DOCSLIB.ORG

Definite Descriptions in a 2-D Semantics for Epistemic Modals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Definite Descriptions in a 2-D Semantics for Epistemic Modals DEFINITE DESCRIPTIONS IN A 2-D SEMANTICS FOR EPISTEMIC MODALS A thesis submitted to the faculty of / San Francisco State University 2 ,f. In partial fulfillment of The Requirements for The Degree Master of Arts In Philosophy by Patrick Daniel Skeels San Francisco, California May 2016 Copyright by Patrick Daniel Skeels ©2016 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL I certify that I have read Definite Descriptions in a 2-D Semantics for Epistemic Modals by Patrick Daniel Skeels, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree: Master of Arts in Phi­ losophy at San Francisco State University Dr. Carlos Montemayor Associate Professor of Philosophy Dr. Bas C. van Fraassen Professor of Philosophy DEFINITE DESCRIPTIONS IN A 2-D SEMANTICS FOR EPISTEMIC MODALS Patrick Daniel Skeels San Francisco State University 2016 In the following, I begin with some puzzles of epistemic modality, after which I present a 2-Dimensional semantics developed by Holliday that aims to solve them. I then detail how Holliday's semantics interacts with both the Russellian and the Fregean theories of definite descriptions. I conclude that it is compatible with both. I certify that the Abstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis. Chair, Thesis Committee Date TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Appendices ....................................................................................................... vi Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 1 A Few Puzzles of Epistemic Modality ............................................................... 4 2 A Two-Dimensional Solution ............................................................................. 6 2.1 Informal Introduction................................................................................... 6 2.2 Holliday 2015 ................................................................................................ 8 2.3 Applications................................................................................................... 11 3 Definite D escriptions............................................................................................. 13 3.1 Russellian Theory of Definite Descriptions.............................................. 14 3.2 Fregean Theory of Definite Descriptions................................................. 17 4 Concluding Remarks...................................................... 24 5 Appendix...................................................................................................................... 26 6 Works C it e d ............................................. 34 v List of Appendices A.l .......................................................................................................................................26 A.2 .......................................................................................................................................26 A.3 .......................................................................................................................................27 A.4: Expanded Truth Conditions for .........................................................................28 A.5 .......................................................................................................................................28 A.6 .......................................................................................................................................29 A.7 .......................................................................................................................................30 A.8: Equivalence of <3 and 9 R ........................................................................................ 31 A.9 .......................................................................................................................................32 A .1 0 .......................................................................................................................................32 A . l l .......................................................................................................................................33 vi 1 Introduction Imagine that we are chatting as we walk past a schoolyard. We notice that some children are about to have a footrace. The mood is playful, yet competitive, and our attention is momentarily pried from our usual philosophical discussion to some­ thing more visceral. The race begins. It's a close one. But in the end, as you may have guessed, the winner won. After the race unfolds, I utter: (1) The winner of the race could have lost. You agree. After all, the race was close, and it wasn't a forgone conclusion that that child was to be the winner. The most natural reading of "could" in this context classifies it as a metaphysical modal. This means that there is a possible world, metaphysically accessible from our own, where that very child didn't win. This is easy enough to imagine. Kripke