Aspects of a theory of singular reference: prolegomena to a dialectical logic of singular terms

Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles (1982)
  Copy   BIBTEX


The difficulties encountered by attempts to treat identity as a relation between an object and itself are well-known: "...the sentence 'The morning star is...the morning star' is analytic and a truism, while...'The morning star is the evening star' is synthetic and represents a 'valuable extension of our knowledge'... But if {the morning star} and {the evening star} are the same object, and identity is taken as a relation holding between this object and itself, then it is impossible to explain how the two sentences can differ in cognitive content... ". Russell's solution to these difficulties rejects the identification of logical with grammatical form, in effect denying that such sentences assert relations between the morning star and itself. The logical representations which the Russellian proposes, contain quantifiers, predicate letters, and individual variables, but no expressions standing for particulars. The Fregean solution, while admitting logical representations whose nominal expressions stand for particulars, insists that the meaning of such expressions is different from their reference. Frege-Russell analyses thus both deny that the morning star is involved qua particular in the meaning of the sentences in question. ;Rather than replace the morning star as ontological subject of these sentences, I suggest that their difference in meaning arises from the kind of particular that the identity-relation relates--a particular which, unlike its Frege-Russell counterpart, is two-sided and multi-faceted. Such a particular requires an ambiguous singular term. In Chapter 1, I utilize such a term to provide a surfacist account of belief-context ambiguity requiring neither differences in relative scope nor distinctions between sense and reference. In Chapter 2, I go on to provide an account of negative existentials, necessity- and identity-statements which resolves philosophical problems that Russell-Frege analyses only avoid. To solve these problems, I show that it is necessary to reject two canons of philosophical logic, the Law of Identity and the Indiscernibility of Identicals



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,311

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Reference and singular referring terms.C. Daniels - 1972 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 1 (1):86 - 102.
The Paradox of Identity.William J. Greenberg - 1996 - Epistemologia 2 (2):207-226.
Language, thought, logic, and existence.Richard Brown - 2007 - CALIPSO (Conference Addresses of the Long Island Philosophical Society Online) 1 (2):
A unified theory of truth and reference.Barry Smith & Berit Brogaard - 2000 - Logique Et Analyse 43 (169-170):49–93.
Close enough to reference.David B. Martens - 1993 - Synthese 95 (3):357 - 377.
Thought and reference.Kent Bach - 1987 - New York: Clarendon Press.


Added to PP

7 (#1,186,280)

6 months
2 (#637,499)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

William Greenberg
University of Puerto Rico

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references