Comparing Frege And Russell's View On Proper Names

We can now derive that consequentialism generally follows deontology because a third major premise of Nielsen’s is that this would follow if, firstly, consequentialism often agrees with deontology, and, secondly, consequentialism must sometimes yield to deontological rules. These conditions have been met, and it is now clear how

Kim’s essential argument relies on two different metaphysical principles. Firstly, he presents the ‘Casual Individuation of Kinds’ principle that states that kinds in science are individuated on the

In Meaning and Reference , Hilary Putnam famously produced the twin-earth scenario to argue for semantic externalism (henceforth externalism), the view that the meaning of some expressions is partly determined external to the speaker’s mental states. In this essay I will first lay out Putnam’s argument for externalism. Then I will extend his scenario and show that externalism faces various problems. Lastly, I will cast doubt on Putnam’s idea that the essence of the term “water” is its molecular structure. Hence Putnam’s twin-earth scenario fails to establish externalism.

As I have countless documented proof that I am, in fact, Sarah Elshater, my utterance of the sentence simply means that I know my name, and I am declaring my knowledge. For my brother to say that sentence, he could have a sarcastic or mocking tone, which could indicate that he is joking. Or, he could be genuine with his declaration, where he actually believes he is Sarah Elshater, in which case we would take him to the hospital to have his brain checked out. When it comes to indexicals, content is key to deciphering context, and without content, it can become difficult to understand a person’s intent. In this paper, I will outline Perry’s problem of the essential indexical, as well as outline his solution for this problem. In doing this, I will also make arguments for Perry’s arguments about the essential

Over the course of the semester we discussed many different theories on epistemology. Our focus was to try to understand if we can claim true knowledge from the things we think we know, and how we come to know them. Experience seems to be the major factor that plays a role in the way we come to know things. According to contextualists, language, more so the context in which it is used, also plays a role in the way establish knowledge. In this paper we will focus on two contextual theorists, Ludwig Wittgenstein and David Lewis. We will discuss their theories and few skepticisms about their theories. A major contextualist claim is that our attributions of knowledge can vary from person to person based on the user’s context. The way we utter sentences, the many different contexts in which we use the words to form statements, may differ in truth value as well.

The Ontological Argument for the existence of God is an a priori argument that aims to demonstrate that God’s real-world existence follows necessarily from the concept of God. In Meditation V of Discourse on Methods and Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes presents his version of the Ontological Argument for the existence of God. In this essay, I will argue that this argument fails because necessary existence for a concept does not entail its real world existence.

Scholars such as Jonson and Toulmin (1988) emphasized the centrality of argumentation in rhetorical interaction. In his publication entitled the ‘philosophy of rhetoric’ I.A Richards (1936:7-11) criticized the ‘proper meaning superstition’ and adopted different stand to that of the classical period where rhetoric was confined to persuasion, for him the study of meaning represent the backbone for the study of rhetoric. For I.A. Richards words can have various meanings and consequently will result in ambiguity of meaning.

During the 17th and 18th century two philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, arose carving for themselves a trench in the philosophical world. We can see the biggest distinction between the two in their theories of how we know things exist. The traditions of Plato and Aristotle have been dubbed rationalism and empiricism respectively. Under these traditions many well known philosophers have formed their own theories of God, existence and the material world. Through these individual theories I will show how each fits into the category of either Rationalist or Imperialist. The Plutonian philosophers to be

The concept of God is central to the development of Cartesian and Spinozan philosophy. Although both philosophers employ an ontological argument for the existence and necessity of God the specific nature of God differs greatly with each account. While Descartes suggests a Judeo-Christian concept of God, Spinoza argues a more monistic deity similar to that of the Hindu tradition. The most significant difference however, lies within the basis and structure of each argument itself. Considered from an analytical standpoint through the lens of Gotlobb Frege, Descartes' proof of God possesses both sense and reference and is therefore capable of expressing the

The Language Wars have been waged in the realm of English Literature, Language and Linguistics for years. Both sides of the argument are staunch believers in their position, but are more than willing to concede points to the other sides’ favour. In Bryan A. Garner’s essay, “Making Peace in the Language Wars”, he describes himself as a ‘descriptive prescriber’ (Garner, Making Peace in the Language Wars 2008, 270), and offers a truce that fulfils both sides of the argument as the crux of his essay. While the separate sides of the argument are relatively easy to define, it seems that no one sticks to them religiously, and the argument is between individuals fighting over individual points. The two sides are that of the descriptivist and that

One consequence of viewing ontology and identity as relative is that properties and universals hardly seem much more problematic. Although universals obviously do not exist on a fundamental level, I think both David Lewis and David Armstrong provide helpful suggestions on the scope of universals in practical discourse.

The most important element of the argument is the fact that it is the ‘very same actions’ which allow logical forms to be used in contentful judgments that necessitate the transcendental role of the

I claim that on at least four counts, Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein present clearly analogous form: indirect

Question 1: Bertrand Russell’s conception of a denoting phrase changes in the transition from Principles of Mathematics (1903) to “On Denoting” (1905)  in a very distinct manner. In Principles of Mathematics, denoting phrases are phrases that have an autonomous meaning. This meaning is the denoting concept and the denotation of the denoting phrase is the “combination of terms”. In “On Denoting” a denoting phrase is no longer a phrase that denotes but rather a phrase that has syntactical form of a determiner and a common noun. The 1903 view holds that denoting in isolation is possible because denoting phrases and predicates both have autonomous meanings. In “On Denoting”, Russell rejects the idea of a denoting concept and the postulated

The second part will base on the observation in first argument and argue that implication of term is part of the process of interpretation. Along the argument, author will strive to argue that the criticisms towards Lord Hoffmann’s are unconvincing.