Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Russell's argument that 'the author of Waverley' lacks me... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Russell's argument that 'the author of Waverley' lacks meaning is invalid because it equivocates on two senses of 'meaning'.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frege's distinction between Sinn and Bedeutung shows that meaning has at least two irreducible dimensions: sense and reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Russell's argument against definite descriptions having 'meaning' targets only referential meaning, silently ignoring descriptive cognitive content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An argument that eliminates meaning by attending to only one semantic dimension while ignoring another commits the fallacy of equivocation on 'meaning'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.E.E.C. Jones argued that identity statements like 'Scott is the author of Waverley' are genuinely informative, which presupposes both terms carry distinct cognitive meaning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'the author of Waverley' lacked meaning entirely, the sentence 'Scott is the author of Waverley' would be either trivially analytic or meaningless, yet it is demonstrably synthetic and informative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Russell's elimination of descriptive phrases via contextual definition preserves truth conditions but cannot account for the epistemic difference Jones identifies, confirming his target sense of 'meaning' is selectively narrow.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.'The author of Waverley' and 'Scott' cannot have the same intension (connotation).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.'The author of Waverley' and 'Scott' must have the same denotation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.From the premises that two expressions differ in intension but share a denotation, it does not follow that either expression lacks meaning entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    'The author of Waverley' and 'Scott' cannot have the same intension (connotation...'The author of Waverley' and 'Scott' must have the same denotation.An argument that eliminates meaning by attending to only one semantic dimension ...E.E.C. Jones argued that identity statements like 'Scott is the author of Waverl...
    +5 moreShow less
    Frege's distinction between Sinn and Bedeutung shows that meaning has at least t...From the premises that two expressions differ in intension but share a denotatio...If 'the author of Waverley' lacked meaning entirely, the sentence 'Scott is the ...Russell's argument against definite descriptions having 'meaning' targets only r...Russell's elimination of descriptive phrases via contextual definition preserves...

    Similar

    Russell's Principia argument that descriptions such as 'the author of ...90%'The author of Waverley' and 'Scott' cannot have the same intension (c...87%The explanation of why 'the author of Waverly' denotes Scott is unsati...85%'The author of Waverley' and 'Scott' must have the same denotation.83%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: emily-elizabeth-constance-jones
    View source passageHide passage
    Jones’s point can be summarized as follows. When Russell argues that ‘author of Waverly’ cannot mean the same as ‘Scott’ because this would imply that ‘Scott is the author of Waverley’ and ‘Scott is Scott’ express the same proposition, he uses ‘meaning’ in an intensional sense: “plainly intension (or connotation) of the author of Waverley and of Scott, cannot be the same.” But when he argues that ‘the author of Waverly’ must mean the same thing as ‘Scott’, he uses ‘meaning’ in the denotational s
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit