Strawson and Russell
Question 1
a) The problem of description and egocentricity
Russell defines the problem of description as logical analysis. That is a form of syntax expression by use of logic. Russell’s theory on the description problem was first coined in 1905 in an essay called “On Denoting” (On denoting, 479-493). All philosophers, including Russell, have described the problem of description as either define or indefinite. Definite descriptions contain the phrase ‘the F’ while the indefinite expression contains the phrase ‘an F’ (On denoting, 479-493). According to Russell, the phrases are bound to change depending on the language used. For instance, he claimed that a sentence with (2) plus an indefinite description of its logical expression would be (2). Here, the expression of indefinite description is presentment as follows; (2) An F is G and (2′) ∃x (Fx & Gx). Likewise, to a sentence that has (3) The F is G plus a definite description, its logical form will be (3′) ∃x (Fx & ∀y (Fy → x=y) & Gx) (On denoting, 479-493).
To make his work simpler, Russell classified (3) into (3a), (3b), and (3c) to illustrate three significant claims in a definite description. In (3a), there must be an F, in (3b), there must be an ‘F’, and (3c) must have a G for all Fs. Therefore, his definite description of a sentence should have three parts: an existing claim, a unique claim, and an entire claim. In his critics towards Strawson, Russell claims that a definite description (S2) – “the present King of France” lacks an object; hence it is wrong (Strawson on referring, 385-389). Therefore, to correct the sentence, there must (S3) which has a claim.
Russell’s problem of egocentricity was a way of eliminating errors that he claimed Mr. Strawson made in his work on “Referring” (Strawson on referring, 385-389). Egocentricity refers to the state of being self-centered or selfish in one’s actions or speech. Strawson argument is that, the validity of S1 is unknown unless it is used to make the true or false claim. According to Russell, Strawson portrayed egocentricity in his idea of the problem of description in language. He claims that Strawson eliminated the word “present” from (S2) to make it (S6). S2 stated, “The present King of France is wise,” while (S6) stated that “The King of France in 1905 is wise” (Strawson on referring, 385-386). Therefore, based on Russell’s understanding of the problem of egocentricity, S2 and S6 portray this problem which happens when one eliminates a word to achieve a different sentence.
(b) Russell’s Problem of Description
According to Russell, we can solve the problem with description by applying the definite description in (S3). For a sentence to be well described, it should possess three claims; an existing claim, a unique claim, and a maximal claim. An existence claim in a sentence contains both the singular and the adverse existential claims. Unique claims are a unique expression. On the other hand, a maximal is an expression that provides sufficient details concerning an argument (Strawson on referring, 385-389). Let’s take for instance a sentence stating that, “John Hamilton is the tallest man in the world” and another statement saying that “the tallest man in the world lives in Chicago,” we would have two similar sentences presenting different claims. The different ideas will be presented because one sentence is specific while the other is not. “The tallest person in the world living in Chicago” can be anyone as long as no name is attributed to them. But “John Hamilton is the tallest man in the world” gives a more logical description that is unique and has a maximal claim. Russell considered using the three claims as the only way to solve the problem of description.
c/d. Part II of Strawson’s “On Referring”
Part II is what Russell has on mind based on Strawson’s article “On Referring” on Mr. Strawson’s method of treating description. Strawson’s method of treating the description problem included substituting a tense with an actual date that Russell considered wrong. He embraced truth in his argument by arguing that one cannot just use “P” to give meaning to a sentence; but when the P is presented in phrase form, it makes a lot of sense. Russel argues that, “it is a fact that P…” in his (S2) the word “present” was false hence replacing it with “in 1905” made more sense (Strawson on referring, 385-389). He therefore, terms this a selfish problem. In his response to Strawson, he got into an argument to the extent that he failed to tell the readers what his term “egocentricity problem” meant (Strawson on referring, 385). Although from his argument, one can tell that it means being self-centered by justifying a wrong fact that has no basis. Russell thinks that Strawson just eradicated “present” in (S2) and replaced it with “in 1905” to illustrate truth, yet the sentence remained false. According to Russell, Strawson failed to uphold the rule of (S1), which states that a sentence is meaningful when accompanied by a truth value. Based on Russell, Strawson has no truth value in his statement in (S2) “The present king of France is wise” because there is no King of France (Strawson on referring, 385-389). So as much as Strawson tries to change tense to replace it with a date, the statement remains false because the king is assumed.
