same as denoting and the referential use of definite descriptions is not recognised on Russell's view.
Gist of Idea
Referring is not denoting, and Russell ignores the referential use of definite descriptions
Source
comment on Bertrand Russell (On Denoting [1905]) by Keith Donnellan - Reference and Definite Descriptions §I
Book Ref
'Naming, Necessity, and Natural Kinds', ed/tr. Schwartz,Stephen P. [Cornell 1979], p.43
A Reaction
This introduces a new theory of reference, which goes beyond the mere contents of linguistic experessions. It says reference is an 'external' and 'causal' affair, and so a definite description is not sufficient to make a reference.
| 16385 | A definite description 'denotes' an entity if it fits the description uniquely [Russell, by Recanati] |
| 5810 | Referring is not denoting, and Russell ignores the referential use of definite descriptions [Donnellan on 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] |
| 18918 | Terms denote objects with properties, and statements denote the world with that property [Engelbretsen] |