How Definite Descriptions work | Symbolic Logic Tutorial | Attic Philosophy

[@levixdl4911]

This video is so helpful!❤ ‏ ‏‪12:08‬‏ The domain of quantifcation plays a very important rule in defining the portion of the universe that a particular NP quantifies over. My mother tongue forces the characterizing generic sentences to incorporate the definite article on the NP subject. However, many have argued that this definite article is semantically vacuous since it does pick a unique, familiar, or identifiable individual. However, I'm still sure that the definite article does still contribute something to the meaning of the sentences. This is because there are instances where the characterizing sentences use NPs without the definite article. However, these NPs must be incorporated within complex Nominal expressions such as possessive, free state construction, adjectival modified construction. This has led me to conclude that even if the definite article is semantically vacuous, it serves a pragmatic function according to which it specifies the domain of quantification for the NPs. Examples are: The dog has four legs. (Ambiguous between a generic and an existential definite interpretation) *Dog has four legs. (Not acceptable in my language). Hunting dog has four legs. (Acceptable in my language)

[@djiajude9576]

You are such a great teacher. Much thanks!

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Wow, thank you!

[@jeetghosh5107]

Wonderful explanation I watched this video many times

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks!

[@zehra1058]

Hello! Thank you for this wonderful channel. Could you please suggest us more resources to deepen our knowledge about Russell's approach to those propositions? and is there any other philosopher who enhance with this problem?

[@vafkamat]

I finally understand Russell on this subject

[@ashokmacho1932]

Sir can u provide me short notes on this lec in 250 words

[@luswataandrew4208]

Umm. I want to ask about one point rule

[@AtticPhilosophy]

OK, ask away!

[@mamo987]

awesome content :)))!!! super helpful and love the energy

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks!

[@ericd9827]

This is a wonderful channel. I've shared it with my fellow philosophy students. Great work!

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks Eric, glad it’s been helpful!

[@mickh2023]

Hi Mark, thank you a lot for your videos about logic. I have a question. Does first-order logic allow there to be functions of arity 1 or higher? Or it it something only seen in second-order logic and higher-order logic? I know that names are basically functions of arity 0. Also, in a syntax tree, can the parent of a node that is a function, be a logical connective?

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Hi! It sure does. Function symbols have a fixed arity, writing n terms after an n-ary function symbol gives a term. So, if f is 1-place and g 2-place? gfagfxfy is a term. (Brackets can help but aren’t necessary.) That’s all good in 1st order logic - the order goes up with quantifiers into predicate position. Usually, we don’t quantify over functions, as they’re not things on their own right. For more function structure, we can add lambda abstraction, which in effect allows us to reason about function application (but still not use the regular quantifiers on functions). For syntax trees, we usually stop with atomic sentences at leaves, so Ffa would be a leaf & wouldn’t get broken down further.

[@mickh2023]

​@@AtticPhilosophy Thank you Dr Jago! I would like to give an idea for a video. So, I have watched your modal logic videos, and they so easy to understand. One thing that made it easy was the diagrams, and they way modal logic can be represented on paper makes it so intuitive to learn. I was able to grasp the meaning of the modal operators. But one thing I'm still beating by head over is the quantifiers, more specifically, when one is inside the scope of another. How can I visualise, let's say... ∀x ∃y ∀z... and all the 8 combinations. What about ∀x ∃y ∀z ∃x? I'm still so lost when it comes to quantifiers. If you want, do you have any written resources that could help me understand how understand quantifiers in a way similar to how modal logic can be visualised with diagrams? The way I visualise ∀x ∃y is giving an order to every point in a domain to send out at least one arrow. ∃x ∀y is like giving an order to at least one point to send out an arrow to every point in the domain. But my mind severely glitches to try to comprehend it when there are 3 quantifiers, or 4... Anyways thanks for your work ^^

[@Nicoder6884]

@@mickh2023 This video has an analogy that might help with quantifiers: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pmbSgIRvZ99sa7c