e. Russell argument on ‘present’ and ‘in 1905’ words by Strawson
Russell’s statement is one that Strawson makes that his statements are neither true nor false. Here, Russell refers to the argument of Strawson of his (S2). The present King of France is wise” and (S6) “The King of France in 1905 is wise” (Strawson on referring, 385). It seems that Strawson substituted the two when introducing a new sentence using the definite description. Russel claimed that using the word “present” was false since at that point there was no king in France. Substituting the word with a specific date seemed more convincing and real hence giving (S6) truth. Based on Russell, Strawson’s justification is incorrect because his sentence still lacks an object that gives the sentence a claim. Again if his statements are neither true nor false, where does the law of (S1) apply?
f. Does Strawson confuse the above two problems? If so, describe where the confusion occurs? If not, say why you think not.
Yes, Strawson confuses both the problem of description and egocentricity in his discussion. Most of his argument is not making much sense because he tries to falsify Russell’s work rather than give clear guidelines for his argument. For example, Strawson claims that (S1) extensionalism is false without giving the readers the rationale (Strawson on referring, 385). He also claims Russell’s treatment of the description problem is wrong without giving clear evidence and reasons. The only reason Strawson gives is that the argument by Russell is neither false nor true. It is vague because it is an assumption that has no basis. Strawson has also argued about egocentricity through an argument with Russell.
Question 2
(a) What are their respective positions?
Russell refers to the argument between him and Mr. Strawson as a mere question of verbal convenience’ (Kaplan, 151). it is based on their stand in different positions. Strawson argues that his position on both the problem of description and egocentricity is false or true. He has no stand on his opinion. He fails to acknowledge that his argument might have been wrong hence he opts to support both the false and the true side of the argument. For example, through using the statement “the present King of France is wise,” he was aware that in France there was no king but he did not own up to his mistake and acknowledge that his statement was false. On the other hand, Russell argues that Strawson should not have violated the (SI) guidelines, stating that only a statement with actual value is significant (Strawson on referring, 385). According to Russell, his sentence lacked truth; hence it contributes to the problem of description. One could correct it by adopting some truth by using logical expressions that are real.
(b) How does Russell argue that their dispute is merely verbal?
A verbal argument involves a strong argument in favor of one’s theory. In this case, both Strawson and Russell’s argument is about protecting their views, and it is not meant to solve the problem of description. Russell tells Strawson that, ”What we have here is the familiar philosophical situation of one party being attracted by one simplified, theoretical – or ‘straightened out” – the concept of truth and falsity, and the other by another . . . ordinary usage does not deliver a clear verdict for one party or the other’ (Heyndels, 82). By this statement, it is clear that Russell understands perfectly that their fight is merely verbal and not a debate towards changing the current issue in language. Their argument is hard to understand because it is not meant for the readers but their selfish motives. Therefore, he uses the words merely verbal to show what their argument was based on.
(c) ) Is Russell accurately describing his position in “On Denoting”? Explain
Denoting implies that something stands for another inform of symbols. Russell has described his positioning through denoting. He has used the symbols S and X to stand for words and logical expressions in his argument. Russell also uses symbols to stand for prepositions during denoting. For instance, he says, if ‘N is human,” then we say “–is human” therefore, one can fill the empty slot with any other symbol to act as a preposition; Strawson disagrees with the fact that Russell denotes his position correctly. Russell says that “Furthermore, the theory can handle the significant, but no denoting instances of definite descriptions, i.e., they are false since the existential claim is unfulfilled” (Heyndels, 142). He criticizes Russell’s work by identifying his weak areas where he fails to denote and fails to fulfill his claim despite choosing the description problem’s path through three central claims mentioned earlier.
