Russell Thoughts [Alex Rowell]

Russell makes a very compelling point about the inability for logic to accommodate ideas like unicorns. The case is strong that unreal objects do not, in fact, exist, and admitting them to a logical statement does a disservice to the argument as a whole. A firm grasp on reality serves a philosopher well, and can help clarify some of the more abstract concepts we may see in this class moving forward while avoiding the problems that might occur by admitting unreal items to consideration and causing various confusing logical contradictions.

Russell's argument about the reality of Napolean and the fiction of Hamlet on page 170 of 'Descriptions' overlooks what may be nothing, or may be a major point. History is written, rewritten, hidden, embellished, and otherwise tampered with to the point that Napolean may be nearly as much a fiction as Hamlet. Say we are discussing Pocahontas -- are we discussing the actual person, the embellished person, or the fiction of the childrens' story, and does it make a difference to the truth value of our statements?

One clarification I would really benefit from is a breakdown of Russell's meaning in 'On Denoting', pages 486 though 487, starting with 'We say, to begin with, that when C occurs it is the denotation ...' through to 'This is an inextricable tangle...' . I feel that this may have gone quite over my head, but that something similar was explained in 'Descriptions' with the language of formal logic.