A Reconstruction of Russell's Gray's Elegy Argument
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15173/jhap.v6i2.3086Abstract
This paper presents a detailed exegesis of Russell’s “Gray’s Elegy Argument” (GEA). It holds that the GEA mounts a successful attack on Frege—a thesis that has been widely controverted in the literature. The point of departure for my interpretation is Russell’s charge that it is impossible to speak about Sinne, or “meanings” as Russell calls them. I argue that the charge concerns the construction of an “ideal language.” For Russell, an ideal language is an artificial schema designed to represent the truth-makers for sentences occurring in natural language. Its signs stand for the entities that are constituents of those truth-makers. Russell’s charge can thus be expressed more clearly and completely as follows: an ideal language designed to express Frege’s ontology requires signs for meanings (Sinne); however, the signs introduced for that purpose cannot be correlated with the entities they are supposed to represent. Thus, the requirement cannot be met.
References
Basu, Dilip K., 1983. “Russell on Denoting.” Analysis 43: 65–70.
Bergmann, Gustav, 1953. “Logical Positivism, Language and the Reconstruction of Metaphysics.” Reprinted in Bergmann (1954), pp. 30–77.
———, 1954. The Metaphysics of Logical Positivism. New York: Longmans, Green and Company.
———, 1959. Meaning and Existence. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
———, 1964. Logic and Reality. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Blackburn, Simon and Alan Code, 1978a. “The Power of Russell’s Criticism of Frege.” Analysis 38: 65–77.
———, 1978b. “Reply to Geach.” Analysis 38: 206–07.
———, 1979. “Geach Again.” Analysis 39: 160.
Brogaard, Berit, 2006. “The Gray’s Elegy Argument and the Prospects for the Theory of Denoting Concepts.” Synthese 152: 47–79.
Butler, R. J., 1954. “The Scaffolding of Russell’s Theory of Descriptions.” Philosophical Review 64: 350–66.
Cassin, Chrystine, 1971. “Russell’s Discussion of Meaning and Denoting: A Reexamination.” In Essays on Frege, edited by E. D. Klemke, pp. 256–72. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Church, Alonzo, 1943. Review of Introduction to Semantics by R. Carnap. Philosophical Review 52: 298–304.
Dau, Paolo, 1985. “The Complex Matter of Denoting.” Analysis 45: 190–98.
Demopolous, William, 1999. “The Theory of Meaning of ‘On Denoting’.” Noûs 33: 439–58.
Frege, Gottlob, 1892. “On Sense and Meaning.” In Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, 3rd ed., edited by P. Geach and M. Black, pp. 56–78. London: Basil Blackwell, 1980. First published 1892.
———, 1980. Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence, edited by G. Gabriel, H. Hermes, F. Kambartel, C. Thiel and A. Veraart, translated by H. Kaal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Geach, Peter, 1959. “Russell on Meaning and Denoting.” Analysis 19: 69–72.
———, 1978. “Russell on Denoting.” Analysis 38: 204–05.
———, 1979. “Russell and Frege Again.” Analysis 39: 159–60.
Hochberg, Herbert, 1976. “Russell’s Attack on Frege’s Theory of Meaning.” Philosophia 18: 9–34. Reprinted in Logic, Ontology and Language: Essays on Truth and Reality, pp. 60–85. Munich: Philosophia Verlag, 1984.
Hylton, Peter, 1990. Russell, Idealism and the Emergence of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jager, Ronald, 1960. “Russell’s Denoting Complex.” Analysis 20: 53–62.
Jones, E. E. C., 1910. “Mr. Russell’s Objections to Frege’s Analysis of Propositions.” Mind 19: 379–86.
Kaplan, David, 1969. “Quantifying In.” Reprinted in Reference and Modality, edited by L. Linsky, pp. 112–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Kremer, Michael, 1994. “The Argument of ‘On Denoting’.” Philosophical Review 103: 249–97.
Landini, Gregory, 1998. “ ‘On Denoting’ Against Denoting.” Russell 18: 43–80.
Levine, James, 2004. “On the ‘Gray’s Elegy’ Argument and Its Bearing on Frege’s Theory of Sense.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 49: 251–95.
———, 2005. “Aboutness and the Argument of ‘On Denoting’.” In Linsky and Imaguire (2005), pp. 29–97.
Linsky, Bernard and Guido Imaguire, eds., 2005. On Denoting 1905–2005. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.
Makin, Gideon, 2000. The Metaphysicians of Meaning: Russell and Frege on Sense and Denotation. London: Routledge.
Manser, Anthony, 1985. “Russell’s Criticism of Frege.” Philosophical Investigations 8: 269–86.
Monk, Ray and Anthony Palmer, eds., 1996. Bertrand Russell and the Origins of Analytical Philosophy. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.
Noonan, Harold, 1996. “The Gray’s Elegy Argument—and Others.” In Monk and Palmer (1996), pp. 65–102.