semantics gives (1) the following truth conditions: (IT) The person x, who was the winner of the race in zv is such that there is some world w' metaphysically accessible from zv such that x is not the winner of the race. (IT) is perfectly coherent, as we'd expect. Kripke taught us that an object can have nontrivial modal properties independent from its means of individuation ([3] pp 63-67). All in all, a sentence like (1) is perfectly fine, according to both our semantics and our ears. 2 Now suppose that the conversation went just a little differently. The scenario plays out exactly the same as before, but instead of uttering (1 ), I utter: (2) #The winner of the race might have lost. Rather than agreement, I'm met with a perplexed look. Something about this sen­ tence isn't quite right. Unlike "could", "might" is most naturally read as an epis- temic modal. An epistemic modal allows for possibility and necessity, but only relative to an information state. An information state is a set of possible worlds, each of which is seen as a candidate for the real world. As an agent comes to be­ lieve a proposition, she eliminates worlds from the information state where that proposition is not true ([6] pp 86-87). Recall that we came to believe that a particu­ lar individual won, which means that we've eliminated all worlds where that same individual didn't win from our information state. But this means that an utterance of (2) says that the very worlds that have been eliminated are somehow still candi­ dates for the real world. Understood this way, (2) doesn't just sound strange. It is contradictory. We expect this to be apparent in the truth conditions: (2T) The person x, who was the winner of the race in w is such that there is some world w' in information state I that is epistemically accessible from w such that x is not the winner of the race. Interestingly, (2T) is satisfiable, despite the contradiction! A state of ignorance regarding the race result would include both w and w' and would satisfy (2T), but 3 (2) is contradictory, and should not have satisfiable truth conditions. Something is wrong. We find ourselves in a predicament. An utterance of (2) is infelicitous because it is contradictory to individuate an object with a property while simultaneously entertaining that it does not have that property. Nonetheless, (2) has perfectly sat­ isfiable truth-conditions. The problem generalizes. It appears that the epistemic modal properties of an object must be dependent on the way the object is indi­ viduated, if the sentence containing the modal is to be felicitous ([8] pp 475-477). Returning to (2), the information state can only include worlds where the winner in w won, since we've individuated this child as "the winner". Standard possible world semantics does not account for this unique behavior. We need a semantics that does. In the following, we'll take a look at a brand new two-dimensional semantics that predicts the behavior of epistemic modals. The semantics, which we'll call Holliday 2015, is a work in progress, and presently lacks a theory of definite de­ scriptions. The technical aim of the paper is to provide Holliday 2015 with a theory of definite descriptions which allows it to make the proper predictions. There are many theories fit for candidacy, the two most prevalent of which are the familiar Fregean and Russellian theories. We shall outfit the system with each and observe the formal results. As we shall see, both theories are compatible. The philosoph­ ical implications of these results are of no small consequence, as other semantics 4 designed to predict the behavior of epistemic modals, most notably Yalcin 2015, are not compatible with the Fregean theory of definite descriptions ([11] pp 7-8). As such, the broader, more philosophical goal of the paper will be to see what the newer problem of epistemic modals has to say about the much older problem of definite descriptions. More narrowly, I'll argue that with the introduction of Hol­ liday 2015, the Fregean is, in fact, capable of predicting the behavior of epistemic modals. 1 A Few Puzzles of Epistemic Modality1 We began with a puzzling asymmetry between (1 ) and (2). The problem is not limited to epistemic modals bound by definite descriptions. We notice further asymmetries with indefinites. The following universally or existentially quanti­ fied sentences are reported as infelicitous: (3) #Some person who is not infected, might
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reference and Definite Descriptions1
    Philosophical Review !"#"$"%&"'(%)'*"#+%+,"'*"-&$+.,+/%- 01,2/$3-45'6"+,2'78'*/%%"99(% 7/1$&"5':2"';2+9/-/.2+&(9'!"<+"=>'?/98'@A>'B/8'C'3D198>'EFGG4>'..8'HIEJCKL ;1M9+-2")'MN5'*1O"'P%+<"$-+,N';$"--'/%'M"2(9#'/#';2+9/-/.2+&(9'!"<+"= 7,(M9"'P!Q5'http://www.jstor.org/stable/2183143 0&&"--")5'KARKIRHKEK'EA5HC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Duke University Press and Philosophical Review are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Philosophical Review. http://www.jstor.org REFERENCE AND DEFINITE DESCRIPTIONS1 I DEFINITE descriptions, I shall argue, have two possible func- tions.
