Comparation Between Seale's Theory Of Proper Names And Kripke's

The researches on proper names in our history had been going on. There are lots of famous logicians and philosophers who are most interest in this problem. From J. Mill to J. Searle and S. Kripke, proper names have been given different interpretations in the process of the development. Do proper names have senses and references? In order to solve this question, J. Searle posed his own description theory about proper names, which takes proper names both having senses and references. S. Kripke retained the theory of historical cause and effect, proper names having references but not senses.This paper includes four parts: Part I: the theory or description. The main idea of this part is about Frege and Russell'theory of descriptions and Searle's description theory about proper names in his early time. Part II: Kripke's description theory. In this part, this paper mainly talk about the criticism of description theory. Part III: Searle's description in his terminal time. The mainly idea of this part is that the criticism of Kripke. Part IV: Comparing J. Searle's theory of proper names with S. Kripke's. This part is to tell the difference between the two questions Searle made and the answer for the two questions for Kripke's part.Through comparing these two views, this paper found that these two views were different because of their different understandings of sense and reference. So I would rather to say that these two views are complementally than opposite.To compare Searle's and Kripke's different views on proper names, grasp their achievements and shortcomings and integrate of the two are Significance of this paper.