Single Idea 13848

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

Full Idea

If it is really true that definite descriptions have scopes whereas names do not, then Russell must be right to claim that definite descriptions are not names. If, however, this is not true, then it does no harm to treat descriptions as complex names.

Gist of Idea

We are only obliged to treat definite descriptions as non-names if only the former have scope

Source

David Bostock (Intermediate Logic [1997], 8.8)

Book Reference

Bostock,David: 'Intermediate Logic' [OUP 1997], p.375