How Definite Descriptions work | Symbolic Logic Tutorial | Attic Philosophy

In this tutorial video, we look at how Definite Descriptions - phrases like ‘the lecturer’ or ‘the best show on TV right now’ - work in logic. We’ll meet a philosophical problem for understanding definite descriptions, and how Bertrand Russell solved it, using identity in first order logic.

00:00 - Intro
01:05 - Definite descriptions
02:00 - The problem
04:27 - Russell’s analysis
05:45 - Excluded middle
07:08 - The idea behind logical analysis
08:38 - Problem 1: uniqueness
09:39 - Quantifier domain restriction
12:19 - Problem 2: Presuppositions
16:32 - Wrap-up

Related videos:

If there’s a topic you’d like to see covered, leave me a comment below!

Links:

Get in touch on Social media!

#identity #logic #philosophy

[levixdl]

This video is so helpful!❤
‏ ‏‪12:08‬‏
The domain of quantifcation plays a very important rule in defining the portion of the universe that a particular NP quantifies over. My mother tongue forces the characterizing generic sentences to incorporate the definite article on the NP subject. However, many have argued that this definite article is semantically vacuous since it does pick a unique, familiar, or identifiable individual.
However, I'm still sure that the definite article does still contribute something to the meaning of the sentences. This is because there are instances where the characterizing sentences use NPs without the definite article. However, these NPs must be incorporated within complex Nominal expressions such as possessive, free state construction, adjectival modified construction. This has led me to conclude that even if the definite article is semantically vacuous, it serves a pragmatic function according to which it specifies the domain of quantification for the NPs.
Examples are:
The dog has four legs. (Ambiguous between a generic and an existential definite interpretation)

*Dog has four legs. (Not acceptable in my language).
Hunting dog has four legs. (Acceptable in my language)

[vafkamat]

I finally understand Russell on this subject

[djiajude]

You are such a great teacher. Much thanks!

[mamo]

awesome content :)))!!! super helpful and love the energy

[jeetghosh]

Wonderful explanation
I watched this video many times

[ericd]

This is a wonderful channel. I've shared it with my fellow philosophy students. Great work!

[zehra]

Hello! Thank you for this wonderful channel. Could you please suggest us more resources to deepen our knowledge about Russell's approach to those propositions? and is there any other philosopher who enhance with this problem?

[mickh]

Hi Mark, thank you a lot for your videos about logic. I have a question. Does first-order logic allow there to be functions of arity 1 or higher? Or it it something only seen in second-order logic and higher-order logic? I know that names are basically functions of arity 0. Also, in a syntax tree, can the parent of a node that is a function, be a logical connective?

[ashokmacho]

Sir can u provide me short notes on this lec in 250 words

[luswataandrew]

Umm. I want to ask about one point rule