Graduate studies at Western
Journal of the History of Philosophy 14 (2):183-201 (1976)
|Abstract||In several places bertrand russell purports to present an argument proving that definite descriptions have no meaning. There have been several interpretations about what this argument is and whether it is valid. I evaluate these interpretations and then present my own. I argue that russell's argument is defective for turning on an equivocation, Which is camouflaged by amphibolies|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Berit Brogaard (2007). Descriptions: Predicates or Quantifiers? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (1):117 – 136.
Aloysius Martinich (1983). Sense, Reference, and Russell's Theory of Descriptions. Journal of the History of Philosophy 21 (1):85-91.
Stephen Schiffer (2005). Russell's Theory of Definite Descriptions. Mind 114 (456):1135-1183.
Sajahan Miah (2006). Russell's Theory of Perception 1905-1919. New York: Continuum.
Gregory Landini (1991). A New Interpretation of Russell's Multiple-Relation Theory of Judgment. History and Philosophy of Logic 12 (1):37-69.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads8 ( #131,816 of 739,344 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,344 )
How can I increase my downloads?