Question 3
a. Strawson’s theory
Yes. Strawson’s theory was intended to examine the state of the mind for individuals who utter statements based on descriptions. In chapter 1 and chapter 2 of his book, he talks about individual and logical theory. In logical theory, Strawson explains the nature, scope, and formal logic broadly. For example, in his explanation of the problem’s description, he explains the notion of entailment. Strawson defines it using the letter P & Q, where ‘P entails Q’ as ”P and not Q’ (Strawson on referring, 385-389). He also brings out the notion of contradiction where he states that it is achieved through saying nothing but take back frequently. Other notions include the notion of form and of proof systems which he applies syllogistic logic to describe the propositional logic. Based on individuals, Strawson applied metaphysics to describe and assess the schemes of the world. Further, in chapter 1, Strawson measures whether a group of individuals can think without depending on others’ thoughts.
b. Does Russell’s theory claim to “accuracy”?
Accuracy refers to being correct or knowledgeable. Russell’s theory claim accuracy by agreeing with what we ordinarily say about the truth of sentences possessing definite descriptions. According to semantics, definite description sentences should contain symbols used to represent noun phrases in a sentence. “The X” is primarily used in philosophy and semantics to stand for a noun phrase of a common noun. The idea of using symbols to stand for a noun phrase is the denoting phrase, as discussed earlier. For example, Russell uses X to represent prepositions in a phrase format. Since denoting phrases is a determiner for a correct definite sentence, Russell’s approach to his work is guided by accuracy. His work is also based on truth rather than assumptions. He has formulated sentence 1 (S1), which acts as his reference point regarding the actual value of the sentence (Strawson on referring, 385). It states that a sentence is only suitable if it has a truth value.
c. Strawson’s theory aim to;
Strawson’s theory does not aim to agree with what we ordinarily know about sentences containing definite descriptions. Ordinarily, statements containing definite sentences refer to a denoting phrase in letters like “the X”, in which X represents a noun phrase. A denoting phrase is a group of words used to show a plain meaning to a single word (Kaplan, 151). Strawson rarely uses denotation in his article; only Russell has used denotation extensively. Therefore, his theory does not necessarily aim at disagreeing or agreeing with the actual value of a sentence. Also, Strawson claims that neither his sentences nor Russell’s are true or false. His general argument about definite descriptions is that a single symbol cannot make sense independently, meaning it has to be used to bring out the intended meaning; in the philosophy of language, definite descriptions words act as objects in a sentence. An object in a sentence refers to the receiver of the action. For instance, if we say Byron slapped John, John being the receiver of the action can be represented semantically by the symbol ‘N’, which in this case will stand for the noun phrase. It is clear that his goal is not to achieve the effectiveness of definite descriptions. Instead, his argument is for selfish gains.
d. Whose theory comes closest to capturing what we would ordinarily say?
I believe Russell’s theory comes close to what we ordinarily say is the actual value of a sentence containing definite descriptions. His work is well elaborated, with denoted phrases used to study language in philosophy (Strawson on referring ,385-389). He has also supported his argument with three claims that make a sentence to be regarded truthful. They include; existing claims, unique claims, and maximal claims. Therefore, his work is essential in philosophy and semantics because it forms a basis for denoting phrases, an essential topic in language instruction and learning. The theory of Strawson is somehow hard to understand because it is based on falsity or truth that lacks detailed information. He also argues that a symbol like S cannot be used alone unless accompanied by other words. Only then can it make sense. His argument contradicts what is known that a symbol can make sense independently since it can stand in place of prepositions and noun phrases. Lastly, it is hard to connect between the information given about the mind and the logical forms of how one understands the language.
Works Cited
Heindel’s, Sybren. “Philosophy as an Exercise in Conceptual Self-consciousness. An Explication of PF Strawson’s Philosophical Methodology,” 2020, pp. 7-162.
Kaplan, David. “What is Russell’s Theory of Descriptions?” Bertrand Russell: Critical Assessments, 1999, pp. 151.
Russell, Bertrand. “Mr. Strawson on referring.” Mind vol. 66, no. 263, 1957, pp. 385-389.
Russell, Bertrand. “On denoting.” Mind, vol. 14, no. 56, 1905, pp. 479-493.
