Friday, October 25, 2019
Essay --
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the discussion of definite and indefinite descriptions has been at the center of heated debates of analytic philosophy for over a century. There have been many compelling arguments and interesting views by many philosophers on this topic and it is hard to yet conclude whose argument is more correct. In this essay, I will first briefly explain Russellââ¬â¢s analysis of definite descriptions, then present both Strawsonââ¬â¢s and Donnellanââ¬â¢s views of descriptions in opposition to Russellââ¬â¢s, then I will conclude the essay by showing why I find the analysis of definite descriptions by Donnellan more persuasive than the othersââ¬â¢. To put it simply, Russell believes that the statement, ââ¬Ëthe F is Gââ¬â¢ has three components: existence (âËÆ'xFx), uniqueness (âËâ¬xâËâ¬y((FxÃ¢Ë §Fy)ââ ây=x)), and predication (âËâ¬x(Fxââ âGx)). In other words, for a statement, ââ¬Ëthe F is G,ââ¬â¢ to be true, there must exist at least one thing which is F, there must exist at most one thing which is F, and whatever is F must be G. To expand on this, a sentence of the form ââ¬ËThe F is Gââ¬â¢ states, ââ¬ËThere is one and only one F and it is Gââ¬â¢ and the difference between ââ¬ËThe F is Gââ¬â¢ and ââ¬ËAn F is Gââ¬â¢ is that the latter is just stating there is a (G) F, whereas the use of the definite article, ââ¬Ëthe,ââ¬â¢ emphasizes extra uniqueness. For example, it is true to speak of ââ¬Å"the son of Ericâ⬠even when Eric has several sons, but it would be more correct to say ââ¬Å"a son of Eric.â⬠Russell further argues that if there is no unique F, an a ssertion of ââ¬Å"the F is Gâ⬠is false. Strawson thinks otherwise. Strawson claims that Russell confuses properties of a sentence with properties of a use of that sentence. To explain, while Russell thinks truth-value belongs to sentence meanings... ...rase ââ¬Ëthe Fââ¬â¢ to refer to something, thus it does not completely embrace the definite descriptions as actually used in a natural language. For example, when I say, ââ¬Å"the leaves are red,â⬠I am referring to the object, leaves, that I am trying to communicate across, but with Russellââ¬â¢s theory, this may not be the case. Using Strawsonââ¬â¢s theory, we must ascertain what object is being identified or referred to and what is being ascribed to it even before we evaluate for truth or falsity. For instance, when I say, ââ¬Å"Smithââ¬â¢s murderer is insane,â⬠and it turns out that Smith was not actually murdered at all, then his theory fails as the description, ââ¬ËSmithââ¬â¢s murderer,ââ¬â¢ does not apply to anyone. Contrastingly, to me at least, Donnellanââ¬â¢s theory encompasses the weaknesses of the theories by the other two, which is why I believe it is the more persuasive argument over the othersââ¬â¢.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.