Russell''s distinction between referring and denoting
碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 哲學研究所 === 88 === Abstract The main aim of this dissentation is trying to re-interpret, defend with clarify, and extend Russell''s distinction between referring and denoting. My arguments will be base on the corcordance of two different aspects of language, na...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Others |
Language: | zh-TW |
Published: |
2000
|
Online Access: | http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/00636435838889977316 |
id |
ndltd-TW-088NTU00259007 |
---|---|
record_format |
oai_dc |
spelling |
ndltd-TW-088NTU002590072016-01-29T04:14:33Z http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/00636435838889977316 Russell''s distinction between referring and denoting 羅素對於Referring與Denoting的區分 Shi-Hau Puu 蒲世豪 碩士 國立臺灣大學 哲學研究所 88 Abstract The main aim of this dissentation is trying to re-interpret, defend with clarify, and extend Russell''s distinction between referring and denoting. My arguments will be base on the corcordance of two different aspects of language, namely the truth and communication. In introduction, I will briefly give an account of these two aspects of language, and explain some relations between them. As my opnion the possible discordance between truth and communication forms the fundamental problem for the concept of referring. Therefore, in my consideration about theory of reference, the core task must be solve this discordance. In my first chapter, I am trying to re-interpret Frege and Russell forms this viewpoint. On the one hand, my approach can be justified by doing so; on the other hand, their achievement in the field of referring will be analysed and discussed more deeply by this way. After re-interting Russell, in my chapter two, I attempt to respond criticism of Strawson, Donnellan and Kripke against Russell. If my interpretation stands, I think these scholars misunderstood the certal topic of Russell''s work since their ignorance of the concordance of truth and communication. For this I will provide some necessary darification and criticism. Beside clanfying Russell''s position negtively, I also try to introduce Evans'' theory of reference in my last chapter, to apply Russell''s concept of referring and denoting more widely. This part can also be considered as a new interpretation for Evans'' work, that is, a consequence of absorbing Frege''s concept o thought with Russell''s thinking. In the conclusion, as well as a reflection on the fundmental problem mentioned above and on difficulties and limits of Russell''s thinking, I suggest that the connection between referring and understanding is a worthy topic to develop. It seems that there is a left room for the approach of studying the concordance and discordance between truth and communication. Key words: Russell, Theory of Description, Theory of Reference Chin-mu Yang 楊金穆 2000 學位論文 ; thesis 81 zh-TW |
collection |
NDLTD |
language |
zh-TW |
format |
Others
|
sources |
NDLTD |
description |
碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 哲學研究所 === 88 === Abstract
The main aim of this dissentation is trying to re-interpret, defend with clarify, and extend Russell''s distinction between referring and denoting. My arguments will be base on the corcordance of two different aspects of language, namely the truth and communication. In introduction, I will briefly give an account of these two aspects of language, and explain some relations between them. As my opnion the possible discordance between truth and communication forms the fundamental problem for the concept of referring. Therefore, in my consideration about theory of reference, the core task must be solve this discordance. In my first chapter, I am trying to re-interpret Frege and Russell forms this viewpoint. On the one hand, my approach can be justified by doing so; on the other hand, their achievement in the field of referring will be analysed and discussed more deeply by this way.
After re-interting Russell, in my chapter two, I attempt to respond criticism of Strawson, Donnellan and Kripke against Russell. If my interpretation stands, I think these scholars misunderstood the certal topic of Russell''s work since their ignorance of the concordance of truth and communication. For this I will provide some necessary darification and criticism. Beside clanfying Russell''s position negtively, I also try to introduce Evans'' theory of reference in my last chapter, to apply Russell''s concept of referring and denoting more widely. This part can also be considered as a new interpretation for Evans'' work, that is, a consequence of absorbing Frege''s concept o thought with Russell''s thinking.
In the conclusion, as well as a reflection on the fundmental problem mentioned above and on difficulties and limits of Russell''s thinking, I suggest that the connection between referring and understanding is a worthy topic to develop. It seems that there is a left room for the approach of studying the concordance and discordance between truth and communication.
Key words: Russell, Theory of Description, Theory of Reference
|
author2 |
Chin-mu Yang |
author_facet |
Chin-mu Yang Shi-Hau Puu 蒲世豪 |
author |
Shi-Hau Puu 蒲世豪 |
spellingShingle |
Shi-Hau Puu 蒲世豪 Russell''s distinction between referring and denoting |
author_sort |
Shi-Hau Puu |
title |
Russell''s distinction between referring and denoting |
title_short |
Russell''s distinction between referring and denoting |
title_full |
Russell''s distinction between referring and denoting |
title_fullStr |
Russell''s distinction between referring and denoting |
title_full_unstemmed |
Russell''s distinction between referring and denoting |
title_sort |
russell''s distinction between referring and denoting |
publishDate |
2000 |
url |
http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/00636435838889977316 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT shihaupuu russellsdistinctionbetweenreferringanddenoting AT púshìháo russellsdistinctionbetweenreferringanddenoting AT shihaupuu luósùduìyúreferringyǔdenotingdeqūfēn AT púshìháo luósùduìyúreferringyǔdenotingdeqūfēn |
_version_ |
1718167140751638528 |