Abstract

 The paper investigates the question if formal logic is a valid tool for analysing everyday speech in Strawson, Quine, and Russell. Strawson accuses Russel of wanting to cleanse language of reference through logical analysis. In contrast to Russell, Strawson claims it is an illusion to think that formal logic is a valid tool for analysing everyday language and reference can be eliminated from it. Quine, similarly to Russell, considers logic the ideal analytical tool from which reference can be eliminated.
 Yet both Strawson’s and Quine’s positions agree that everyday language use “has no logic.” One of them claims that this is why everyday language cannot be re-presented via logic, while the other maintains that is why everyday language has to be replaced by logic. Based on Russell, the paper argues that formal logic can indeed process referential expressions from everyday language use.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.