Bertrand Russells Theory of Descriptions - Essay Example

BERTRAND RUSSELL’S THEORY OF S By Location Bertrand Russell’s Theory of s Introduction There have been numerous arguments about the relationship between language, the world and the mind prompting emergence of various philosophers to come up with philosophers to aid in providing guidelines on whether or not there exist relationships between language and the world and language and the mind and if such exists then what are the relationships. It is a truth beyond an ordinary man’s doubt that language, the world and the mind co-exist. Speakers of various languages use those languages to give a description of the world in which both the speaker and the language they speak are part. This clearly outlines the relationship between language and the world. When it comes to the links between language and the mind, speakers express their thoughts and ideas using languages. This confirms the tie between the two. Further explanations argue that what people are thinking of is a factor of what they can verbally articulate. This paper looks into the ideologies of Russell concerning whether or not language is capable of picking out objects in the world furthering the discussion to a few philosophers who thought otherwise of his perceptions. Bertrand Russell’s Theory of Descriptions Bertrand Russell in his theory of definite descriptions argue that definite descriptions aren’t just but simple referring expressions that refer directly to what their referents are but rather very complicated logical structures that only hook up to the world in an indirect way. He suggested that it was very crucial to give a satisfying analysis of the logical and linguistic properties in any philosophical debates. Russell put forth his theory of descriptions to help solve a number of problems in the philosophy of language and he categorized the problems into co-referring and non-referring expressions. Non-referring expressions are expressions that conveyed information and had meant yet they did not make reference to anything real. (Anon., 2006, p. 63) An example of such an expression is "any lecturer is good". The statement does not mean there is a particular professor with the name any lecturer having character traits of being good. The same expression applies to use of other words as a professor, some lecturer, every professor and so on. (Hintikka, 1985, p. 55)Similarly, for an expression like "the current emperor of Kentucky is grey" it does not mean there is an individual with the identity the current emperor of Kentucky having brown skin complexity. Further, Kentucky was never a monarchy to be headed by an Emperor. Russell was explaining that it is wrong to admit mysterious nonexistent identities and urges conformity to the excluded middle law that provides that propositions are true if and only if the subject is in the extension of the predicate for subject-predicate form. But for the latter example, the subject is non-existing because there is no emperor of Kentucky thus it is not in the extension of either of the predicate, hence violating the excluded middle-class law. The problem of co-referring expressions was also described as the problem of informative identities as in the case of the morning star and evening star. Both the morning and evening star represented Venus hence the same star is seen at different daytimes making it impossible for one to substitute either of the stars for another. (Anon., 2003, p. 254) In order to make his theory be fully understood, he divided the logical forms of expression into various denoting phrases including a phrase that denote a definite object for example "the present Prime Minister of United Kingdom”. Such an expression identifies the object as a unique one though its actual identity is unrevealed. The second phrase does not denote anything as in the example of “the current Emperor of Kentucky” and finally the third denoting phrase denoted objects with ambiguity for example “a dog” which does not specify which dog is referred to thus ambiguous. This third group makes what Russell refer to as indefinite descriptions. Indefinite description theory by Russell Taking a look at an example of an indefinite description "some professor is bright”; Russell analyzed such a sentence using a number of variables in a bid to explain the ambiguity and non-existence of such an identity. By use of the variables x and y we can say that analyze the sentence. (Griffin, 2008, p. 72) That x is bright thus the indefinite description of the sentence in symbols is ∃x[Px & Rx],where “x” and “y” are the variables while “P” and “R” are the predicate of the subjects interpreted as there is an object such that it’s made up of “P” and “R”. Such an analysis thus explains and solves the sentence “some professor is bright” as the sentence according to Russell is not referring. From the solution, it is now clear that there is an object that is both a professor and bright making Russell’s theory an excellent tool for analysis in solving problems. Definite description theory by Russell The definite analysis is done in a similar way just like the indefinite analysis with the exception of the object or individual identified as unique in the definite analysis. Picking on the second example of the second denoting phrase “the current Emperor of Kentucky is grey”, the sentence can be analyzed into their parts using the “x” and “y” variables. There is an “x” which for this case is an Emperor of Kentucky, for every “x” in the sentence and every “y”, “y” is “x” suppose both “x” and “y” are Emperors of Kentucky meaning that there is a maximum of one Emperor of Kentucky and anything in the name of an emperor f Kentucky is grey. (Griffin, 2008, p. 88)The analysis can then be written as ∃x [(Mx & ∀y (Fy → x=y)) & Nx] such that “x” and “y” remain the variables as “M” and “N” represent the predicates in the symbolic logic of the sentence. The symbolic description is read as something with property “M” exists and there is only one thing of such kind and the unique thing also has property “N”. Such an analysis aids in solving the problem of substituting one of the stars for another in the case of Venus. An approach of there is only one unique thing that rises in the morning and it is the morning star does away with the subject-predicate aspect of the statement that the morning star rises in the morning. Such an analysis makes the morning star and evening stars different from each other giving room for substituting one with another. (Griffin, 2008, p. 88) Russell thus concludes that prepositions with a primary occurrence in the sentence “the current Emperor of Kentucky is grey” are not true as the value of truth of such propositions is not any function of the Kentucky emperor existence. Russell’s theory of descriptions provides a convincing account that language picks out objects in the world based on the arguments he put forth in support of his philosophy. The prepositions used in various sentences bring about different meanings of the sentences, distinguishing the ambiguous sentences from the definite ones. From Russells definite analysis the problem of distinguishing the morning star from the evening one which both refers to the same planet has been made a possibility and one