Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-rnpqb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T19:05:25.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reference, De Re Belief and Rigidity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

D.A. Griffiths*
Affiliation:
University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong

Extract

Both the distinction between de re and de dicto beliefs, and the distinction between referential and attributive uses of definite descriptions have seemed, to some philosophers, to be of somewhat dubious status. While admitting that there is, in each case, some sort of distinction to be drawn, they have been inclined to think that these distinctions are not relevant to the philosophical questions being asked about beliefs and descriptions. Philosophers have, for example, been concerned with the structure of beliefs, where this can be understood to mean the structure of believed propositions; and they have been concerned with the analysis of sentences containing definite descriptions. But, it is thought, these two distinctions have no bearing on propositional structure or on sentence meaning. They have, in short, no semantic significance.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Other References

Mackay, Alfred F.Mr. Donellan and Humpty Dumpty on Referring,’ The Philosophical Review 77 (1968), 197202.10.2307/2183320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Bertrand The Principles of Mathematics (London: George Allen and Unwin 1903).Google Scholar