"The fact is that we do talk about types (sentences or expressions) ; and that confusion is apt to result from the failure to notice the differences between what we can say about these and what we can say only about the uses of types." (Strawson 1950, 327)This quote tells me that there are mistakes in Russel's theory and the talk about these types, aka sentences or expressions, can be differentiated such that there can be one subject with multiple meanings. As evidence, Strawson also quotes about the type "I am hot" it can be said that 'Countless people may use this same sentence ; but it is logically impossible for two different people to make the same use of this sentence : or, if this is preferred, to use it to express the same proposition.' In opposition to Russel, Strawson's view on referring improves Russel's mistake because it takes into account the problem of identical types and overlapping that we see in our everyday lives of communicating.
Though Strawson gives examples of 'such confusions apt of result from the failure to notice the differences between types', what can we say about the differences of types and overlaps such that there won't be any confusion at all?
Your question about the differences of types that would overlap is interesting to me too. I think Russell's defense would be that most of Strawson's examples are 'I, you, we' type examples, so that the meaning changes depending upon who is speaking. However, examples that don't depend on the speaker's perspective such as 'Andrea is hot' don't present the same problem.
ReplyDelete