A Strawsonian Objection to Russell's Theory of Descriptions

Abstract

One of Strawson's objections to Russell's theory of descriptions (RTD) is that what are intuitively natural and correct (i.e., true) utterances of sentences involving incomplete (definite) descriptions come out false by RTD. Russellians have responded, not by challenging Strawson's view that these uses are natural and correct, but by embellishing to accommodate these uses. I pursue an alternative line of attack: I argue that there are (hypothetical) circumstances in which we would find utterances of such sentences unnatural and improper but RTD (embellished or not) would sanction. So, clashes with ordinary language, as Strawson suggests.