Russell's theory of meaning and descriptions (1905-1920)

Journal of the History of Philosophy 14 (2):183-201 (1976)
  Copy   BIBTEX


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



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,813

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

Descriptions: Predicates or quantifiers?Berit Brogaard - 2007 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (1):117 – 136.
Co-extensive theories and unembedded definite descriptions.Alex Barber - 2005 - In Reinaldo Elugardo & Robert J. Stainton (eds.), Ellipsis and Nonsentential Speech. Springer. pp. 185–201.
Foundations of logic, 1903-05.Bertrand Russell - 1994 - New York: Routledge. Edited by Alasdair Urquhart & Albert C. Lewis.
Sense, reference, and Russell's theory of descriptions.Aloysius Martinich - 1983 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 21 (1):85-91.
"On Denoting" and the Principle of Acquaintance.Russell Wahl - 2007 - Russell: The Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies 27 (1):7-23.


Added to PP

45 (#361,951)

6 months
4 (#853,525)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Four Comments on Russell's Theory of Deceptions.Avrum Stroll - 1978 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 8 (1):147-155.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references