RE: Proper Names, Definite Descriptions, and Scope

["none of your business" <akosua_b@hotmail.com>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Dear All,

Andrew,

some initial thoughts,

1. restricting the scope of proper names is important for purposes of 
clarity. however i do not see how this fact is an argument in favor of 
Russell's quantificational analysis of proper names. to restrict the scope 
is not necessarily to quantify. a person could endorse your suggestion of 
scope restriction and still deny that proper names are abbreviated definite 
descriptions.

2. often people debating this issue set up (what I believe to be) a false 
dichotomy. Donnallian argued that there are descriptive and attributive uses 
of proper names. i agree. the challenge in my view is determining a 
principle, whereby we can distinguish how a proper name is/should be used in 
a given context, be it a definite description or as a referential 
expression. A principle is needed to avoid arbitrariness

3. once again, even without the symbols the logic was lost on me. (I can 
only apologize and ask you to be patient) im not 100% with you are saying 
here:

a) (Rudy Sanchez x)[Lois believes that (Clark Kent y)[x is not taller than 
y]].

b) (Father Christmas x)¬Beard(x)
¬(Father Christmas x)Beard(x)

Could you translate that into English?

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live? Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free! 
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml