Bach on behalf of Russell
Analysis 55 (4):283-287 (1995)
| Abstract | An utterance of a sentence involving an incomplete (definite) description, ‘the F’, where the context—even taking the speaker’s intentions into account—does not determine a unique F, would be unintelligible. But an utterance (in the same context) of the corresponding Russellian paraphrase would not be unintelligible. So I urged in ‘A Strawsonian objection to Russell’s theory of descriptions’ (ANALYSIS 53, 1993, pp. 209-12). I compared an utterance of (1) The table is covered with books. with an utterance of (1)’s Russellian paraphrase.. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,631 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesAndy Egan (2009). Billboards, Bombs and Shotgun Weddings. Synthese 166 (2):251--279.
Ray Buchanan & Gary Ostertag (2005). Has the Problem of Incompleteness Rested on a Mistake? Mind 114 (456):889-913.
Murali Ramachandran (1993). A Strawsonian Objection to Russell's Theory of Descriptions. Analysis 53 (4):209 - 212.
Stephen Schiffer (2005). Russell's Theory of Definite Descriptions. Mind 114 (456):1135-1183.
Murali Ramachandran (2009). Descriptions with an Attitude Problem. Philosophical Quarterly 59 (237):721-723.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-02-14Total downloads13 ( #87,789 of 548,969 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,969 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
