3. Theory of Descriptions

Occam’s razor

• popular solution after Frege was that all phrases have reference, that they all denote something

• every proper name has a reference that is located in Platonic realm of forms

• we have the common terms like horse we have also an unreal term like unicorn, that do not refer to anything in the real world

• Russell thought that this solution opposes Occam's razor: “Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities.”

Theory of descriptions

Two types of word phrases:

• names – simple symbols with direct reference (e. g. “John F. Kennedy”); their object must exist

• descriptions – complex symbols with indirect reference (e. g. “the 35th President of the United States”); their object might not exist

Two types of descriptions:

• indefinite – refer to sets, “a so-and-so” (e.g. “a tall person”)

• definite – refer to individuals, “the so-and-so” (e.g. “the tallest person in the world”) – he was mainly interested in this

Descriptions as complex symbols

• to understand complex symbols, we must be acquainted with all constituents of any description

• it means that we can understand what a description means even when it does not have any real reference

• we can talk about it, even though it does not exist in the real world

Peter F. Strawson (1919-2006)

• an Oxford philosopher of ordinary language, an author of paper “On Referring”, 1950

• he criticised Russel

• main problem: Are sentences including reference to non-existent objects true or not?

• e.g. “The present King of France is wise.”

• two possibilities, both corrupt:

• the sentence is false

• the sentence is not true or false

• presupposition: an implicit assumption about the world relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted (e.g. “There is a King of France.”) – he invented this term

Strawson, “On Referring”, 1950

Questions:

1. What does Strawson think of Russell’s theory of descriptions?

He thinks that his theory is still widely accepted, although he sees major mistakes in it.

1. Are sentences like “The King of France is wise?” meaningless?

No

1. What is the distinction between: a sentence, a use of a sentence, an utterance of the sentence (p. 325)?

Use of the sentence =different occasions of the use of this sentence

1. Can sentences be true or false? What about their uses?

Yes, but it depends of the usage, see question 5

1. Give an analysis of a sentence “Our president is a certified liar.” uttered by a citizen of the Czech Republic in 1996 and 2016.

Both refers to a different president, so one can be true and one false; also they use the same sentence, but have different use of the sentence