Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:19:20.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘ƎX’ in Russell's Analysis of Definite Descriptions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 1971

Chrystine E. Cassin
Chrystine E. Cassin
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes—Discussion
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 1971 , pp. 553 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Principia Mathematica, Cambridge University Press, 1962 ed., p. 174. Henceforth referred to as MP.Google Scholar

2 John Woods, “A propos de «(∃x) (y) [(φy ≡ y = x).ψx]»,” Dialogue, Vol. 7, no. 1, 1968, pp. 78-90.

3 Logic and Knowledge, ed. R. C. Marsh, London, Macmillan, 1956. Hence-forth referred to as LK.

4 Woods, op.cit., p. 85.

5 LK, pp. 42-44.

6 Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, London, Allen and Unwin, 1919, p. 164; LK, p. 232.

7 Punctuation added to remove the incoherence of Russell's own version, cf. Woods, op. cit., pp. 85-86.

8 Pears, D. F., Bertrand Russell and the British Tradition in Philosophy, New York, Random House, 1967, p. 64.Google Scholar

9 ‘Value’ is frequently ambiguous in Russell; it may mean a phrase, such as ‘Charles 1’, or the actual King of England who was executed. I perpetuate the ambiguity deliberately, because it is fundamental to this aspect of Russell's theory.

10 The distinction between the primary and secondary occurrence of definite descriptions can be ignored here, although certain aspects of it strengthen my argument; cf. my paper in Essays on Bertrand Russell, ed. E. Klemke, University of Illinois, 1970.

11 My Philosophical Development, London, Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1959, p. 84.Google Scholar

12 Woods, op.cit., p. 89.

13 cf. Quine, W. V., “Russell's Ontological Development,” in Bertrand Russell, Philosopher of the Century, ed. Schoeman, R., London, Allen and Unwin, 1967Google Scholar, for other aspects of this problem.