Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Studies 139 (2):209 - 212 (2008)
|Abstract||In “What is History For?,” Scott Soames responds to criticisms of his treatment of Russell’s logic in volume 1 of his Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century. This note rebuts two of Soames’s replies, showing that a first-order presentation of Russell’s logic does not fit the argument of the Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, and that Soames’s contextual definition of classes does not match Russell’s contextual definition of classes. In consequence, Soames’s presentation of Russell’s logic misrepresents what Russell took to be its technical achievement and its philosophical significance.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Brian Weatherson (2007). Review: Doing Philosophy with Words. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 135 (3):429 - 437.
Brian Weatherson (2007). Doing Philosophy with Words. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 135 (3):429 - 437.
Nathan U. Salmon & Scott Soames (eds.) (1988). Propositions and Attitudes. Oxford University Press.
Kevin C. Klement (2010). The Functions of Russell's No Class Theory. Review of Symbolic Logic 3 (4):633-664.
Christopher Pincock, Scott Soames. Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century_. _Volume 1: The Dawn of.
Ian Proops (2006). Soames on the Metaphysics and Epistemology of Moore and Russell. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 129 (3):627–635.
Scott Soames (2008). No Class: Russell on Contextual Definition and the Elimination of Sets. Philosophical Studies 139 (2):213 - 218.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #114,394 of 723,043 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 723,043 )
How can I increase my downloads?