Russell's contextual elimination of descriptions in Principia cannot account for the epistemic asymmetry between knowing who Scott is and knowing that Scott wrote Waverley, a gap that requires irreducible intensional content.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
A famous novel published in 1814 by Sir Walter Scott, used here as an example to discuss how language and meaning work.
contextual elimination of descriptions(as Russell's main philosophical contribution being critiqued)
Russell's method of breaking down sentences about specific things (like 'the author of Waverley') into simpler logical statements that don't require those things to actually exist.
epistemic asymmetry(Applied to pain and perceptual experience to distinguish first-person from third-person access.)
The condition in which two subjects have structurally different forms of access to the same experiential state, such that the subject whose state it is has a mode of access unavailable to any other subject.
irreducible(Personalist anthropology; distinguishes personhood from mere biological individuality)
That which is unique and unrepeatable in each human being, by virtue of which a person is not merely an individual of a species but a personal subject.
principia(Literal translation provided by the author to distinguish the foundational starting points of theology and philosophy.)
Starting points; the principles from which a discipline reasons.