Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 9 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demonstratives | Shoemaker | Frank I 47f This/demonstrative: the use rules do not determine by themselves what the reference in every possible use case is. - It is determined by the speaker’s intention. >Index words, >Indexicality, >Speaker intention, >Speaker meaning, >Circumstances, >Context/Context dependence, >Language rules. I/Shoemaker: is no more a demonstrative such as a name or a hidden description. - ((s) No body is identified). >I, Ego, Self, >Self-identification, >Body. Sydney Shoemaker (I968): Self-Reference and Self-Awareness, in: Journal of Philosophy 65 (1968), 555-578 |
Shoemaker I S. Shoemaker Identity, Cause, and Mind: Philosophical Essays Expanded Edition 2003 Fra I M. Frank (Hrsg.) Analytische Theorien des Selbstbewusstseins Frankfurt 1994 |
| Description Theory | Dummett | III (b) 68 Def " Theory of descriptions"/Kripke: According to Kripke the wrong theory that every name has the same meaning as a particular description. Dummett: In fact, Frege's view that it is essential that a name can have the same meaning as a particular description. >Recognition. III (c) 135 Attribution/Frege: Attribution of pure object knowledge without further identification of the meaning is incomprehensible. An object must somehow be given. There can be no "mere knowledge of reference". Description theory/Kripke/RussellVsFrege/Dummett: This theory is tendentiously attributed to Frege. ((s) Ultimately the view that names are "hidden descriptions", but this is not explicitely claimed by Frege). Frege is concerned with the fact that reference without meaning (meaning) is not possible. III (c) 151 Description Theory/Names/Dummett: The theory derives its considerable plausibility from the fact that someone who does not know a proper name can be made familiar with it by a verbal explanation. Modified version of the theory of descriptions: two characteristics: 1st: There is usually more than one legitimate introduction of a proper noun. The ways of givenness together offer more than is necessary for introduction. 2nd: Several solutions are available in advance for each conflict. This can be expressed in such a way that a weighted majority of sentences containing the name must prove to be true. >Way of givenness. |
Dummett I M. Dummett The Origins of the Analytical Philosophy, London 1988 German Edition: Ursprünge der analytischen Philosophie Frankfurt 1992 Dummett II Michael Dummett "What ist a Theory of Meaning?" (ii) In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 Dummett III M. Dummett Wahrheit Stuttgart 1982 Dummett III (a) Michael Dummett "Truth" in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 59 (1959) pp.141-162 In Wahrheit, Michael Dummett Stuttgart 1982 Dummett III (b) Michael Dummett "Frege’s Distiction between Sense and Reference", in: M. Dummett, Truth and Other Enigmas, London 1978, pp. 116-144 In Wahrheit, Stuttgart 1982 Dummett III (c) Michael Dummett "What is a Theory of Meaning?" in: S. Guttenplan (ed.) Mind and Language, Oxford 1975, pp. 97-138 In Wahrheit, Michael Dummett Stuttgart 1982 Dummett III (d) Michael Dummett "Bringing About the Past" in: Philosophical Review 73 (1964) pp.338-359 In Wahrheit, Michael Dummett Stuttgart 1982 Dummett III (e) Michael Dummett "Can Analytical Philosophy be Systematic, and Ought it to be?" in: Hegel-Studien, Beiheft 17 (1977) S. 305-326 In Wahrheit, Michael Dummett Stuttgart 1982 |
| Object | Russell | I 106 Object/combinations/Principia Mathematica(1)/PM/Russell: combinations are not an object, also not a whole as "12 apostles" as a property that belongs to every apostle. Solution: Difference intensional/extensional functions. >Intension, >Extension. 1. Whitehead, A.N. and Russel, B. (1910). Principia Mathematica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flor III 125 Things/objects/Russell: two theories: A. defined as logical constructions - e.g. series of classes of sensory data. B. known only from descriptions. Flor III 126 Object/Person/Russell: People are also physical objects! Problem: therefore they need to be understood by Russell as hidden descriptions or class names - a subject name must be an incomplete symbol - by no means a name. >Person, >Name, >Description, >Incomplete symbol. |