Pakaluk, Michael, 1993. “The Interpretation of Russell’s ‘Gray’s Elegy’ Argument.” In Russell and Analytic Philosophy, edited by A. D. Irvine and G. A. Wedeking, pp. 37–65. Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Rodríguez-Consuegra, Francisco, 1992–1993. “A New Angle on Russell’s ‘Inextricable Tangle’ Over Meaning and Denotation.” Russell 12: 197–207.
Rosenkrantz, Max, 2005. “The Ontological Motivations for the Theory of Descriptions.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86: 114–34.
———, 2007. “The King of France Restored.” Metaphysica 8: 149–63.
———, 2009. “The Tractatus Theory of Descriptions.” Theoria 75: 252–71.
———, 2016. “From the Begriffsschrift to ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’: Frege as Epistemologist and Ontologist.” Manuscrito 39: 29–90.
Russell, Bertrand, 1903. The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———, 1904. Letter to Victoria Welby, 3 February 1904. Reprinted in “Denoting Concepts in The Principles of Mathematics,” by N. Griffin, in Monk and Palmer (1996), pp. 58–60.
———, 1905. “On Denoting.” Reprinted in Russell (1994), pp. 414–27.
———, 1910–1911. “Knowledge by Acquintance and Knowledge by Description.” Reprinted in Mysticism and Logic, pp. 200–21. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1917.
———, 1918. “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism.” Reprinted in Russell (1956), pp. 117–281.
———, 1919. Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: George Allen and Unwin.
———, 1956. Logic and Knowledge, edited by R. C. Marsh. London: Unwin Hyman.
———, 1994. The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, vol. 4, Foundations of Logic 1903–05, edited by A. Urquhart and A. C. Lewis. London: Routledge.
Salmon, Nathan, 2005. “On Designating.” Mind 114: 1069–133.
———, 2009. “Points, Complexes, Complex Points, and a Yacht.” In Russell vs. Meinong: The Legacy of “On Denoting”, edited by N. Griffin and D. Jacquette, pp. 343–63. London: Routledge.
Searle, John, 1958. “Russell’s Objections to Frege’s Theory of Sense and Reference.” Analysis 18: 137–43.
Simons, Peter, 2005. “Gray’s Elegy Without Tears: Russell Simplified.” In Linsky and Imaguire (2005), pp. 121–35.
Stevens, Graham, 2011. The Theory of Descriptions: Russell and the Philosophy of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Turnau, Pawel, 1991. “Russell’s Argument Against Frege’s Sense-Reference Distinction.” Russell 11: 52–66.
Urquhart, Alasdair, 2005. “Russell on Meaning and Denotation.” In Linsky and Imaguire (2005), pp. 99–120.
Wahl, Russell, 1993. “Russell’s Theory of Meaning and Denotation and ‘On Denoting’.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 31: 71–94.
———, 2007. “On Denoting and the Principle of Acquaintance.” Russell 27: 7–23.
Bergmann, Gustav, 1953. “Logical Positivism, Language and the Reconstruction of Metaphysics.” Reprinted in Bergmann (1954), pp. 30–77.
———, 1954. The Metaphysics of Logical Positivism. New York: Longmans, Green and Company.
———, 1959. Meaning and Existence. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
———, 1964. Logic and Reality. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Blackburn, Simon and Alan Code, 1978a. “The Power of Russell’s Criticism of Frege.” Analysis 38: 65–77.
———, 1978b. “Reply to Geach.” Analysis 38: 206–07.
———, 1979. “Geach Again.” Analysis 39: 160.
Brogaard, Berit, 2006. “The Gray’s Elegy Argument and the Prospects for the Theory of Denoting Concepts.” Synthese 152: 47–79.
Butler, R. J., 1954. “The Scaffolding of Russell’s Theory of Descriptions.” Philosophical Review 64: 350–66.
Cassin, Chrystine, 1971. “Russell’s Discussion of Meaning and Denoting: A Reexamination.” In Essays on Frege, edited by E. D. Klemke, pp. 256–72. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Church, Alonzo, 1943. Review of Introduction to Semantics by R. Carnap. Philosophical Review 52: 298–304.
Dau, Paolo, 1985. “The Complex Matter of Denoting.” Analysis 45: 190–98.
Demopolous, William, 1999. “The Theory of Meaning of ‘On Denoting’.” Noûs 33: 439–58.
Frege, Gottlob, 1892. “On Sense and Meaning.” In Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, 3rd ed., edited by P. Geach and M. Black, pp. 56–78. London: Basil Blackwell, 1980. First published 1892.
———, 1980. Philosophical and Mathematical Correspondence, edited by G. Gabriel, H. Hermes, F. Kambartel, C. Thiel and A. Veraart, translated by H. Kaal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Geach, Peter, 1959. “Russell on Meaning and Denoting.” Analysis 19: 69–72.
———, 1978. “Russell on Denoting.” Analysis 38: 204–05.
———, 1979. “Russell and Frege Again.” Analysis 39: 159–60.
