Talk:On Denoting

flow
Ok. I don't think this flows as well as it could. Also, I thought the prose was, sometimes, overly pretentious. I'll try and work on the written quality over the next couple of nights.

Ekiglass 21:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Gee thanks and good luck to you. I wasn't exactly paid for it, you know. I might have done better if I had some actual MOTIVE to do so. I give up. But it's not me, it's humanity that's hopeless..... Never mind.---Francesco Franco 07:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How is this of only mid-importance? The opening of the entry itself makes it clear that this entry ought to at least be considered of high importance. Right? - Atfyfe (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

''In the 1930s, Frank P. Ramsey referred to the essay as "that paradigm of philosophy."


 * Ramsey died in January 1930. Andres (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A denoting phrase need not be singular, e.g. no men, all men. Andres (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ad: ''However, it is interesting to note that at the very beginning of the article, Russell distinguishes between cases where "a phrase may be denoting and yet not denote anything (e.g. 'the present King of France')" and cases where they may denote "one definite object (such as, 'the present King of England')". If this passage is interpreted as saying that descriptions may "refer" to one definite object, then it could be that Russell actually recognized the two distinct uses of definite descriptions (attributive and referential), which Donnellan later proposed.''

I don't understand why the suggested interpretation would make you think Russell already distinguished an attributive and a referential use of definite descriptions. Donnellans idea is that one and the same expression may be used in two different ways: e.g. "the man who is drinking champagne". In the quoted passage Russell tells us that two (slightly) different expressions exemplify two radically different cases: one is denoting but doesn't denote, the other is denoting and denotes. (Also, a problem of said interpretation seems to be that Russell classifies "every man" - which I doubt anyone would classify as a referring expression - etc. as denoting expression.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.152.208.69 (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)