Donnellen objection Donnellen (1966) criticized the Russell and Strawson’s view. He claimed that there are attributive and referential uses of definite description. The former is about attributively using definite description in an assertion which stating something about “A is B”. The latter is about speaker using the description to let the audience to know what is “A is B” about. Donnellen claimed that Russell focus on former and Strawson focus on latter. In his example of the murder of Smith, we can see the differences of these uses. First, if speaker does not know anything about the murderer, but only know Smith was killed in brutal way and said “Smith’s murderer is insane.” This will be attributive use of definite description. However, …show more content…
First, Russell theory show a scientific method in analysing a proposition which replace Frege theory that use sense to explain and solve the puzzles. In Frege thought, he explained the problem of identity by the different sense of a denoting phrase. Compare with Russell, Russell is more reliable for me which can show me a concrete step of thinking instead of using a sense, which is difficult to recognize by me to explain the answer. Besides, in the problem of Strawson mentioned "the King of France is wise" is false, Russell (1957) claimed his reply and think that this is just the verbal of convenience and the non-common usage is not the problem. Besides, Donnellen criticized that Russel on ambiguity denoting phrase, which means that there is a different meaning. I think that what Kripe do can solve it because as people may use semantic meaning differently and they may be affected by the environment. This seems that all theory cannot avoid this, which means it is not a problem of Russell solely. Also, even different people have different use of words, it seems that this will not affect the true value of a definite phrase. For example, even I mistake on Peter and think that he is Ben. It seems that when I use the name, I still refer to that person, Ben. The name which I used still belongs to that person that the name
ABSTRACT: Indeterminacy theories, such as Wittgenstein's and Kripke's indeterminacy principle on rules and language and Quine's indeterminacy of radical translation, raise some fundamental questions on our knowledge and understanding. In this paper we try to outline and interpret Wittgenstein's and Kripke's indeterminacy, and then compare it to some other related theories on indeterminacy of human thinking, such as raised by Hume, Quine, and Goodman.
The earliest letters to Russell by Wittgenstein read naturally as presentations or proposals, to be read straightforwardly, as they stand. In this spirit, many authors interpret Wittgenstein as rejecting Russell. s attempts to talk about the structure of language and facts, and, further, as insisting that any attempt to state the limits of language is itself nonsense. On such a reading, Wittgenstein is reacting to Russell. s realist attempts to analyze the structure of facts into constituents and the structure of propositions into names by eliminating certain apparent symbols. Wittgenstein relegates their pseudo-uses to what is shown in the use of propositions. Ricketts writes:
The author raised up an example to show this scenario and discussed the effect on the viewer of the basic information in the label about facture and function. First the label didn’t cove...
Thirdly, some of Ned Blocks objections to the Higher Order Thought Theory will be considered and review in order to reaffirm the validity of the main argument. Block's objections will be taken as the main challenge to Rosenthal's HO theory....
