Strawson on Russell [Hui Yang]

"Expressions used in the uniquely referring way are never either logically proper names or descriptions, if what is meant by calling them "descriptions" is that they are to be analy[z]ed in accordance with the model provided by Russell's Theory of Descriptions" (Strawson, 1950, P323-324).

Strawson apparently doesn’t believe that in order for a sentence to be significant, it is necessary for the singular nouns in the sentence to fit in Russell’s logical analysis format, or weather the singular nouns can fit in Russell’s description doesn’t directly affect the significance of the sentences. Instead, he suggests to use his theory, which aim to distinguish 1.) a sentence/an expression, 2.) a use of a sentence/a use of an expression, and 3.) an utterance of a sentence/an utterance of an expression, which he believes truly crucial. Personally, I simply never truly believe that it is possible for a “singular noun” to “refer” to a singular object, so I am glad Strawson also thinks it is problematic, although we think the same for different reasons. To me, singular nouns never refers to one singular object, but rather provides a series of characters which have already been programed in our brain, which narrows down the coverage of possibilities until there happen to be only one singular object actually left in this rage (instead of none as in the sentence “the king of France is wise”, or multiple as in “the king is alive”).

Strawson seems to mix two usages of the word “is”, one is “common situation” (if there is a king of France, he is wise) and the other is “ongoing event” (there is a king of France, and he is wise), as in the case when Mr. Clinton claimed “ there isn’t an affair (going on)".