Russell I B. Russell/A.N. Whitehead Principia Mathematica Frankfurt 1986 Russell II B. Russell The ABC of Relativity, London 1958, 1969 German Edition: Das ABC der Relativitätstheorie Frankfurt 1989 Russell IV B. Russell The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford 1912 German Edition: Probleme der Philosophie Frankfurt 1967 Russell VI B. Russell "The Philosophy of Logical Atomism", in: B. Russell, Logic and KNowledge, ed. R. Ch. Marsh, London 1956, pp. 200-202 German Edition: Die Philosophie des logischen Atomismus In Eigennamen, U. Wolf (Hg) Frankfurt 1993 Russell VII B. Russell On the Nature of Truth and Falsehood, in: B. Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford 1912 - Dt. "Wahrheit und Falschheit" In Wahrheitstheorien, G. Skirbekk (Hg) Frankfurt 1996 Flor I Jan Riis Flor "Gilbert Ryle: Bewusstseinsphilosophie" In Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A. Hügli/P. Lübcke Reinbek 1993 Flor II Jan Riis Flor "Karl Raimund Popper: Kritischer Rationalismus" In Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A.Hügli/P.Lübcke Reinbek 1993 Flor III J.R. Flor "Bertrand Russell: Politisches Engagement und logische Analyse" In Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A. Hügli/P.Lübcke (Hg) Reinbek 1993 Flor IV Jan Riis Flor "Thomas S. Kuhn. Entwicklung durch Revolution" In Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A. Hügli/P. Lübcke Reinbek 1993 |
| Objects (Material Things) | Russell | Geach I 314 Definition Object/Definition Person/Russell: (logical atomism): an object is a set of classes of particulars, and therefore a logical fiction. "Real things (= sense data) only last a very short time". GeachVsRussell: he tried to apply two theories of classes at once: 1. the "no-classes theory" that classes are only fictions 2. the "composition theory": that classes are composed of their elements. Flor III 125 Things/objects/Russell: two theories: A. defined as logical constructions - e.g. series of classes of sensory data. B. known only from descriptions. Flor III 126 Object/Person/Russell: People are also physical objects! Problem: therefore they need to be understood by Russell as hidden descriptions or class names - a subject name must be an incomplete symbol - by no means a name. >Person, >Name, >Description, >Incomplete symbol. |
Russell I B. Russell/A.N. Whitehead Principia Mathematica Frankfurt 1986 Russell II B. Russell The ABC of Relativity, London 1958, 1969 German Edition: Das ABC der Relativitätstheorie Frankfurt 1989 Russell IV B. Russell The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford 1912 German Edition: Probleme der Philosophie Frankfurt 1967 Russell VI B. Russell "The Philosophy of Logical Atomism", in: B. Russell, Logic and KNowledge, ed. R. Ch. Marsh, London 1956, pp. 200-202 German Edition: Die Philosophie des logischen Atomismus In Eigennamen, U. Wolf (Hg) Frankfurt 1993 Russell VII B. Russell On the Nature of Truth and Falsehood, in: B. Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford 1912 - Dt. "Wahrheit und Falschheit" In Wahrheitstheorien, G. Skirbekk (Hg) Frankfurt 1996 Gea I P.T. Geach Logic Matters Oxford 1972 Flor I Jan Riis Flor "Gilbert Ryle: Bewusstseinsphilosophie" In Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A. Hügli/P. Lübcke Reinbek 1993 Flor II Jan Riis Flor "Karl Raimund Popper: Kritischer Rationalismus" In Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A.Hügli/P.Lübcke Reinbek 1993 Flor III J.R. Flor "Bertrand Russell: Politisches Engagement und logische Analyse" In Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A. Hügli/P.Lübcke (Hg) Reinbek 1993 Flor IV Jan Riis Flor "Thomas S. Kuhn. Entwicklung durch Revolution" In Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A. Hügli/P. Lübcke Reinbek 1993 |
| Proper Names | Geach | I 46f Name/Aristotle/Geach: direct reference, no parts (Aristotle: syntactically simple) (Geach ditto) - description: indirect reference, mediation of other characters. I 143 Calculus of Natural Deduction/Gentzen/Geach: here there are "possible names" (> "introduction of existence"). But not quantification over it. GeachVsQuine: so he can no longer regard names as "hidden descriptions". >Names/Quine, >Descriptions/Quine, >Theory of decriptions/Russell. I 155 Names/Geach: knowing the causal chain is not important, but its existence. - The right to use a name can exist, even if one does not know that. >Causal theory of names. Russell: a proper name must name something (Geach dito). >Names/Russell. GeachVsRussell: but then he makes a wrong conclusion: "only a name that has to name something is a name". Just as wrong: fallacy of "what one knows, must be" to "only what must be like this, can be known". >Knowledge, >Truth. I 162 Quasi-names/Geach: appear in encyclopedias, for foreign gods. - (Geach pro). Quasi-names appear only in object position after intentional verbs. - This is no "second order existence". - There is no identy criterion to decide whether different peoples worship the same God. >Identity criteria, >Objects of belief. I 208 Names/Geach: whether something is a proper name does not depend on who it is given to. Quasi quotation: is not a name. >Quasi quotation. |