Hochberg, Herbert, 1976. “Russell’s Attack on Frege’s Theory of Meaning.” Philosophia 18: 9–34. Reprinted in Logic, Ontology and Language: Essays on Truth and Reality, pp. 60–85. Munich: Philosophia Verlag, 1984.
Hylton, Peter, 1990. Russell, Idealism and the Emergence of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jager, Ronald, 1960. “Russell’s Denoting Complex.” Analysis 20: 53–62.
Jones, E. E. C., 1910. “Mr. Russell’s Objections to Frege’s Analysis of Propositions.” Mind 19: 379–86.
Kaplan, David, 1969. “Quantifying In.” Reprinted in Reference and Modality, edited by L. Linsky, pp. 112–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Kremer, Michael, 1994. “The Argument of ‘On Denoting’.” Philosophical Review 103: 249–97.
Landini, Gregory, 1998. “ ‘On Denoting’ Against Denoting.” Russell 18: 43–80.
Levine, James, 2004. “On the ‘Gray’s Elegy’ Argument and Its Bearing on Frege’s Theory of Sense.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 49: 251–95.
———, 2005. “Aboutness and the Argument of ‘On Denoting’.” In Linsky and Imaguire (2005), pp. 29–97.
Linsky, Bernard and Guido Imaguire, eds., 2005. On Denoting 1905–2005. Munich: Philosophia Verlag.
Makin, Gideon, 2000. The Metaphysicians of Meaning: Russell and Frege on Sense and Denotation. London: Routledge.
Manser, Anthony, 1985. “Russell’s Criticism of Frege.” Philosophical Investigations 8: 269–86.
Monk, Ray and Anthony Palmer, eds., 1996. Bertrand Russell and the Origins of Analytical Philosophy. Bristol: Thoemmes Press.
Noonan, Harold, 1996. “The Gray’s Elegy Argument—and Others.” In Monk and Palmer (1996), pp. 65–102.
Pakaluk, Michael, 1993. “The Interpretation of Russell’s ‘Gray’s Elegy’ Argument.” In Russell and Analytic Philosophy, edited by A. D. Irvine and G. A. Wedeking, pp. 37–65. Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Rodríguez-Consuegra, Francisco, 1992–1993. “A New Angle on Russell’s ‘Inextricable Tangle’ Over Meaning and Denotation.” Russell 12: 197–207.
Rosenkrantz, Max, 2005. “The Ontological Motivations for the Theory of Descriptions.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86: 114–34.
———, 2007. “The King of France Restored.” Metaphysica 8: 149–63.
———, 2009. “The Tractatus Theory of Descriptions.” Theoria 75: 252–71.
———, 2016. “From the Begriffsschrift to ‘Über Sinn und Bedeutung’: Frege as Epistemologist and Ontologist.” Manuscrito 39: 29–90.
Russell, Bertrand, 1903. The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———, 1904. Letter to Victoria Welby, 3 February 1904. Reprinted in “Denoting Concepts in The Principles of Mathematics,” by N. Griffin, in Monk and Palmer (1996), pp. 58–60.
———, 1905. “On Denoting.” Reprinted in Russell (1994), pp. 414–27.
———, 1910–1911. “Knowledge by Acquintance and Knowledge by Description.” Reprinted in Mysticism and Logic, pp. 200–21. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1917.
———, 1918. “The Philosophy of Logical Atomism.” Reprinted in Russell (1956), pp. 117–281.
———, 1919. Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: George Allen and Unwin.
———, 1956. Logic and Knowledge, edited by R. C. Marsh. London: Unwin Hyman.
———, 1994. The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, vol. 4, Foundations of Logic 1903–05, edited by A. Urquhart and A. C. Lewis. London: Routledge.
Salmon, Nathan, 2005. “On Designating.” Mind 114: 1069–133.
———, 2009. “Points, Complexes, Complex Points, and a Yacht.” In Russell vs. Meinong: The Legacy of “On Denoting”, edited by N. Griffin and D. Jacquette, pp. 343–63. London: Routledge.
Searle, John, 1958. “Russell’s Objections to Frege’s Theory of Sense and Reference.” Analysis 18: 137–43.
Simons, Peter, 2005. “Gray’s Elegy Without Tears: Russell Simplified.” In Linsky and Imaguire (2005), pp. 121–35.
Stevens, Graham, 2011. The Theory of Descriptions: Russell and the Philosophy of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Turnau, Pawel, 1991. “Russell’s Argument Against Frege’s Sense-Reference Distinction.” Russell 11: 52–66.
Urquhart, Alasdair, 2005. “Russell on Meaning and Denotation.” In Linsky and Imaguire (2005), pp. 99–120.
Wahl, Russell, 1993. “Russell’s Theory of Meaning and Denotation and ‘On Denoting’.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 31: 71–94.
———, 2007. “On Denoting and the Principle of Acquaintance.” Russell 27: 7–23.
Downloads
Published
2017-12-28
Issue
Section
Articles
License
The Public Knowledge Project recommends the use of the Creative Commons license. The Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy requires authors to agree to a Creative Commons Attribution /Non-commercial license. Authors who publish with the Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC license.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
