Talk:Theory of descriptions

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

First, I removed the long personal essay on this Talk page about existence. The reason is obvious, I take it. Second, I recently expanded the article. However, I don't exactly specialize in philosophy of language. So, if anyone knows more about Russell's theory of descriptions and can help improve this, please do! There is an article on definite descriptions that has quite a bit of info, but I thought it important to point out that Russell's theory is also about indefinite descriptions. --Jaymay 06:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bald kings

I've commented out this:

Furthermore, the law of excluded middle need not be violated (i.e. it remains a law), because "it is not the case that the present King of France is bald" comes out true, so long as it is read as "it is not the case that there exists a unique individual that is both the present King of France and bald". Thus, Russell's theory seems to be a better analysis insofar as it solves several problems.

I'll read the paper again when I have the time, but my recollection is that Russell says that both statements are false, because the first term ("Kings of France exist") is false:

"Kings of France exist & there is one KoF & this KoF is bald"
"Kings of France exist & there is one KoF & this KoF is not bald"

The law of the excluded middle is not violated, because the analysis reveals that both statements can be simultaneously false. In fact, looking at the paper now, it's more complex than that, and I'll add what Russell says to the article. --ajn (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RTD is quite complicated. Hopefully it will get hammered out and polished up over time here. --Jaymay 16:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's doable, provided we stick more or less to Russell's own statements in On Denoting and elsewhere. --ajn (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

It's clear to me that Definite description is in fact an article about part of the Theory of Descriptions, and includes criticism of the theory which ought to be in this article. It's entirely about Russell's theory and reactions to it, not about anyone else's definition or use of the term. --ajn (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The definite descriptions entry should be merged. I'll post something over there, then wait and see if anyone responds. If no one says anything after a while, then someone should just merge it. --Jaymay 16:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The {{mergeto}} template directs discussion here from the other page, so people shouldn't be debating the matter at the other talk page, but it won't hurt to keep an eye on both. --ajn (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about how definite descriptions do get a sort of separate treatment in logic sometimes, independent of Russell's analysis. Perhaps we should just have Russell's analysis breifly discussed at definite descriptions, but have the details and the criticisms of his analysis at Theory of descriptions. Any thoughts? Hopefully people would add to the definite descriptions article article though. Otherwise, it will only have the short bit about Russell and the symbolic form. - Jaymay 20:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources

Notes for myself and anyone else who feels like joining in.

My Philosophical Development - flicking through this, it may have some info about the theory, but I can't find it immediately.
Monk vol. 1 will almost certainly have something about it.
Possibly Human Knowledge: Its Scope and Limits? MPD implies there is some stuff about Russell's theory of language in this one, but I haven't read it.
There is some typically opaque "discussion" of the theory in Wittgenstein's Tractatus (i.e. LW says some things about it without going very far into his reasons).
Oxford Companion to Philosophy has a good summary under descriptions.

--ajn (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]