is now able to use one star in place of another one. (Hintikka, 1985, p. 75)The existence of a unique object called the evening star that rises in the evening enables picking out of the evening star aspect of Venus without confusing it with the morning star aspect. Both the morning and evening stars have unique properties building on their distinguishable features. With the help of the excluded middle class law, Russell is able to make non-referring sentences have an explicit reference as in the case of "some bright professor", explaining the existence of an object of a variable "x" such that "x" is bright and in such a case anything referred to as x and is bright automatically becomes the professor being talked about. From such analysis, it becomes possible to pick on the brilliant professor among a group of professors. The Critics of Russell’s Description Theories. In as much as Russell gave clear guidelines and convincing arguments that language can pick out things from world, a number of philosophers have come up to criticize sharply the theory claim its weaknesses at some point. Criticisms by Strawson Strawson raised the issue of definite descriptions that are incomplete in the information they convey that is sentences and phrases with definite descriptions without denoting an object in a unique way. He cited an example of the sentence “the table is covered with books” in which for Russell’s analysis to hold, there must only be one table but for the phrase it refers to a particular table. (Anon., 2003, p. 256)This criticism has however faced responses in the broader semantic and pragmatic approaches. Semantic approach claims the sentence is complete with meaning the way it is with more meaning added to the context of the speaker. Pragmatic approach explains that in as much as the sentence itself is not true, the process of uttering the false sentence to a listener communicated and conveyed the right information. Another critic by Strawson was that Russell did not clearly explain the meaning of the sentence “the current Emperor of Kentucky is grey” as the sentence sounds contradicted by another “no one is in the emperor of Kentucky”. Strawson argues that because there does not exist current Emperor of Kentucky, the sentence is neither true nor false because it does not refer to anything. (Anon., 2003, p. 257) The above critics of Strawson tend to show the points of weaknesses of the descriptive theory of Russell but then, all in all, the description theory remains very strong based on the two approaches that were forwarded by the other philosophers in response to the critics. In most cases, the correctness of the information passed is based on the listener or receiver rather than the sender because the sender also knows the information contents. It is thus needless to give a lot of concern to a sentence and declare it untrue just from the sender’s perspective. This backs strongly on the Russell’s descriptive theories. Still in as much as Strawson claims incompleteness of a descriptive sentence citing the example of “the table is covered by books”, himself he does not bring out the actual meaning of the sentence. The sentence required a context to make it complete and this something that Strawson failed to notice while he was making his arguments. Critics by Donnellan Donnellan argued that both Russell’s and Strawson’s arguments were invalid as they failed to take into account the context within which they were speaking. He claimed that the two philosophers were already in the wrong in attempting to analyze a sentence that was already out of its context. He cited an example of the brutal murder of a Smith to explain his argument. Suppose the discoverer of the smith’s body calls the murderer of the Smith insane, Donnellan explains that this could be comprehended as an attribute use of the definite description Smith murder. This analysis is according to Russell. (Jacquette, 2008, p. 88)This, according to Donnellan, is because the person who discovered the body may have worded the assertion "whoever killed the Smith is insane." Considering the case of another speaker who was in the courtroom and observed the person who has been arrested suspected of the crime of the murder of the Smith. The speaker observes the suspect talking to himself and may conclude that the suspected murderer of the Smith is insane. In this case, Russells analysis becomes invalid. (Mendelsohn, 2005, p. 97) If a reporter after that reports the observations made by the speaker who saw the suspect talk to himself, the reporter would argue that the speaker believed the suspected murderer is insane because he is talking to himself. This would thus mean the suspected criminal is innocent because his observations are not the true records of the real situation. Just like the case of the murder of the Smith, the sentence that the current Emperor of Kentucky is grey does not hold water as their sentence lacks a context from which it is quoted. Considering Dunellen’s critics, it is true that the meaning of a sentence can directly be influenced by the context of the sentence. Suppose the context of the sentence is changed, the meaning automatically changes in relation to the context. This gives further explanations on Strawsons critics making the critics have some impact on the findings of Russell. Conclusion The theory of descriptions by Russell supports and convinces that language picks objects from the world and differentiates them from the rest. From Russell’s arguments, confusing words can easily be distinguished from one another. Despite being faced with a number of criticisms from various philosophers who felt they were not satisfied with the arguments of Russell, his concept of using variables clearly separates different objects. His analysis tool proves effective and efficient. The criticism by Donnellan, if incorporated in the theory, a better explanation and hence theory can be established. Considering the context of any sentence made makes the sentence create a stronger meaning and become self-supportive. In most of his arguments, Russell insisted on conforming to the law of the excluded middle which only considered a sentence to be true if the subject was in the extension of the predicate. References Anon., 2003. The Cambridge Companion to Bertrand Russell. 1st ed. Dizzy: Cambridge University Press. Anon., 2006. Russells Theory of Perception. 1st ed. London: A&C Black. Carey, R., 2009. Historical Dictionary of Bertrand Russells Philosophy. 2nd ed. New York: Scarecrow Press. Eames, E. R., 2013. Bertrand Russells Theory of Knowledge. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Griffin, N., 2008. Russell Vs. Meinong: The Legacy of "On Denoting". 2nd ed. Dizzy: Routledge. Hintikka, J., 1985. Anaphora and Definite Descriptions: Two Applications of Games-theoretical Semantics. 1st ed. Mexico: Springer Science & Business Media. Irvine, A. D., 1999. Bertrand Russell: Language, knowledge and the world. 3rd ed. Culver: Psychology Press. Jacquette, D., 2008. A Companion to Philosophical Logic. 2nd ed. Mexico: John Wiley & Sons. Mendelsohn, R. L., 2005. The Philosophy of Gottlob Frege. 4th ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sainsbury, R., 2010. Russell-Arg Philosophers. 2nd ed. London: Routledge. Read More