Gea I P.T. Geach Logic Matters Oxford 1972 |
| Proper Names | Peacocke | I 196 Names/Peacocke: proper names single out an object, under one or another description, but not under a special description- (Then it is no hidden description). >Identification, >Individuation, >Background, >Knowledge, >Recognition, >Circumstances, >Reference, >Meaning, >Unambiguity. |
Peacocke I Chr. R. Peacocke Sense and Content Oxford 1983 Peacocke II Christopher Peacocke "Truth Definitions and Actual Languges" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 |
| Proper Names | Prior | I 119 ff Names/Hobbes: names are names of our ideas. >Th. Hobbes, >Ideas. MillVsHobbes: names convey to the others, what we think of someone (something), not only about our idea The idea of fire does not cause the heat, even though I must have terms to think. >Proper names/Mill, cf. >Connotation. I 158ff Name/existence/Prior: Vs the thesis, "Name is all what intends to identify a real object": Problem: indirect speech: E.g. The spokesperson believes Holmes exist, but the listener does not: then the speaker is in a position to identify Holmes the listener is not but then the listener cannot tell what the speaker has said (absurd). >Thought objects, >Belief objects, >Identification, >Individuation. I 168 Names/KennyVsRussell: there is a hideen description in "B exists". >Hidden descriptions. PriorVsKenny: when names must name something then no name can be used in indirect speech with a known non-existence. >Naming, >Non-existence, >Indirect speech. I 168ff Theory/PriorVsKenny: cannot set up his own theory. - Kenny Thesis: names must intend reference - then the theorist himself cannot even intend to use the name if he talks in his example sentences of non-existent persons. >A. Kenny. |
Pri I A. Prior Objects of thought Oxford 1971 Pri II Arthur N. Prior Papers on Time and Tense 2nd Edition Oxford 2003 |
| Proper Names | Russell | Russell: logical proper names: this: identity without empirical investigation, therefore the only correct name. >Acquaintance. Geach I 28ff Name/Frege/Russell: refers to the bearer. Russell VI 11 Names/Russell: proper names are abbreviated descriptions, but both do not play the role of singular terms. >Description, >Singular term. VI 12 Name/FregeVs Russell: is a singular term. VII 346 Names/Russell/Frege/Wittgenstein: Meaning: most of all we are talking about our ideas and knowledge of the carrier. Newen I 90 Names/proper names/Russell: names are nothing but abbreviations for descriptions. VI 70~ Names/Russell: not just words for particulars: E.g. Socrates is a description for us! - Names do not appear in Principia Mathematica(1), only general objects are interesting there. - Acquaintance brings full information, no more possible. VI 80 Russell: names can be abbreviated descriptions: E.g. The man who did this and that = Socrates - but vice versa. Certain descriptions are not names: otherwise tautology: Scott = Scott -> Descriptions/Quine: names are hidden descriptions. 1. Whitehead, A.N. and Russel, B. (1910). Principia Mathematica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
Russell I B. Russell/A.N. Whitehead Principia Mathematica Frankfurt 1986 Russell II B. Russell The ABC of Relativity, London 1958, 1969 German Edition: Das ABC der Relativitätstheorie Frankfurt 1989 Russell IV B. Russell The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford 1912 German Edition: Probleme der Philosophie Frankfurt 1967 Russell VI B. Russell "The Philosophy of Logical Atomism", in: B. Russell, Logic and KNowledge, ed. R. Ch. Marsh, London 1956, pp. 200-202 German Edition: Die Philosophie des logischen Atomismus In Eigennamen, U. Wolf (Hg) Frankfurt 1993 Russell VII B. Russell On the Nature of Truth and Falsehood, in: B. Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford 1912 - Dt. "Wahrheit und Falschheit" In Wahrheitstheorien, G. Skirbekk (Hg) Frankfurt 1996 Gea I P.T. Geach Logic Matters Oxford 1972 New II Albert Newen Analytische Philosophie zur Einführung Hamburg 2005 Newen I Albert Newen Markus Schrenk Einführung in die Sprachphilosophie Darmstadt 2008 |
| Proper Names | Strawson | VII 16 Names/Strawson: proper names have no meaning. Ignorance of the name is not linguistic ignorance. --- I 222 Names/adjective/Strawson: also names can be adjectival: E.g. Napoleonic, Russian, even with auxiliary verb is a Hitler. >Adjectives, >Attribute, >Description, >Comparisons, >Analogies, >Comparability. I 224 But: Napoleonic gesture is not connecting gesture with Napoleon but between gesture and similarity principle of the summary which is made possible by Napoleon. But: Ramsey: we probably say wisdom is a characteristic of Socrates, but not: wisdom sokratizes (this is wrong). >Similarity. A particular cannot be predicted. Solution: Language has a pseudo-universal: be feature of. I 226 Only pseudo-universal. otherwise regress: characterized through being characterized by... --- VI 386ff Names/general term/Strawson: cannot be derived syntactically. >General terms, >Syntax. --- VII 113 Names/Strawson: Meaning not object - (confusion of utterance and use). >Mention/Use. Reference: Expressions plus context. - Referencing does not mean to say that you refer. >Levels/Order. VII 122 StrawsonVsRussell/VsQuine: Summit of circularity: names to treat as camouflaged descriptions - names are chosen arbitrarily or conventionally - otherwise names would be descriptive. >Hidden descriptions. VII 122 Quasi names/Strawson: e.g. Glorious Revolution, Blue Grotto, Patriotic War. |
Strawson I Peter F. Strawson Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. London 1959 German Edition: Einzelding und logisches Subjekt Stuttgart 1972 Strawson II Peter F. Strawson "Truth", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol XXIV, 1950 - dt. P. F. Strawson, "Wahrheit", In Wahrheitstheorien, Gunnar Skirbekk Frankfurt/M. 1977 Strawson III Peter F. Strawson "On Understanding the Structure of One’s Language" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 Strawson IV Peter F. Strawson Analysis and Metaphysics. An Introduction to Philosophy, Oxford 1992 German Edition: Analyse und Metaphysik München 1994 Strawson V P.F. Strawson The Bounds of Sense: An Essay on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. London 1966 German Edition: Die Grenzen des Sinns Frankfurt 1981 Strawson VI Peter F Strawson Grammar and Philosophy in: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol 70, 1969/70 pp. 1-20 In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Strawson VII Peter F Strawson "On Referring", in: Mind 59 (1950) In Eigennamen, Ursula Wolf Frankfurt/M. 1993 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Russell, B. | Donnellan Vs Russell, B. | I 18/19 DonnellanVsRussell: has not grasped the referential use, but placed it in a strange construct of "logically proper names". DonnellanVsStrawson: does not see the difference ref/att correctly and mixes the two. Referential/Attributive/Donnellan: varies even when it comes to the importance of the distinction: 1) Text: only pragmatic distinction, 2) later: "semantic significance". KripkeVsDonnellan: denies semantic ambiguity of the use of descriptions. Both can be grasped with the Russell’s analysis: sentences of the form "The F which is G is H" have the same truth conditions, they are true, if the only F that fulfils G is actually H. I 193 DonnellanVsRussell: his strict implication works at most with attributive use. (But he does note make the distinction). I 194 Def Description/Russell: affects an entity which only it fulfills. Donnellan: that is certainly applicable to both uses(!). Ref/Att/Donnellan: if both are not distinguished, the danger is that it must be assumed that the speaker would have to refer to something without knowing it. E.g. "Presidential candidate": we had no idea that it would be Goldwater. Nevertheless, "presidential candidate" would absurdly refer to Goldwater. Solution: DonnellanVsRussell: attributive use. I 205 Logical Proper Names/"This"/Russell: refer to something without attributing properties! (Donnellan pro) Donnellan: It could eb said that they refer to the thing itself, not to the thing under the condition that it has any special properties. DonnellanVsRussell: he believed that this is something that a description cannot do. But it does work with referential use. I 275 Theory of Descriptions/Reference/Existence/Russell/Donnellan: Attributed to himself as a merit to explain the reference to non-existent things without the need to bring the idea of non-existent references of singular terms into play. His fully developed theory of singular terms extended this to the of proper names. Philosophy of logical atomism: names as covert descriptions. I 275/276 Here, the theory "proper names in the strict logical