Surname 1
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Final Assignment
Question 2 (a)
Bertrand Russell proposed the Russellian descriptivism. Russellian descriptivism asserts
that proper names refer to an individual by connecting it to a definite description. This asserts
that the name itself does not directly refer to the individual, only the description does (Russell
112). Based on Russel’s description, “the present king of France” in the sentence “the present
king of France is bald” can only be understood through the description (“LECTURE 8 PHIL
127C S24 Russel's 2 Puzzles”). The description makes it easier for one to understand the looks or
how the king of France appears, even though the king of France does not exist. Russellian
descriptivism asserts that definite description fully determines the meaning of a name. This is
important for understanding propositions where such descriptions are used.
On the other hand, cluster descriptivism expands on Russellian descriptivism. Cluster
descriptivism asserts a name refers to an individual by associating it with a cluster of
descriptions. It associates a name with various descriptions, and not a single, definite description
(Kripke 30). Therefore, cluster descriptivism implies that a name cannot accurately refer to an
individual through a single description. For instance, one description cannot be used to refer to
Aristotle. Instead, one can refer to him through several descriptions like the teacher of Alexander
the Great or as the founder of formal logic. If any of the descriptions used to refer to something
match that of an individual, then the name correctly refers to that individual (Kripke 31). Having
Surname 2
numerous descriptions allows for flexibility. It allows an individual who may not know all the
details of an individual to accurately refer to them.
The main difference between Russellian descriptivism and cluster descriptivism is in
their focus. The above definition of Russellian descriptivism asserts that it relies on individual
knowledge. It assumes one specific description is tied to the referent. On the other hand, cluster
descriptivism relies on community shared descriptions. Cluster descriptivism relies on multiple
descriptions which all collectively point to the same individual. Unlike Russellian descriptivism,
cluster descriptivism shifts from a single description to multiple descriptions allowing for more
flexibility in determining references.
Question 2 (b)
Based on the argument in the question above, Saul Kripke’s “Godel Schmidt” case is the
best counterargument to Russellian descriptivism. Kripke argues that when most people hear the
name “Godel,” they associate it with the description of the man who discovered the
“incompleteness theorem” (Kripke 83). However, it turns out that Schmidt discovered this
theorem, and Godel took credit for it (Kripke 84). Based on Russellian descriptivism, the name
“Godel” should be used to refer to the individual “Schmidt.” This is because “Schmidt” satisfies
the description of the man who discovered the incompleteness theorem. However, this is
problematic because many people use the name “Godel” to refer to Godel, instead of Schmidt.
Russellian descriptivism cannot adequately address this issue since it ties a name directly to the
specific description associated with it. This means that in case the description fails, then the
referent must change. This only leads to counterintuitive conclusions. Here, Russel’s theory
would wrongly suggest that “Godel” refers to Schmidt because the name Schmidt matches the
description more accurately.
Surname 3
Unlike Russellian descriptivism, cluster description can address this counterexample.
Cluster descriptivism relies on a cluster of descriptions and not a single one. In the case of
“Godel,” the descriptions of Godel as the man who discovered the incompleteness theorem might
be incorrect (Kripke 84). However, cluster descriptivism asserts that other descriptions like the
man who lectured in Princeton or the man responsible for the birth of metamathematics are
correct and might apply. Cluster descriptivism argues that as long as several descriptions apply
to Godel, the name then still refers to him, even though one description might be wrong. This
makes it clear that while Russellian descriptivism fails when one major description does not
apply or is incorrect, cluster descriptivism survives such issues by relying on several and more
flexible descriptions. This makes it suitable for handling cases like the Godel Schmidt example,
unlike the Russellian descriptivism. However, the Godel Schmidt example does not apply to
cluster descriptivism since the key description is wrong. While cluster descriptivism might rely
on other descriptions like the man who lectured in Princeton or the man responsible for the birth
of metamathematics which might be correct and still apply to Godel, Godel remains the referent
despite this error. This flexibility explains why the counterexample does not apply to cluster
descriptivism.
Question 2 (c)
Kripke’s epistemic argument against descriptivism illustrates a key issue with both
Russellian descriptivism and cluster descriptivism. Kripke’s argument asserts that if a name’s
reference is determined by a description or cluster of descriptions, then people must have prior
knowledge of these descriptions to use the name correctly (15). This becomes problematic since
people often use names without having all the facts associated with the name. Epistemic
argument therefore asserts that if a proper name is equivalent to a description, then
Surname 4
understanding the meaning of the name would mean knowing the primary descriptions
associated with the name. For instance, if Aristotle is defined by the description “the teacher of
Alexander the Great,” then to understand the name Aristotle, one must understand that this
description only applies to the referent Aristotle. However, Kripke’s argument shows this is
impractical since most people use the name Aristotle without knowing this specific description,
yet they still refer to him.
This epistemic challenge applies to both Russellian descriptivism and cluster
descriptivism. Russellian descriptivism only relies on a single main description to accurately
identify a referent. For instance, if “Socrates” is defined as the man who invented the method of
question and answer, then one must understand this description to use the name properly. This
places an unreasonable demand on the speaker’s knowledge. While cluster descriptivism is more
flexible, Kripke’s argument still applies. Even though multiple descriptions may be used to
identify the referent, like the man who lectured at Princeton or the man responsible for the birth
of metamathematics, it is still unrealistic to assume that people using the name Godel or Schmidt
know enough descriptions to uniquely identify the referent. People can use names like Godel,
and Socrates without knowing their detailed facts. Therefore, Kripke’s epistemic argument
illustrates that Russellian descriptivism and cluster descriptivism overestimate the amount of
knowledge needed to use a certain name. The epistemic argument illustrates that names refer to
individuals without needing the users to have full knowledge of associated descriptions. This
identifies the limits of descriptivist theories in showing the proper function of names in daily
language use.
Question 2 (d)
Surname 5
Cluster descriptivism uses a set of clusters to associate a name with an individual. This is
particularly important when the primary description fails and does not accurately point to a
unique individual in question. For instance, the description “The woman who led the French
army to victory after hearing divine voices” refers to Joan of Arc. Even though this description is
specific, it may fail to single out Joan if historical records are unclear. It may also fail if there are
competing claims and individuals fitting this description. Cluster descriptions are accurate when
other descriptions may support the primary description or that may apply to single out an
individual if the primary description fails. One advantage of cluster descriptivism is that no one
description needs to be perfect. What matters is if there are enough descriptions in the cluster
pointing out to the individual. Overall, the single description “The woman who led the French
army to victory after hearing divine voices,” may make it challenging for cluster descriptivism to
point to the individual since this is just one description. Cluster descriptivism relies on several
claims pointing to the same individual to correctly associate the descriptions with a name.
Surname 6
Works Cited
Kripke, Saul. "Naming and necessity." (1980).
Russell, Bertrand. "Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description."CProceedings of
the Aristotelian society. Vol. 11. Aristotelian Society, Wiley, 1910, pp. 108- 128.
