Descriptions and non-doxastic attitude ascriptions

Philosophical Studies 175 (6):1311-1331 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
This paper addresses a certain objection to the quantificational theory of definite descriptions. According to this objection, the quantificational account cannot provide correct interpretations of definite descriptions embedded in the non-doxastic attitude ascriptions and therefore ought to be rejected. In brief, the objection says that the quantificational theory is committed to the view that a sentence of the form “The F is G” is equivalent to the claim that there is a unique F and it is G, while the ascription such as, e.g., “S wants the F to be G” is not equivalent to the statement that S wants there to be a F and for it to be G. I argue that this objection is invalid as it rests on a false assumption concerning the substitutivity of the relative clauses in the non-doxastic attitude ascriptions.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-05-06
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
On Denoting.Russell, Bertrand
Inquiry.Barwise, Jon & Stalnaker, Robert C.
Interpreted Logical Forms.Larson, Richard K. & Ludlow, Peter

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
66 ( #25,696 of 37,268 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #25,209 of 37,268 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.