Hi I am trying to understand Davidson's Slingshot argument. Apparently it is said that Russell's Theory of Definite Descriptions does not face the problem that Davidson highlights.
For instance, if we have two statements: "Snow is white" which can be translated as (∀x)(Sx ⊃ Wx)
"the thing which is Socrates if and only if snow is white is Socrates" (I am not sure how to translate this)
The move that Davidson carries out in equating one fact like "Snow is white" to its equivalent statement such as "the thing that is Socrates if and only if snow is white is Socrates" is not legitimate given Russell's Theory of Definite Descriptions. This was recognised by Godel.