sense" was introduced, which is rarely found in everyday speech. ((s) logical proper names: "this", etc.) DonnellanVsRussell: we want to try to make Russell’s attempt at a solution (which has not failed) redundant with the "historic explanation". (> like ZinK). I 281 Logical Proper Names/DonellanVsRussell: have no place in a correct theory of reference. Proper Names/Historical Explanation/DonnellanVsRussell: Russell’s view is incorrect in terms of common singular terms: it is not true that common proper names always have a descriptive content. Question: does this mean that ordinary singular terms might be able to fulfill the function which according to Russell only logical proper names can have?. I 283 Descriptions/DonellanVsRussell: it seems absurd to deny that in E.g. Waverley that what is described by the description, i.e. Scott, is not "part" of the expressed proposition. Russell: was of the opinion that such statements are not really statements about the described or the reference of the name, that they do not really name the described thing! Only logical proper names could accomplish the feat of actually mentioning a certain particular. "About"/Reference/DonnellanVsRussell: Putting great emphasis on concepts such as "about" would lead us into marshy terrain. We should require no definition of "about"!. It would be a delicate task to show that such a statement is either not a statement in any sense of "about" about the described thing or that there is a clear sense of "about" by it being not. I 285/286 DonnellanVsRussell: For his theory he paid the price of giving up the natural use of singular terms. RussellVsVs: but with the "natural conception" we end up at the Meinong population explosion. Proper Names/Historical Explanation/DonnellanVsRussell: according to my theory names are no hidden descriptions. E.g. "Homer" is not an abbreviation for "The author of the Homeric poems". I 209 DonnellanVsRussell/Kripke: Question: Does he refute Russell? No, in itself not! For methodological considerations, Russell’s theory is better than many thought. Nevertheless, it will probably fail in the end. I 222 Statement/Donnellan/VsRussell/Kripke: It’s not so clear that Donnellan refutes Russell. E.g. "Her husband is kind to her": had Donnellan flatly asserted that this is true iff. the lover is nice, without regard to the niceness of the husband (is perhaps also nice), he would have started a dispute with Russell. But he does not assert this! If we now asked "Is the statement is true?", Donnellan would elude us. Because if description is used referentially, it is unclear what is meant by "statement". If the statement is to be that the husband is nice, the problem is: to decide whether ref. or att. Referential: in this case, we would repeat the speech act wrongly, Attributive: we ourselves would be referring to someone, and we can only do that if we ourselves believe that it is the husband. I 232 DonnellanVsRussell/Kripke: Are the two really conflicting? I propose a test: Test: if you consider whether a particular linguistic phenomenon in English is a counterexample to an analysis, you should consider a hypothetical language that is similar to English, except that here the analysis is assumed to be correct. If the phenomenon in question also appears in the corresponding (hypothetical) community, the fact that it occurs in English cannot refute the hypothesis that the analysis for English is correct!. DonnellanVsRussell/Kripke: Test: would the phenomenon ref/att occur in different languages?. I 234 E.g. Sparkling Wine: speakers of the weaker and middle languages think (albeit erroneously) that the truth conditions are fulfilled. Weak: here, the apparatus seems to be entirely adequate. The semantic reference is the only object. Our intuitions are fully explained. Strong: Here, the phenomenon may occur as well. Even ironic use may be clear if the affected person drinks soda. I 235 These uses would become more common in the strong language (which is not English, of course), because the definite article is prohibited. This leads to an expansion of the speaker reference: If the speaker thinks an item to be fulfilling (Ex)(φ x u ψx), it is the speaker reference, then it may indeed be fulfilling or not. Middle: if speaker reference is applicable in the strong one, it is just as easily transferred to the middle one, because the speaker reference of "ψ(ixφ(x)" is then the thing that the speaker has in mind, which is the only one to fulfill φ(x) and about which he wants to announce that it ψ-s. Conclusion: because the phenomenon occurs in all languages, the fact that it occurs in English can be no argument that English is not a Russell language. Newen/Schrenk I 95 Def Attributive/Donnellan/Newen/Schrenk: E.g. "The murderer of Schmidt is insane" in the view of the body of Schmidt ((s) In the absence of the person in question, no matter whether it is them or not, "Whoever ...".). Def referential/Donnellan/Newen/Schrenk: E.g. "The murderer of Schmidt is insane" in the face of a wild rampaging man at court - while Schmidt comes through the door - ((s) in view of the man in question, no matter whether it’s him or not. "This one, whatever he did..."). |
