Hintikka I 165
On Denoting/Russell/Hintikka: (Russell 1905) Problem: with phrases that stand for real constituents of propositions.
Problem/Frege: failure of the substitutability of the identity (SI) in intensional contexts.
>
Substitution, >
Identity/Frege, >
Opacity, >
Intensionality, >
Intension.
Informative identity/Frege: that identity can sometimes be informative at all is related to this.
((s) Explanation: uninfromative identity. a0a - informative identity: a=b; the same object under a different description.)
EG/existential generalization/Russell: it, too, can fail in intensional contexts, (problem of empty terms).
>
Existential generalization, >
Nonexistence.
HintikkaVsRussell: he does not recognize the depth of the problem and rather avoids the problems with denotating terms.
The present King/Russell: Problem: we cannot prove by existential generalization that there is a present king of France.
HintikkaVsRussell: but there are other problems. (See below: because of the ambiguity of the cross-world identification).
>
Cross world identification.
Hintikka I 173
Denotation/Russell/Hintikka: N.B.: a brilliant feature of Russell's theory of the denotation from 1905 is that it is the quantifiers who denote!
>
Quantifiers.
Theory of Description/Russell: (end of "On Denoting") Thesis: contains the reduction of descriptions on objects of acquaintance.
>
Theory of descriptions/Russell.
I 174
Hintikka: this connection is astonishing. It also appears to be circular, only to admit objects of acquaintance.
Solution: we must see what successfully denotating phrases actually denote: they denote objects of acquaintance.
>
Acquaintance.
Ambiguity/uniqueness/Hintikka: it is precisely ambiguity that leads to the failure of the existential generalization.
E.g. Waverley/Russell/Hintikka: that only objects of acquaintance are allowed, shows its own example: "the author of Waverley" in (1) is actually a primary event, i.e. his example (2).
"Whether"/Russell/Hintikka: only difference: wanted to know "whether" instead of "did not know".
Secondary Description/Russell: can also be expressed in the way that George wanted to know from the man who actually wrote Waverley whether he was Scott.
I 175
That would be the case if George IV had seen Scott (at a distance) and asked "Is that Scott?".
HintikkaVsRussell: why does Russell choose an example with a perceptually known individual? Do we not normally deal with individuals of flesh and blood, whose identity is known to us, rather than merely with perceptual objects?
Knowledge who/knowledge what/perception object/Russell/Hintikka: precisely in the case of perception objects, it seems as if the kind of uniqueness that we need for a knowledge-who does not exist.
>
Ambiguity.