    [Show full text]
  • Gottlob Frege Patricia A
    Gottlob Frege Patricia A. Blanchette This is the penultimate version of the essay whose final version appears in the Oxford Handbook of Nineteenth-Century German Philosophy, M. Forster and K. Gjesdal (eds), Oxford University Press 2015, pp 207-227 Abstract Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) made significant contributions to both pure mathematics and philosophy. His most important technical contribution, of both mathematical and philosophical significance, is the introduction of a formal system of quantified logic. His work of a more purely- philosophical kind includes the articulation and persuasive defense of anti-psychologism in mathematics and logic, the rigorous pursuit of the thesis that arithmetic is reducible to logic, and the introduction of the distinction between sense and reference in the philosophy of language. Frege’s work has gone on to influence contemporary work across a broad spectrum, including the philosophy of mathematics and logic, the philosophy of language, and the philosophy of mind. This essay describes the historical development of Frege’s central views, and the connections between those views. Introduction Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege was born on November 8, 1848 in the Hanseatic town of Wismar. He was educated in mathematics at the University of Jena and at the University of Göttingen, from which latter he received his doctorate in 1873. He defended his Habilitation the next year in Jena, and took up a position immediately at the University of Jena. Here he spent his entire academic career, lecturing in mathematics and logic, retiring in 1918. His death came on July 26, 1925 in the nearby town of Bad Kleinen.1 Frege is best known for three significant contributions to philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.Pdf
    PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS By LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN Translated by G. E. M. ANSCOMBE BASIL BLACKWELL TRANSLATOR'S NOTE Copyright © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1958 MY acknowledgments are due to the following, who either checked First published 1953 Second edition 1958 the translation or allowed me to consult them about German and Reprint of English text alone 1963 Austrian usage or read the translation through and helped me to Third edition of English and German text with index 1967 improve the English: Mr. R. Rhees, Professor G. H. von Wright, Reprint of English text with index 1968, 1972, 1974, 1976, 1978, Mr. P. Geach, Mr. G. Kreisel, Miss L. Labowsky, Mr. D. Paul, Miss I. 1981, 1986 Murdoch. Basil Blackwell Ltd 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be NOTE TO SECOND EDITION reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or THE text has been revised for the new edition. A large number of otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. small changes have been made in the English text. The following passages have been significantly altered: Except in the United States of America, this book is sold to the In Part I: §§ 108, 109, 116, 189, 193, 251, 284, 352, 360, 393,418, condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re- 426, 442, 456, 493, 520, 556, 582, 591, 644, 690, 692.
    [Show full text]
  • The Theory of Descriptions 1. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970): Mathematician, Logician, and Philosopher
    Louis deRosset { Spring 2019 Russell: The Theory of Descriptions 1. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970): mathematician, logician, and philosopher. He's one of the founders of analytic philosophy. \On Denoting" is a founding document of analytic philosophy. It is a paradigm of philosophical analysis. An analysis of a concept/phenomenon c: a recipe for eliminating c-vocabulary from our theories which still captures all of the facts the c-vocabulary targets. FOR EXAMPLE: \The Name View Analysis of Identity." 2. Russell's target: Denoting Phrases By a \denoting phrase" I mean a phrase such as any one of the following: a man, some man, any man, every man, all men, the present King of England, the present King of France, the centre of mass of the Solar System at the first instant of the twentieth century, the revolution of the earth round the sun, the revolution of the sun round the earth. (479) Includes: • universals: \all F 's" (\each"/\every") • existentials: \some F " (\at least one") • indefinite descriptions: \an F " • definite descriptions: \the F " Later additions: • negative existentials: \no F 's" (480) • Genitives: \my F " (\your"/\their"/\Joe's"/etc.) (484) • Empty Proper Names: \Apollo", \Hamlet", etc. (491) Russell proposes to analyze denoting phrases. 3. Why Analyze Denoting Phrases? Russell's Project: The distinction between acquaintance and knowledge about is the distinction between the things we have presentation of, and the things we only reach by means of denoting phrases. [. ] In perception we have acquaintance with the objects of perception, and in thought we have acquaintance with objects of a more abstract logical character; but we do not necessarily have acquaintance with the objects denoted by phrases composed of words with whose meanings we are ac- quainted.
    [Show full text]
  • PHI 565-Russell
    Philosophy 565: Philosophy of Language Prof. Clare Batty Russell, “On Denoting” 1. More Philosophical Jargon definite description: a singular noun phrase which applies to exactly one person, often beginning with the definite article: e.g., ‘the funniest woman in Canada’, the present King of France’. According to Russell, a phrase is denoting solely “in virtue of its form”. This is to say, the phrase needn’t actually denote in order to be a denoting phrase. Law of the Excluded Middle: By the law of the excluded middle, either ‘A is B’ or ‘A is not B’ must be true. 2. Frege and Russell We now know that Frege is committed to: (F3) Ordinary proper names and definite descriptions are singular terms. (F4) Ordinary proper names and definite descriptions all have sense (and perhaps reference). (ST1) The business of a singular term is to refer to an object. (ST2) A sentence containing a singular term has no truth-value if there is no object corresponding to that singular term. Russell’s focus is on definite descriptions. Not under discussion at this point: proper names (e.g. ‘Clare’, ‘Kentucky’, etc.) Russell denies (F3) and, as a result (he claims), (F4). Like Frege, Russell thinks that his alternative view can deal with certain problems. “The evidence for [my] theory is derived from difficulties which seem unavoidable if we regard denoting phrases as standing for genuine constituents of the propositions in whose verbal expressions they occur." We have seen some of these before: (P1) Frege’s Puzzle About Identity (P2) Substitutivity (P3) Apparent Reference to Non-Existents And some more: (P4) Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) By the LEM, either (S1) ‘The King of France is bald’ or (S2) ‘The King of France is not bald’ had better be true.
    [Show full text]
  • Frege and the Logic of Sense and Reference
    FREGE AND THE LOGIC OF SENSE AND REFERENCE Kevin C. Klement Routledge New York & London Published in 2002 by Routledge 29 West 35th Street New York, NY 10001 Published in Great Britain by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper. Copyright © 2002 by Kevin C. Klement All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any infomration storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Klement, Kevin C., 1974– Frege and the logic of sense and reference / by Kevin Klement. p. cm — (Studies in philosophy) Includes bibliographical references and index ISBN 0-415-93790-6 1. Frege, Gottlob, 1848–1925. 2. Sense (Philosophy) 3. Reference (Philosophy) I. Title II. Studies in philosophy (New York, N. Y.) B3245.F24 K54 2001 12'.68'092—dc21 2001048169 Contents Page Preface ix Abbreviations xiii 1. The Need for a Logical Calculus for the Theory of Sinn and Bedeutung 3 Introduction 3 Frege’s Project: Logicism and the Notion of Begriffsschrift 4 The Theory of Sinn and Bedeutung 8 The Limitations of the Begriffsschrift 14 Filling the Gap 21 2. The Logic of the Grundgesetze 25 Logical Language and the Content of Logic 25 Functionality and Predication 28 Quantifiers and Gothic Letters 32 Roman Letters: An Alternative Notation for Generality 38 Value-Ranges and Extensions of Concepts 42 The Syntactic Rules of the Begriffsschrift 44 The Axiomatization of Frege’s System 49 Responses to the Paradox 56 v vi Contents 3.
