Search results for 'theory of descriptions' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  77
    John-Michael Kuczynski (2004). Non-Declarative Sentences and the Theory of Descriptions. Principia: An International Journal of Epistemology 8 (1).
    A consequence of Russell's Theory of Descriptions is that non-indicative sentences (questions and imperatives) either have meanings that are obviously distinct from their actual meanings, even after all pragmatic and contextual variables are allowed for, or are categorically non-sensical. Therefore, the Theory of Descriptions is false.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  10
    Max Rosenkrantz (2016). The Problem of False Belief and the Failure of the Theory of Descriptions. Theoria 82 (1):56-80.
    In this article I argue that Russell's multiple-relation theory of judgment is a continuation of the campaign against Frege and Meinong begun in “On Denoting” with the theory of descriptions. More precisely, I hold that the problem of false belief, to which the multiple-relation theory is presented as a solution, emerges quite naturally out of the problem context of “On Denoting” and threatens to give new life to the theories Russell purports to have laid to rest (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  68
    Max Rosenkrantz (2009). The Tractatus Theory of Descriptions. Theoria 75 (4):252-271.
    In this article I construe Russell's definite description notation as a fragment of an "ideal language"– a language in which, as Russell puts it in the "Logical Atomism" lectures, "the words in a proposition correspond one by one with the components of the corresponding fact." Russell's notation – containing as it does variables, quantifiers and the identity sign – commits him to an ontology that is lavish indeed. It thus conflicts with the spirit of the theory of descriptions, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4. Jan Heylen (2010). Carnap's Theory of Descriptions and its Problems. Studia Logica 94 (3):355-380.
    Carnap's theory of descriptions was restricted in two ways. First, the descriptive conditions had to be non-modal. Second, only primitive predicates or the identity predicate could be used to predicate something of the descriptum . The motivating reasons for these two restrictions that can be found in the literature will be critically discussed. Both restrictions can be relaxed, but Carnap's theory can still be blamed for not dealing adequately with improper descriptions.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  5.  12
    Jan Heylen (2010). Carnap’s Theory of Descriptions and its Problems. Studia Logica 94 (3):355-380.
    Carnap's theory of descriptions was restricted in two ways. First, the descriptive conditions had to be non-modal. Second, only primitive predicates or the identity predicate could be used to predicate something of the descriptum. The motivating reasons for these two restrictions that can be found in the literature will be critically discussed. Both restrictions can be relaxed, but Carnap's theory can still be blamed for not dealing adequately with improper descriptions.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  6
    Anssi Korhonen (2013). Review: G. Stevens. The Theory of Descriptions: Russell and the Philosophy of Language. [REVIEW] Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 2 (1).
    This is a review of G. Stevens. The Theory of Descriptions: Russell and the Philosophy of Language.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  8
    John Michael Kuczynski (2010). Non-Declarative Sentences and the Theory of Definite Descriptions. Principia 8 (1):119-154.
    This paper shows that Russell’s theory of descriptions gives the wrong semantics for definite descriptions occurring in questions and imperatives. Depending on how that theory is applied, it either assigns nonsense to perfectly meaningful questions and assertions or it assigns meanings that diverge from the actual semantics of such sentences, even after all pragmatic and contextual variables are allowed for. Given that Russell’s theory is wrong for questions and assertions, it must be wrong for assertoric (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  83
    Alex Oliver & Timothy Smiley (2009). Sharvy's Theory of Descriptions: A Paradigm Subverted. Analysis 69 (3):412-421.
    1. ExpositionRichard Sharvy's ‘A more general theory of definite descriptions’ was published in 1980. Its aim was to replace Russell's paradigm by " a general theory of definite descriptions, of which definite mass descriptions, definite plural descriptions, and Russellian definite singular count descriptions are species. … We have an account of the generic ‘the’ along these same lines. " By now his theory has attained the status of a new paradigm. Even a (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9.  3
    Czesław Lejewski (1960). A Re-Examination of the Russellian Theory of Descriptions. Philosophy 35 (132):14-29.
    The theory of descriptions occupies a very prominent place in Russell's system of logic and indeed in his system of philosophy. Since the publication of the now classical paper “On Denoting” in Mind for 1905 the theory had been incorporated into Principia Mathematica , the first volume of which appeared in 1910. In 1918 Russell discussed descriptions in his lectures on the Philosophy of Logical Atomism, which subsequently were published in The Monist for 1919. A very (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  10. P. T. Geach (1950). Russell's Theory of Descriptions. Analysis 10 (4):84 - 88.
