1. According to the verification theory of meaning, a statement's meaning is only based on its truth value. However, this is not necessarily the case. Austin mentions that there are statements that are meant to influence people rather than report facts and therefore their meaning would not be in their truth value. Treating these statements according to the verification theory would be committing the descriptive fallacy.
2. I think that performative utterances avoid committing the fallacy because although they are not themselves true or false, they imply truth or falsity. Austin's focus on performative utterances adds the understanding that a statement that implies truth is completely different from a statement that says something true itself (224).
3. Because performative utterances imply that something is true or false, would it be completely wrong to reason about them based on the truth condition of the facts that they imply?
I think it depends on context. If there is no context for a performative utterance such as "I apologize" then I can't say anything about who the apology is to or when the statement took place, therefore it cannot be true or false. But if there were context and "I apologize" is a lie of not apologizing, then a true or false value could be assigned.
ReplyDelete