Essay --

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the discussion of definite and indefinite descriptions has been at the center of heated debates of analytic philosophy for oer a century. in that location have been many compelling arguments and interesting views by many philosophers on this topic and it is hard to yet conclude whose argument is more correct. In this es adduce, I will first briefly explain Russells analytic thinking of definite descriptions, then present both Strawsons and Donnellans views of descriptions in opposition to Russells, then I will conclude the essay by showing why I find the analysis of definite descriptions by Donnellan more persuasive than the opposites.To put it simply, Russell believes that the statement, the F is G has three components founding (xFx), uniqueness (xy((FxFy)y=x)), and predication (x(FxGx)). In other words, for a statement, the F is G, to be true, in that location must exist at least(prenominal) one thing which is F, there mus t exist at about one thing which is F, and whatever is F must be G. To disperse on this, a sentence of the form The F is G states, on that point is one and only one F and it is G and the difference among The F is G and An F is G is that the latter is just stating there is a (G) F, whereas the use of the definite article, the, emphasizes extra uniqueness. For example, it is true to speak of the son of Eric even when Eric has several sons, but it would be more correct to say a son of Eric. Russell further argues that if there is no unique F, an impudence of the F is G is false. Strawson thinks otherwise.Strawson claims that Russell confuses properties of a sentence with properties of a use of that sentence. To explain, composition Russell thinks truth-value belongs to sentence meanings... ...rase the F to refer to something, thus it does not completely embracing the definite descriptions as truly used in a inwrought language. For example, when I say, the leaves are red, I am referring to the object, leaves, that I am essay to communicate across, but with Russells theory, this may not be the case. exploitation Strawsons theory, we must ascertain what object is being identified or referred to and what is being ascribed to it even before we evaluate for truth or falsity. For instance, when I say, Smiths murderer is insane, and it turns out that Smith was not actually murdered at all, then his theory fails as the description, Smiths murderer, does not apply to anyone. Contrastingly, to me at least, Donnellans theory encompasses the weaknesses of the theories by the other two, which is why I believe it is the more persuasive argument over the others.