    [Show full text]
  • A Defense of Denotative Theory from Kripke's Criticism
    Tomoya Imaizumi 57 A Defense of Denotative Theory from Kripke’s Criticism Tomoya Imaizumi n Naming and Necessity, Kripke criticizes the denotative theory of reference and proposes a version of the causal theory of ref- erence. The outline of the discussion between these two theo- I ries is the following: the denotative theory is advocated by Rus- sell, who thinks that the reference of a name is determined by the definite description the name gives. Kripke, however, opposes this idea; he thinks that names can designate objects without description, and proposes his version of the causal theory. In this paper, I attempt to examine the criticism given by Kripke and defend the denotative theory from it. I then challenge the causal theory. Finally, I will show the ad- vantages and disadvantages of the denotative theory and the causal theory, along with a comparison between the two. To achieve this goal, it is first necessary to explain the denotative theory, the foundation of which is the notion of definite descriptions, before moving to an expla- nation of Kripke's version of the causal theory, the foundation of which is the notion of rigid designators. I. Description Theory and Denotative Theory In this section, I will explain what the description theory is, Tomoya Imaizumi is a senior studying philosophy at Kyoto University in Japan. His philosophical interests lie in philosophy of mathematics, philosophical logic and philosophy of physics. He is particularly inter- ested in Dummettian generalization from intuitionism to anti-realism, on which he is writing his senior thesis. He would like to continue studying philosophy at a graduate school in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Proper Names, Beliefs, and Definite Descriptions
    University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-1984 Proper names, beliefs, and definite descriptions. Thomas C. Ryckman University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Ryckman, Thomas C., "Proper names, beliefs, and definite descriptions." (1984). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 1789. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/1789 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. •'iuV'j » *-!'< Vr.’ — /: ' " FIVE COLLEGE , V V 'v DEPOSITORY PROPER NAMES, BELIEFS, AND DEFINITE DESCRIPTIONS A Dissertation Presented By THOMAS CHARLES RYCKMAN Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY September 1 984 Department of Philosophy Thomas Charles Ryckman © All Rights Reserved 11 PROPER NAMES, BELIEFS, AND DEFINITE DESCRIPTIONS A Dissertation Presented By THOMAS CHARLES RYCKMAN Approved as to style and content by: Edmund L. Gettier , III, ChairpersonChairpe of Committee Barbara Partee, Member obison, Member Michael Jubien, Department Head Department of Philosophy Dedicated, with love, to Susanne Burgess Ryckman IV . — ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I Wish to acknowledge my debt and gratitude to certain persons and institutions Edmund L. Gettier, III, has read and commented on three prior drafts of this dissertation, and on additional versions of some of its parts. He has patiently and -ski Hfu! guided !y me to more fully appreciate the complexity and subtlety of the issues I have considered.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter V Wittgenstein and the Composers
    Chapter V Wittgenstein and the Composers 1. Not Only Science But Art Also Teaches Writing about the influences on Ludwig Wittgenstein’s work, Georg Henrik von Wright remarks that Wittgenstein received deeper impressions from some writers in the borderlands between philosophy, religion, and poetry than from professional philosophers.1 Surprisingly, von Wright does not mention composers of music despite the fact that Wittgenstein also criss-crossed the borderlands between music and philosophy and received nourishing ideas for his line of thinking from composers. The question that recurs, and that I now address from a different angle, is: who are these composers and tone poets whom Wittgenstein took up for his own work and why? What motivates this question is an unexamined assumption in the modern culture of the West about a division of labour: scientists instruct us and artists entertain us. This assumption, as we have seen already in our discussion of Hanslick, is a prominent feature of the scientistic culture that developed in the second half of the nineteenth century, became pervasive in the twentieth century and is now part of the prevailing cultural ideology. Wittgenstein rejected this complacent dichotomy between scientists and artists: “People nowadays think, scientists are there to instruct them, poets, musicians etc. to entertain them. That the latter have something to teach them; that never occurs to them”.2 Examining this assumption in light of Wittgenstein’s remarks about the composers he engages in his writings—Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Schubert, Wagner, Mahler and Labor—may help us to understand why he read and listened to composers and how the allusions to music and “tone poets” have 1 Von Wright, Wittgenstein, 33.