    The author is critical of russell's theory in that his "analysis of sentences containing definite descriptions is very defective" and has too many complications to serve as a "convention for a symbolic language." (staff).
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  11. Stephen Schiffer (2005). Russell's Theory of Definite Descriptions. Mind 114 (456):1135-1183.
    The proper statement and assessment of Russell's theory depends on one's semantic presuppositions. A semantic framework is provided, and Russell's theory formulated in terms of it. Referential uses of descriptions raise familiar problems for the theory, to which there are, at the most general level of abstraction, two possible Russellian responses. Both are considered, and both found wanting. The paper ends with a brief consideration of what the correct positive theory of definite descriptions might (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  12. Berit Brogaard (2007). Sharvy's Theory of Definite Descriptions Revisited. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (2):160–180.
    The paper revisits Sharvy's theory of plural definite descriptions. An alternative account of plural definite descriptions building on the ideas of plural quantification and non-distributive plural predication is developed. Finally, the alternative is extrapolated to account for generic uses of definite descriptions.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  13.  71
    Richard Sharvy (1980). A More General Theory of Definite Descriptions. Philosophical Review 89 (4):607-624.
    A unified theory is offered to account for three types of definite descriptions: with singular, plural, & mass predicates, & to provide an account for the word the in descriptions. It is noted that B. Russell's analysis ("On Denoting," Mind, 1905, 14, 479-493) failed to account for plural & mass descriptions. The proposed theory differs from Russell's only by the substitution of the notation (less than or equal to) for Russell's =. It is suggested that (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   29 citations  
  14.  12
    Reese Heitner (2003). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions [1964]. Philosophical Forum 34 (3-4):401–416.
    Book reviewed:;Jerrold J. Katz and Paul M. Postal, An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions;Book reviewed:;Jerrold J. Katz and Paul M. Postal, An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions;Book reviewed:;Jerrold J. Katz and Paul M. Postal, An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions;Book reviewed:;Jerrold J. Katz and Paul M. Postal, An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions;Book reviewed:;Jerrold J. Katz and Paul M. Postal, An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions;Book reviewed:;Jerrold J. Katz and Paul (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  9
    Delia Graff Fara (2016). Further Steps Towards a Theory of Descriptions as Predicates. Analytic Philosophy 57 (1).
    Descriptions are predicates. Here, I'll take this to mean either of two basically equivalent things: that they have extensions as their semantic values, sets of entities, in the broadest sense; or that they have type-〈e,t〉 functions as their semantic values, functions from entities, in the broadest sense, to truth values. An entity in the broadest sense is anything that can be the subject of a first-order predication. Examples are individuals, pluralities, masses, and kinds. Here I'm including entities in this (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  59
    Francesco Pupa (2008). Ambiguous Articles: An Essay On The Theory Of Descriptions. Dissertation, The Graduate Center, CUNY
    What, from a semantic perspective, is the difference between singular indefinite and definite descriptions? Just over a century ago, Russell provided what has become the standard philosophical response. Descriptions are quantifier phrases, not referring expressions. As such, they differ with respect to the quantities they denote. Indefinite descriptions denote existential quantities; definite descriptions denote uniquely existential quantities. Now around the 1930s and 1940s, some linguists, working independently of philosophers, developed a radically different response. Descriptions, linguists (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  17. Berit Brogaard, Russell's Theory of Descriptions Vs. The Predicative Analysis: A Reply to Graff.
    I. Descriptions in Predicative Position The predicative analysis and Russell’s theory part company when it comes to the argument structure assigned to sentences like (1). (1) Washington is the greatest French soldier. On a standard Russellian analysis, (1) has the following (a) logical form and (b) truth conditions.
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. Scott Soames (2005). Why Incomplete Definite Descriptions Do Not Defeat Russell's Theory of Descriptions. Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 24 (3):7-30.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  19.  8
    G. E. Moore (1944). Russell's "Theory of Descriptions.". Journal of Symbolic Logic 9 (3):78-78.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  20.  17
    Timothy Smiley (2004). The Theory of Descriptions. In T. J. Smiley & Thomas Baldwin (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Logic and Knowledge. Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press 131--61.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  21.  62
    Alan R. White (1959). The 'Meaning' of Russell's Theory of Descriptions. Analysis 20 (1):8 - 9.
    The author holds that "russell confused the idea of meaning which is akin to use and the idea of meaning which is akin to reference, or perhaps denotation." (staff).
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  12
    P. F. Strawson (2005). My Crytique of Russell¿ s Theory of Descriptions. Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 24 (3):171-174.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  42
    Jeff Pelletier, What is Frege's Theory of Descriptions?
