Russell's Theory of Definite Descriptions
Learning about theory is always welcome if it is grounded on the objective reality that it workout in a particular situation. Learners just simply accept and learn with different theories related to the philosophy of humanities without validating if it works in a real situation. It could be objective or subjective. It is objective considering the aim of the proponent and subjective based on how it is being perceived by the learners. Now, upon checking the work of Bertrand Russell in his Theory of Definite Descriptions (RTD), simply tackle the interrelationship of language and the world. Russell try to insinuate his idea that the nature of the world can be explained by evaluating or assessing how language is actually use in reality in order to find out the world’s truth value.
The article presents the value of Russell’s Principles of Mathematics (1903) wherein he try to infer that a denoting phrase has a definite descriptions, a phrases of the form of "the-so-and-so," denote the right things, the things qualifying the descriptions. The article mentioned cited a good example of definite descriptions such as "the golden mountain," the author of Waverley,” and the “the number two.” In this sense, the proponent concluded to account for the meaningfulness of sentences in which such example occurs in a way that it serves as a modifier or a content word that qualifies the meaning of a noun for a too clear, precise and a concise description of something being modified.
Let us be reminded that Russell’s Theory of Definite Descriptions plays a vital role to analyze sentences in which definite descriptions occur in places in which proper names may occur. It is an early work in analytic philosophy which represents one form of philosophical analysis. I affirm the idea of the proponent because this qualifies to the reality that sometimes we cannot be understood, so we need a specific modifier of something we try to convey to our audience, listeners or to the receiver of the information. I accept his idea positively because I don’t like a broad explanation of something but what I need is the specific or direct explanation much better. Looking back to the idea of Gottlob Frege’s on sense and reference, Russell does not negate his idea and in fact, he is just adding more concise idea of the philosophy of humanities. Indeed, speakers apply his theory particularly in public speaking. Some of them try to extend their topic being discussed or presented through more concise definition of unfamiliar terms. Though, philosophers, linguists and psychologists need to address the issue raised by some scholars or learners of the theory because we can have a different interpretation of his idea considering subjective side but we must also consider the objective of the author.