    [Show full text]
  • Donnellan: “Reference and Definite Descriptions”
    Donnellan: “Reference and Definite Descriptions” TWO USES OF DESCRIPTIONS Donnellan argues that neither Russell nor Strawson is right. Each is partly right, because each focuses on just one of two different uses of definite descriptions. And, in spite of their opposition, they share some false assumptions in common. The two uses: attributive and referential. Attributive “A speaker who uses a definite description attributively in an assertion states something about whoever or whatever is the so-and-so” (p. 267, left) Referential “A speaker who uses a definite description referentially in an assertion … uses the description to enable his audience to pick out whom or what he is talking about and states something about that person or thing” (p. 267, left) An illustration of the difference: “Smith’s murderer is insane.” Attributive: the speaker says this without having any particular person in mind, basing his claim solely on the particularly brutal manner in which Smith has been murdered. Referential: Jones has been charged with the murder and has been put on trial, where his behavior is distinctly odd. The speaker (having Jones in mind) utters the same sentence. CRITICISM OF RUSSELL AND STRAWSON Against Russell: Russell’s theory applies at most to the attributive use of descriptions. He fails to account for the referential use. So Russell gets one of the two uses (the attributive), but misses the other. Against Strawson: Strawson’s theory accommodates the referential use, but “it goes too far in this direction” (p. 271, bottom left). For it fails to allow for the referential use to occur successfully even though nothing satisfies the description.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Language in the Twentieth Century Jason Stanley Rutgers University
    Philosophy of Language in the Twentieth Century Jason Stanley Rutgers University In the Twentieth Century, Logic and Philosophy of Language are two of the few areas of philosophy in which philosophers made indisputable progress. For example, even now many of the foremost living ethicists present their theories as somewhat more explicit versions of the ideas of Kant, Mill, or Aristotle. In contrast, it would be patently absurd for a contemporary philosopher of language or logician to think of herself as working in the shadow of any figure who died before the Twentieth Century began. Advances in these disciplines make even the most unaccomplished of its practitioners vastly more sophisticated than Kant. There were previous periods in which the problems of language and logic were studied extensively (e.g. the medieval period). But from the perspective of the progress made in the last 120 years, previous work is at most a source of interesting data or occasional insight. All systematic theorizing about content that meets contemporary standards of rigor has been done subsequently. The advances Philosophy of Language has made in the Twentieth Century are of course the result of the remarkable progress made in logic. Few other philosophical disciplines gained as much from the developments in logic as the Philosophy of Language. In the course of presenting the first formal system in the Begriffsscrift , Gottlob Frege developed a formal language. Subsequently, logicians provided rigorous semantics for formal languages, in order to define truth in a model, and thereby characterize logical consequence. Such rigor was required in order to enable logicians to carry out semantic proofs about formal systems in a formal system, thereby providing semantics with the same benefits as increased formalization had provided for other branches of mathematics.
    [Show full text]
  • P.1 Russell Vs. Frege on Definite Descriptions As Singular Terms1
    p.1 Russell vs. Frege on Definite Descriptions as Singular Terms1 Francis Jeffry Pelletier Bernard Linsky Simon Fraser University University of Alberta 1. Introduction In “On Denoting” and to some extent in “Review of Meinong and Others, Untersuchungen zur Gegenstandstheorie und Psychologie” published in the same issue of Mind in 1905, Russell presents not only his famous elimination (or contextual definition) of definite descriptions, but also a series of considerations against understanding definite descriptions as singular terms. At the end of “On Denoting”, Russell believes he has shown that all the theories that do treat definite descriptions as singular terms fall logically short: Meinong’s, Mally’s, his own earlier (1903) theory, and Frege’s. (He also believes that at least some of them fall short on other grounds – epistemological and metaphysical – but we will not discuss these criticisms except in passing). Our aim in the present paper is to discuss whether his criticisms actually refute Frege’s theory. We will first attempt to specify just what Frege’s theory is, and present the evidence that has moved scholars to attribute one of three different theories to Frege, in this area. We think that each of these theories has some claim to be Fregean, even though they are logically quite different from each other. This raises the issue of determining Frege’s attitude towards these three theories. We will consider whether he changed his mind and came to replace one theory by another, or whether he perhaps thought that the different theories applied to different realms, for example to natural language vs.
    [Show full text]