Donnellan I Keith S. Donnellan "Reference and Definite Descriptions", in: Philosophical Review 75 (1966), S. 281-304 In Eigennamen, Ursula Wolf Frankfurt/M. 1993 |
| substit. Quantific. | Hintikka Vs substit. Quantific. | II 171 Substitutional Quantification/SQ/HintikkaVsSQ/HintikkaVsSubstitutional Quantification/Hintikka: is a mock paradise, at maximum of formal interest, there has never been a satisfactory explanation for them. Ad (i)/Russell/Hintikka: implied the equivalence of (120) and (11) in the period 1905-14). Description/Knowledge/Russell. Knowledge by description: E.g. we do not know Bismarck. We do wish that the object itself were a constituent of our proposition, but that is not possible. But we know that there is an object called Bismarck (existence). Russell: We also know about this Bismarck that he is a skillful diplomat. ((s) attribution of properties, predication, to individuation, property that goes beyond the mere naming). Solution/Russell: then we can describe the proposition that we want to assert, namely: "B was a skillful diplomat" with B being the object that Bismarck is. (logical form). Logical Form/Hintikka: (15) (Eb)(b = Bismarck & we judge that b was a skillful diplomat) "b": this variable then has current objects (objects from the real world) as values. Russell/Hintikka: this shows that he has not chosen the solution (i). However, Russell says on another occasion, admittedly: II 172 Description/Knowledge/Russell/Hintikka: knowledge by description: Here we know propositions about the "so-and-so" without knowing who or what the so-and-so is. Ad (ii): E.g. description: instead of Bismarck: "the first chancellor of the German Reich". HintikkaVs (ii) that sweeps the problem under the carpet. Problem: The use of descriptions must ultimately lead to the descriptions being re-translated into names, and that is not possible here! Furthermore: Reduction/Description/Name/Hintikka: not all individuals of which we speak with descriptions have identities that are known to everyone. The interpretation of Russell does precisely not exclude that many different entities act as legitimate values of the variables that can, in principle, also be denoted with names. Ad (iii) Russell/Hintikka: that was Russell’s implicit solution: he redefined the domain of the individual variables so that they are limited to individuals who we know by acquaintance. Existential Generalization/EG/Russell/Hintikka: applies only to names of individuals with whom we are familiar. Hidden Description/Russell/Hintikka: existential generalization fails for individuals whose names must be regarded as hidden descriptions ((s) because we only know them by description). |
Hintikka I Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka Investigating Wittgenstein German Edition: Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996 Hintikka II Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Pro/Versus |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causal Th./Names | Pro | Chisholm II 159 Names / Husserl: do have meaning, but not attributive, so no hidden descriptions - similar to index words - Geach ditto: I do not need to think of the person, neither through description, nor even to be able to do so. |
Chisholm I R. Chisholm The First Person. Theory of Reference and Intentionality, Minneapolis 1981 German Edition: Die erste Person Frankfurt 1992 Chisholm II Roderick Chisholm In Philosophische Aufsäze zu Ehren von Roderick M. Ch, Marian David/Leopold Stubenberg Amsterdam 1986 Chisholm III Roderick M. Chisholm Theory of knowledge, Englewood Cliffs 1989 German Edition: Erkenntnistheorie Graz 2004 |
| Causal Th./Names | Pro | Donnellan II 286 DonnellanVsRussell: names are no hidden descriptions - Homer is no shortcut for "the author of the Homeric poems." |
Donnellan I Keith S. Donnellan "Reference and Definite Descriptions", in: Philosophical Review 75 (1966), S. 281-304 In Eigennamen, Ursula Wolf Frankfurt/M. 1993 |
| |||