Click here and press the right key for the next slide (or swipe left)
also ...
Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)
Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)
Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)
Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts
‘we have acquaintance with anything of which we are directly aware, without the intermediary of any process of inference or any knowledge of truths’
\citep[chapter 5]{Russell:1912ln}
Russell, 1912 chapter 5
‘We have descriptive knowledge of an object when we know that it is the object having some property or properties with which we are acquainted; that is to say, when we know that the property or properties in question belong to one object and no more, we are said to have knowledge of that one object by description, whether or not we are acquainted with the object.’
\citep[p.~220]{Russell:1910fa}
Russell, 1910 p. 220
distinction 1:
knowledge by acquaintance vs knowledge by description
distinction 2:
singular term vs quantifier
Russell’s position (?)
1 When an utterance of a singular term refers to an object, the utter must be acquainted with that object.
Therefore:
2 ‘Julius Caesar’ is not a singular term.
Alternative:
When an utterance of a word refers to an object, the utter must either be acquainted with that object or else know it by description.
Does reference require knowledge of the referent?
If your utterance of a word refers to a thing, then ...
1. you must be acquainted with that thing;
2. you must either be acquainted with it or else know it by description; or
3. you need neither acquintace nor knowledge by description.
My proposal:
1. There are multiple, internally consistent characterisations of reference.
2. If our aim were only to explain The Difference, there would be no ground for preferring one over all others.