Search

Some 55 years after the publication of Russell's seminal 'On Denoting', Quine adopted the theory of definite descriptions presented therein to formulate his perspicuous lingua franca for the sciences. This paper illustrates how, in so doing, Quine's lingua franca inherited an old antinomy at the core of Russell's theory of definite descriptions, specifically, the lack of congruency between notation and metaphysical commitments when the variable assumes the role of fundamental singular reference. In this context, the paper contends that the phrase 'to be is purely and simply to be the value of the variable' is far from the straightforward solution Quine initially envisioned for his lingua franca. Additionally, it argues that it is unlikely that an attempt to account for a determinate object theory, such as those propounded by Russell and Quine, can prove successful when grounded in a referential theory of quantificational logic where the variable, seen as a simple range of values, holds fundamental singular referent‐position. The paper concludes by suggesting that Meinong's object theory could resolve the problem of the variable, albeit at the cost of potentially undesirable ontological and logical commitments. Alternatively, Kit Fine's recent work on other antinomies in the variable may provide a promising approach to exploring how to salvage the variable as a formal foundation for ontology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Donnellan’s distinction between referential and attributive uses of definite descriptions has two explanations — the semantic and the pragmatic one. A version of semantic explanations was outlined by Kaplan and elaborated in detail by Marti. They construe a referentially used definite description as a proper name in the Millian sense. In a recent paper, I showed that the evidence Kaplan–Marti theory relies on is inappropriate with respect to the standard case of referential use, which makes the pragmatic theory preferable. This paper is a continuation of the cited one. Here I examine a number of non-standard cases of referential use and demonstrate that, with respect to them, Kaplan–Marti theory has no advantage over the pragmatic account either.

Donnellan’s distinction between referential and attributive uses of definite descriptions gave rise to controversy between semantic and pragmatic accounts of referentially used descriptions. Kaplan adumbrated and Marti elaborated in detail a semantic account that assimilates referentially used definite descriptions with proper names in the sense of the theory of direct reference. I argue that the evidence Kaplan-Marti theory relies on is inappropriate, and conclude that KaplanMarti theory has no advantage over the pragmatic account of referential use in Donnellan’s sense.

In this paper, I will present a puzzle for logical analyses, such as Russell's analysis of definite descriptions and Recanati's analysis of 'that'-clauses. I will argue that together with Kripke's disquotational principles connecting sincere assent and belief such non-trivial logical analyses lead to contradictions. Following this, I will compare the puzzle about logical analysis with Frege's puzzle about belief ascriptions. We will see that although the two puzzles do have similarities, the solutions to Frege's puzzle cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to the puzzle about logical analysis. Hence, to say it with Kripke, the main thesis of this paper is that the puzzle is a puzzle. A complete solution to the puzzle promises a better understanding of both logical analyses and belief ascriptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Annals of Philosophy / Roczniki Filozoficzne is the property of John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Faculty of Philosophy and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Utterances in which a referentially used definite description occurs as subject term may sometimes receive an argumentative interpretation, according to which the subject serves to introduce and justify the predicate. This paper aims to give an account of this “argumentative” use of definite descriptions within the framework of an argumentation-based semantics, Marion Carel’s “theory of semantic blocks”. Especially, it will be argued that a definite description can be used argumentatively in an utterance when its function is to provide a schema on the basis of which the argumentative interpretation of the utterance is constructed.

This paper defends the doctrine of Unrestricted Exportation (UE) against Saul Kripke's attack on it. According to UE, the exportation step from the de dicto belief report, S believes that α is F, together with the premise that α exists, to the de re report, S believes of α that it is F, is valid. By presenting an alleged counterexample, Kripke tries to show that UE has much more implausible consequences than its advocates would accept. By going through the details of Kripke's scenario, I argue that UE does not commit us to the consequences Kripke associates with it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a new foundational language for mathematics with its very different idea as to the status of logic, we should expect homotopy type theory to shed new light on some of the problems of philosophy which have been treated by logic. In this article, definite description, and in particular its employment within mathematics, is formulated within the type theory. Homotopy type theory has been proposed as an inherently structuralist foundational language for mathematics. Using the new formulation of definite descriptions, opportunities to express 'the structure of' within homotopy type theory are explored, and it is shown there is little or no need for this expression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to predicativism about names, names which occur in argument positions have the same type of semantic contents as predicates. In this paper, I shall argue that these bare singular names do not have the same type of semantic contents as predicates. I will present three objections to predicativism—the modal, the epistemic, and the translation objections—and show that they succeed even against the more sophisticated versions of predicativism defended by Fara and Bach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article some problems concerned an application of standard conception of reference to the word “God” are considered in tradition of analytic philosophy. The author engages in a discussion with R. Swinburne and W. Alston. According to conception mentioned above proper names denote particular things. But an interpretation of such expressions in accord with the standard view presupposes that proper referents should be assigned to them, and those to be found in a world the utterance of the name is about. But in order to do this an interpreter has to be able to identify the referent. Meanwhile even those things which we can immediately interact with, are structurally complex and susceptible to changes, including differences in presentations to subjects. This makes their givennes and identification quite a problem. Yet more problematic looks an assignment of a standard reference to a name which is supposed to designate something unable to be immediately given to any competent language speaker, like historic object, event or person, or God. This paper analyses different accounts of interpretation of proper names. It proposes a model of interpretation according to which proper names may be assigned standard references without the referents to be somehow given an agent of an utterance, based on a Kripkean historical account coupled with an understanding of proper names as anaphors. Its application to conventional uses of the name «God» in monotheistic discourses is critically analyzed.