Keelefilosoofia raamat
Claim entirely; less commonly, one could embrace the Name Claim but hold
a theory of descriptions different from Russell's.
In support of the Theory of Descriptions, Russell gave a direct argument;
then he touted the theory's power in solving puzzles. He makes a similar
explanatory case for the Name Claim, in that the claim lends his theory of
proper names the same power to solve puzzles--puzzles that looked consider-
ably nastier for names than they did for descriptions. But he also gives at least
one direct argument, and a second is easily extracted from his writings.
First, recall Russell's direct defense of his theory of definite descriptions:
He maintains that a sentence containing a definite description does intui-
tively entail each of the three clauses that make up his analysis of it, and the
three clauses jointly entail the sentence. He now argues that the same is true
of sentences containing proper names.
annaabi.ee 
