Russell's Theory Of Description

Front 1

Denoting phrase

Back 1

Key to semantics of singular terms - alternate theory to Frege's Sense and reference

Russell uses logic to analyse these

Front 2

Definite Description

Back 2

• A definite description is a denoting phrase in the form of "the X" where X is a noun-phrase or a singular common noun.
  
• Can also analyse with logic

Front 3

Logical form

Back 3

• Descriptions are not independent constituents of the sentence
• So no reference needed
• Problems disappear without sense/reference distinction

Front 4

Logical form of 'The Father of Charles II was executed'

Back 4

There is some individual x who begat Charles II, and for any individual y, if y begat Charles II, then y is identical to x, and x was executed.

No constituent corresponds to description

Front 5

Russell - Rejection of Meinong

Back 5

• Denoting phrases can exist, not subsist
  
  
• (1) Some propositions about impossible objects (e.g., “The round square is round and not round”) are contradictory.
• (2) Although it is a fact that the existent present King of France/the round square does not exist, one also has to conclude it does exist.
  
  
• Denoting phrases may seem referential, but are not, thus breaking Meinong's theory.

Front 6

Russell's objection to Frege

Back 6

'Hesperus is Phosphorus'

• Russell - not an identity statement
• Statement asserting existence of object satisfying a property, existence of object satisfying a second property and claim they are identical.
  
  

Thus sentences informative without senses

Front 7

Russell's solution to Frege's first puzzle

Intensional contexts

Back 7

1. George wondered if Scott wrote Waverly
2. George wondered if Scott was Scott

1) true and 2) false?

Descriptions 'analysed away', so no constituent of logical analysis that corresponds to description

Idea we can infer one from the other, via scope of description or verb

Front 8

Russell's solution to Frege second puzzle

Bivalence

Back 8

We want sentence or negation to be true, but surely both 'KoF is Bald' and 'KoF is not bald' are false, as KoF doesn't exist?

Primary/secondary occurrences

Front 9

Primary Occurrences

Back 9

'There is an x such that: x is KoF and, for all y, if y is KoF then y = x and x is not bald.'

Front 10

Secondary Occurrences

Back 10

'It is not the case that: there is an x such that, x is KoF and, for all y, if y is KoF, then y = x and x is bald'

Disambiguation of 'KoF is not bald'