    In the case of an actual proper name such as ‘Aristotle’ opinions as to the Sinn may differ. It might, for instance, be taken to be the following: the pupil of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. Anybody who does this will attach another Sinn to the sentence ‘Aristotle was born in Stagira’ than will a man who takes as the Sinn of the name: the teacher of Alexander the Great who was born in Stagira. So long as the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  20
    Stewart Candlish (2012). The Theory of Descriptions: Russell and the Philosophy of Language. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (4):820-821.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  32
    R. K. Perkins (1982). Russell, Frege, and the "Meaning" of the Theory of Descriptions (Or): Did Russell Know His Frege? Journal of the History of Philosophy 20 (4):407-423.
  26.  16
    Joy H. Roberts (1976). An Error in Searle's Criticism of Russell's Theory of Descriptions. Southwestern Journal of Philosophy 7 (1):15-19.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  6
    Alberto Peruzzi (1988). The Theory of Descriptions Revisited. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 30 (1):91-104.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  28.  6
    Max Black (1944). Review: G. E. Moore, Russell's "Theory of Descriptions.". [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 9 (3):78-78.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  10
    Avrum Stroll (1978). Four Comments on Russell's Theory of Descriptions. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 8 (1):147 - 155.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30.  14
    Aloysius Martinich (1983). Sense, Reference, and Russell's Theory of Descriptions. Journal of the History of Philosophy 21 (1):85-91.
  31.  3
    Alonzo Church (1950). Review: P. T. Geach, Russell's Theory of Descriptions. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 15 (3):217-217.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32.  7
    J. W. Reeves (1933). The Origin and Consequences of the Theory of Descriptions. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 34:211 - 230.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33.  1
    Scott Soames (2003). Chapter 5. Logical Form, Grammatical Form, and the Theory of Descriptions. In Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century, Volume 1: The Dawn of Analysis. Princeton University Press 93-131.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  1
    Marc L. Schnitzer (1971). Presupposition, Entailment, and Russell's Theory of Descriptions. Foundations of Language 7 (2):297-299.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  3
    Ted Honderich (1968). On the Theory of Descriptions. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 69:87 - 100.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  1
    Romane Clark (1956). Review: Arthur Pap, Logic, Existence, and the Theory of Descriptions; Donald Kalish, Mr. Pap on Logic, Existence, and Descriptions. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 21 (2):206-206.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37.  1
    David Kaplan (1969). Review: Ronald J. Butler, The Scaffolding of Russell's Theory of Descriptions. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 34 (1):143-143.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38. William Demopoulos (2007). The 1910 *Principia*'s Theory of Functions and Classes and the Theory of Descriptions'. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy 3 (2):159-178.
  39. Boguslaw Iwanus (1975). Review: Czeslaw Lejewski, A Re-Examination of the Russellian Theory of Descriptions. [REVIEW] Journal of Symbolic Logic 40 (1):103-104.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40. Graham Stevens (2009). Anti-Realism and the Theory of Descriptions. In Nicholas Griffin & Dale Jacquette (eds.), Russell Vs. Meinong: The Legacy of "on Denoting". Routledge
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  75
    David Kaplan (1970). What is Russell's Theory of Descriptions? In Wolfgang Yourgrau & Allen D. Breck (eds.), Physics, Logic, and History. Plenum Press 277-295.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  42.  21
    Aloysius Martinich (1976). Russell's Theory of Meaning and Descriptions (1905-1920). Journal of the History of Philosophy 14 (2):183-201.
    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.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  66
    Arthur Pap (1953). Logic, Existence, and the Theory of Descriptions. Analysis 13 (5):97 - 111.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  26
    Max Rosenkrantz (2005). The Ontological Motivations for the Theory of Descriptions. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (1):114–134.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  45.  19
    C. J. F. Williams (1985). Aristotle's Theory of Descriptions. Philosophical Review 94 (1):63-80.
  46.  19
    Karel Lambert (1962). Notes on E! III: A Theory of Descriptions. Philosophical Studies 13 (4):51--59.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  47.  14
    Henryk Lewandowski & Roman Suszko (1968). A Note Concerning the Theory of Descriptions. Studia Logica 22 (1):51 - 56.
  48.  20
    Ronald J. Butler (1954). The Scaffolding of Russell's Theory of Descriptions. Philosophical Review 63 (3):350-364.
  49.  20
    Charles Crittenden (1970). Ontology and the Theory of Descriptions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 31 (1):85-96.
  50.  5
    Peter Hylton (2003). 6 The Theory of Descriptions. In Nicholas Griffin (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Bertrand Russell. Cambridge University Press 202.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 1000