definite description of philosophy of language.pptx

philosophy of language

1. Definite description Dhanan & Ikhwan

2. Singular terms It is about the referring devices which denote particular individual people, places, or other objects. proper names, definite description, singular personal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, Few others

3. Definite description Definite: clearly stated or decided (Oxford Dictionary) fixed, certain, or clear (Cambridge Dictionary) Description: a spoken or written representation or account of a person, object, or event. (Oxford Dictionary) something that tells you what something or someone is like (Cambridge Dictionary) a statement or account that describes; representation in words (Collins Dictionary)

4. Definite description Description that are true of exactly one object or individual. “The cat on the mat”; “the son of King of Java” a description of something that uses the word ‘the’. BUT There is such a Disguised definite description. “Smith’s murderer”

5. Definite description Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell argued that definite descriptions (like "the woman who lives there") don't directly refer to individuals. Instead, they are logically complex expressions that assert existence, uniqueness, and a property. Russell's theory offers solutions to several logical puzzles, but it has been criticized for ignoring the pragmatic aspects of language. Definite descriptions are not names but logical constructs. They assert existence, uniqueness, and a property. They offer solutions to logical puzzles.

6. 4 puzzles The problem of apparent reference to non existents The problem of negative existentials Frege’s puzzle about identity The problem of subtitutivity

7. The problem of apparent reference to non existents “James Moriarty is bald” Puzzle: How can we make sense of sentences that seem to refer to objects that don't exist? For instance, "James Moriarty is bald" appears to refer to the Professor Moriarty is Sherlock Holmes’ arch enemy, but there was no such a man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Adventure_of_the_Final_Problem_03.jpg

8. The problem of negative existentials “Pegasus never existed” Puzzle: How can we explain the truth of sentences like "Pegasus never existed "?

9. Frege's Puzzle About Identity “ Mark Twain is Samuel Langhorne Clemens” Puzzle: How can we explain the difference in meaning between two sentences that seem identical in form but have different implications? For example, " Mark Twain is Samuel Langhorne Clemens " https://cdn.britannica.com/83/136283-050-9C9D6ED8/Mark-Twain-1907.jpg

10. The problem of subtitutivity “Albert believes that Samuel Langhorne Clemens was less than 5 feet tall” Puzzle: How can we explain cases where substituting one term for another in a sentence changes the truth value? For example, "Hesperus is a planet" is true, but "The morning star is a planet" may not be known to be true.

11. Russell’s Theory of Descriptions Existence : There must exist at least one individual satisfying the description. Uniqueness : There must be at most one individual satisfying the description. Property : The individual satisfying the description must possess the property mentioned in the description.

12. “The F is G” theory “The author of Waverley was Scotch” a simple subject-predicate sentence referring to an individual (Sir Walter Scott) predicating something (Scottishness) of him Russell's theory argues that the sentence "The author of Waverley was Scotch" is true only if these three conditions (existence, uniqueness, and property) are met. https://wikimedia.org/Sir_Walter_Scott_%281771-1832%29_-_RCIN_400644_-_Royal_Collection.jpg

13. ...cont’d “The author of Waverley was Scotch” (5) as a whole abbreviates a conjunction of three quantified general statements: (5a) At least one person authored Waverley. (5b) At most one person authored Waverley. (5c) Whoever authored Waverley was Scotch.

14. Logical notation Applying these conditions to the sentence "The author of Waverley was Scotch," Let W represent the predicate “ . . . Authored Waverley” and S represent “ . . . was Scotch. (a) (∃x) Wx (b) (x)( Wx →(y) (Wy → y = x)) (c) (x)( Wx → Sx ) (a)–(c) are conjointly equivalent to (d) (∃x)( Wx & ((y) (Wy → y = x) & Sx )) Where: ∃x : "There exists an x such that..." Wx : "x authored Waverley" y = x : “y is identical to x" Sx : "x was Scotch"

15. ..cont’d Logical notation Breaking down the logical notation: Existence: ∃x( Wx ...) ensures that there exists at least one individual who authored Waverley. Uniqueness: (Wy → x = y) guarantees that there is at most one individual who authored Waverley. If there were two such individuals, this condition would be false. Property: ∧ Sx asserts that the individual who authored Waverley was Scotch.

16. Russell's Solutions to Lycan's Four Puzzles Apparent reference to non existents Puzzle: How can we make sense of sentences that seem to refer to objects that don't exist? For example, "The present king of France is bald.“ Russell's Solution: Russell argues that definite descriptions like "the present king of France" are not simple names but complex logical expressions. The sentence above is equivalent to:

17. Russell's Solutions to Lycan's Four Puzzles Apparent reference to non existents ∃x( Kx ∧ ∀y(Ky → x = y) ∧ Bx ) Where: Kx : "x is the present king of France“ ∀y: "For all y...“ Ky: "y is the present king of France“ x = y: "x is identical to y“ Bx : "x is bald“ This logical notation states that there exists exactly one individual who is the present king of France and that individual is bald. Since there is no such king, the sentence is false.

18. Russell's Solutions to Lycan's Four Puzzles Negative Existentials Puzzle: How can we explain the truth of sentences like "The present king of France does not exist"? Russell's Solution: Russell's theory can handle negative existentials directly. The sentence "The present king of France does not exist" is equivalent to: ~(∃x) ( Kx & ((y) ( Ky → y = x) & Ex)) This sentence is true because there is no individual who satisfies the conditions of being the king of France.

19. Russell's Solutions to Lycan's Four Puzzles Frege’s Puzzle Puzzle: How can we explain the difference in meaning between two sentences that seem identical in form but have different implications? For example, "The present queen of England is Elizabeth Windsor" and "Elizabeth Windsor is Elizabeth Windsor.“ Russell's Solution: Russell argues that the meaning of a sentence is not just a function of its logical form but also of the senses of the terms involved. While both sentences refer to the same individual, the definite description "the present queen of England" has a different sense than the proper name "Elizabeth Windsor." This accounts for the difference in meaning. In symbols: (∃x) ( Qx & ((y) ( Qy → y = x) & x = e)) Since "Elizabeth Windsor" is a proper name, it directly refers to an individual. Therefore, the sentence is true if and only if Elizabeth Windsor is indeed the present queen of England. https://wikimedia.org/wikipedia/-Queen_Elizabeth_II_official_portrait_for_1959jpg

20. Russell's Solutions to Lycan's Four Puzzles Substitutivity Puzzle: How can we explain cases where substituting one term for another in a sentence changes the truth value? For example, "Albert believes that the author of Nothing and Beingness is a profound thinker.“ Russell's Solution: Russell's theory avoids this problem by analyzing definite descriptions as complex expressions. The substitution may change the meaning of the sentence, even if the terms refer to the same object. This is because the sense of the sentence is influenced by the definite description used.In this particular case, the sentence "Albert believes that the author of Nothing and Beingness is a profound thinker" can be analyzed as: Albert believes ∃x( Ax ∧ ∀y(Ay → x = y) ∧ Px) If Albert believes the definite description "the author of Nothing and Beingness" refers to a specific individual, then substituting a proper name for this description might change the truth value of the sentence, depending on whether Albert believes the proper name refers to the same individual.

21. Objections to Russell’s theory Strawson's Objection to Non-Existent Objects (Objection 1) Strawson's Objection to Context- Bound (Objection 2) Strawson's Objection to Presuppositions (Objection 3) Donnellan's Distinction and Anaphora (Objection 4)

22. Strawson's Objection to Non-Existent Objects OBJECTION 1 Strawson argues that Russell's theory fails to capture the pragmatic nature of language. He points out that a sentence like "The present king of France is bald" is not simply false due to the non-existence of the king. Rather, it is meaningless or ill-formed. According to Strawson, such sentences do not express propositions that can be true or false.

23. Strawson's Objection to Context- bound OBJECTION 2 Strawson also criticizes Russell's theory for ignoring the context-dependence of definite descriptions. For example, in the sentence "Fat Tommy can't run or climb a tree," the definite description "Fat Tommy" refers to a specific individual in a particular context. Russell's theory, however, treats such descriptions as abstract logical constructs, ignoring their pragmatic use.

24. Strawson's Objection to Presuppositions OBJECTION 3 Strawson argues that Russell's theory fails to account for the presuppositions of definite descriptions. In the sentence "The table is covered with books," the use of "the table" presupposes that there is a unique table in the context. Russell's theory does not explicitly address these presuppositions.

25. Donnellan's Distinction and Anaphora Donnellan distinguishes between referential and attributive uses of definite descriptions. In a referential use , a description is used to indicate a particular individual, regardless of whether the description accurately describes that individual. For example, in the sentence "Smith's murderer is insane," the description "Smith's murderer" is used referentially to indicate a specific person, even if the speaker may not know the person's identity. In an attributive use , a description is used to attribute a property to a particular individual. For example, in the sentence "I know that's right because I heard it from the town doctor," the description "the town doctor" is used attributively to attribute the property of being a doctor to a specific individual.

26. …Cont’d Donnellan also discusses the problem of anaphora, where a definite description refers back to a previously mentioned individual. For example, in the sentences "The man who lived around the corner was eccentric. He used to snack on turtle heads," "Just one turtle came down the street. It was running as if it were being pursued by a maniac," and "A rabbit appeared in our yard after dinner. It seemed unconcerned," the pronouns "he," "it," and "it" refer back to individuals previously introduced by definite descriptions. Donnellan argues that these cases may not be adequately explained by Russell's theory.