Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
Meggle I 297
According to Hungerland:
Strawson: reference rules - rules of presupposition of expressions such as e.g. "the President of the United States is ... years old".
Meggle I 297
Strawson: Lies are no correct use of language.
Meggle I 310f
Reference rules/Strawson:
1. To refer does not mean that you say you refer to something.
2. The thing must stand in a certain relation to the speaker.
3. The correct reference is not part of the utterance, in the sense in which a proper description is part of what is asserted by the utterance.
E.g. "This is black and that is white." Here is the fact that "this" is closer to me than "that" not part of the statement!, Not part of what I said about the two objects.
Meggle I 311
Reference/Strawson: not saying that one "refers to something" - R is not part of the utterance as the correct description of the statement is.
Meggle I 312
Hungry country, "this" is closer to me than "that", but not part of the statement - "S" does not require that there is only one, but that I am only referring to one.
---
Schulte III 436
Reference/Strawson:
a) clearly referring expressions: the fulfillment of the conditions is not stated but implied
b) descriptive terms: here the fulfillment of the conditions is also stated by the use.
---
IV 68
Reference/Strawson: on particular without reference to properties possible.
---
VII 124
Identification/reference/Strawson: E.g. "That man there has crossed the channel twice in swimming through it". - It has the (wrong) appearance, that one "refers twice",
a) once by stating nothing and consequently making no statement, or
b) identifying the person with oneself and finding a trivial identity. StrawsonVs: this is the same mistake as to believe that the object would be the meaning of the expression - E.g. "Scott is Scott".
>Waverley example.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.