So that there can be falsehood a relation must involve someone judging or believing. Russell uses Othello as an example in this relation "Desdemona 's love for Cassio" this does not truly exist, what does exist is the relation of Othello 's mind with the objects in the belief which are Desdemona, loving, Cassio and Othello, this is a relation of four terms. Belief is the relation that Othello has to all of these terms, his act of believing unites all of these terms into a complex whole. Belief is what relates the objects or "constituents" Cassio, Desdemona and loving together with the judge or object Othello. There is also a direction or order in which the objects are placed this is acknowledge by "Cassio loves Desdemona" being a different statement then "Desdemona loves Cassio." Within the statement "Othello believes that Desdemona loves Cassio," It is not loving which forms the complex but how the object relates to the subjects that creates the complex unity in this case it is Othello 's act of believing that cements the relation between the subject and objects. This leads Russell to the conclusion that beliefs are true when correspond to an associated complex and false they aren 't. This is the nature of truth. The constituents are put in an order that are united by a relation which in the case of Othello is "Loving" which are also the objects of the belief. This complex unity is referred to as the " fact corresponding to the belief" meaning that statements are true when and if there are existing corresponding
Haas and Flower then provide an example [Page 177], of the differences of a student reader and an experienced reader. The example shows a remarkable difference between the two, the student reader was able to identify the situation and paraphrased what he found out. The experienced reader not only identified the situation, but provided a theory to attempt to explain what the author was trying to do; this is quite different than what the student reader provided. I believe Haas and Flower added the example to emphasize the difference of the conclusions that the student reader and the experienced reader came to. By adding the example, Haas and Flower were also able to support rhetorical reading and the difference it made between the readers. Haas and Flower then state the following: “While the student reader is mainly creating a gist and paraphrasing, the experienced reader does this and more – he then tries to infer the author’s purpose and even creates a sort of strident persona for the writer” [Haas and Flower, 177] The following quote is basically the description of the experiment, and explains the difference in the student reader’s response to the experienced reader’s
The problem I hope to expose in this paper is the lack of evidence in The Argument from Analogy for Other Minds supporting that A, a thought or feeling, is the only cause of B. Russell believes that there are other minds because he can see actions in others that are analogous to his own without thinking about them. He believes that all actions are caused by thoughts, but what happens when we have a reaction resulting as an action of something forced upon one’s self? Such as when a doctor hits your patellar tendon with a reflex hammer to test your knee-jerk reflex. Russell does not answer this question. He is only “highly probable” that we are to know other minds exist through his A is the cause of B postulate.
Some kinds of utterances which have an indicative grammatical form seem, for different reasons, to be unable to say something true of the world. Logical contradictions are only the prime example of something the author baptizes impossible descriptions. So-called performative contradictions (e.g., "I do not exist") make up another kind, but there are at least two more such kinds: negating affirmations and performatives which cannot be explained within the philosophy of language. Only philosophical anthropology can explain their feature of "impossibleness," and a distinction between unreflective and reflective consciousness is central to the explanation. Particularly important here is G. H. Mead's distinction between two aspects of the self: the "I" and the "me." Each of the four kinds of impossible descriptions distinguished has its own contrary opposite. These are, in turn, logical tautologies, performative tautologies, affirming negations, and omissive performatives. The last three types as types have not received the philosophical recognition that they deserve. All four fit a general characterization which is given as a definition of the concept of superfluous description.
While Russell and I disagree on this aspect, there are others that we do agree on, such as his ideas on memory and how it affects our perspective on the present. I believe that this topic is far more difficult that basic metaphysical philosophy, and while the topic was difficult I found that it was an easier read than some metaphysical philosophers
This essay is written to introduce the Russell’s Theory on Definite Description. The main content of this essay including: the definition of definite description, the puzzles concerning definite description, Russell’s Theory on Definite Description, how this theory solves the puzzles, Strawson’s objection to this theory, my evaluation on the convincingness of Strawson’s objection and my evaluation on the convincingness of Russell’s Theory of Definite Description.
...e occurrence of death. Russell argued against life after death, while Hick argued in defense of it. Russell’s argument for life after death overall was emphasizing that not possible for one to continue to exist after death because death is simply the end. Hick’s argument in defense of life after death was discussed through his John Smith thought experiment and his insight on parapsychology.
Theorists have expanded our knowledge of psychology, influenced one another to broaden, and built upon each other’s theories to develop their own. One theorist who has built upon previous theorists was Erik Erikson. Erikson developed an eight-stage theory of identity and psychosocial development, which has countless strengths and weaknesses.
This paper will explain the process we, as humans usually follow to understand a certain text or utterance. This explanation would be achieved through the analysis of two journal articles from semantics and pragmatics perspective, taking into account a range of techniques associated with each of the two concepts including:
In her analysis, Mona Baker investigates all text equivalences: apart the object of this paper, she studies the grammatical equivalence, the textual equivalence and the pragmatic equivalence. However this paper will be centered only on the micro level.
Those who know Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy, or the shorter Wisdom of the West, will remember his great difficulty in focusing on (French) Existentialism as a form of philosophy at all.