David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 37 (3):363-384 (1970)
It is argued that Strawson's celebrated attacks on Russell's views about proper names and descriptions are misleading and unfounded. An attempt is made to show that Strawson's alternative views are philosophically more problematic than Russell's. It is also argued that, properly stated, Russell's analyses do not do violence to ordinary usage and that attempts to justify Strawson's analysis on the ground that it fits better with ordinary usage are mistaken
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Charles Sayward (1993). Definite Descriptions, Negation and Necessitation. Russell 13 (1):36-47.
Paulo Roberto Margutti Pinto, Wittgenstein and Semantic Presuppositions Generated by Definite Descriptions in Subject-Position.
Paul Russell (1992). Strawson's Way of Naturalizing Responsibility. Ethics 102 (2):287-302.
Michael Baumgartner (2010). Informal Reasoning and Logical Formalization. In S. Conrad & S. Imhof (eds.), Ding und Begriff. Ontos
John-Michael Kuczynski (2005). Why Definite Descriptions Really Are Referring Terms. Grazer Philosophische Studien 68 (1):45-79.
Saul A. Kripke (1977). Speaker's Reference and Semantic Reference. In Peter A. French, Theodore E. Uehling Jr & Howard K. Wettstein (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Language. University of Minnesota Press 255-296.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads31 ( #88,075 of 1,699,425 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #206,271 of 1,699,425 )
How can I increase my downloads?