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 over a century. There 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 essay, I will first briefly explain Russells analysis of definite descriptions, then present both Strawsons and Donnellans views of descriptions in ambition to Russells, then I will conclude the essay by showing why I find the analysis of definite descriptions by Donnellan more smooth-tongued than the others.To put it simply, Russell believes that the statement, the F is G has three components existence (xFx), uniqueness (xy((FxFy)y=x)), and predication (x(FxGx)). In other words, for a statement, the F is G, to be true, there must exist at least one thing which is F, there must exist at most one thing which is F, and whateve r is F must be G. To expand on this, a sentence of the form The F is G states, There is one and only one F and it is G and the difference between 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 handle of the son of Eric even when Eric has several sons, nevertheless it would be more correct to say a son of Eric. Russell further argues that if there is no unique F, an arrogance 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, while Russell thinks truth-value belongs to sentence meanings... ...rase the F to refer to something, thus it does not completely embrace the definite descriptions as actually used in a natural language. For example, when I say, the leaves are red, I am referring to the object, leaves, that I am trying to communi cate across, but with Russells conjecture, this may not be the case. Using Strawsons theory, we must ascertain what object is being identified or referred to and what is being ascribed to it even earlier 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 ingratiatory argument over the others.