英语论文网

Brilliant? Dazzling? Or does it just make you dizzy? Or maybe you are just infuriated? If you feel the latter reaction, you are in good (but far from universal) company. The Oxford philosopher Sir Peter Strawson (1919 – 2005) took on Russell’s theory head first some 55 years ago and the controversy is still with us. He contended that Russell’s theory is an affront to common sense. It is plain obvious that (1) is neither true or false, and only a perverse desire to sustain the thesis that every proposition is true or false no matter what could lead you to think of it as really saying (2). Strawson’s contention – and this is the general point that may be important for your research – is you need to distinguish carefully between what a proposition actually says (or asserts) and what it presupposes. And according to Strawson, (1) does not assert that there is at least one King of France, it presupposes it. Thus Strawson’s thesis:

A proposition cannot have a truth value unless every proposition which it presupposes is true.

In this way, by distinguishing between what a proposition says and what it presupposes, Strawson attempts to both vindicate common sense and to explain, and thereby justify, our common sense intuitions.

The thesis that every proposition has a truth value has as a counterpart that every meaningful question has a Yes/No answer. And, Strawson would argue, his theory of presupposition explains why it is that we cannot give a straight Yes/No answer to the question:

(3)     Is the present King of France bald?

Consider the infamous lawyer’s question:

(4)     Have you stopped beating your wife?

Answer yes or no! This indicates how there can be more than one presupposition. Under (4) there is:

(5)     You have a wife

And:

(6)     You have been beating your wife.

If (5) is false, then (6) is neither true nor false, and (4) cannot be given a Yes/No answer, the lawyer’s demands notwithstanding. (One would hope a wise judge would call such a lawyer to order, but it is said – or so a very senior judge once told me - that some judges actually enjoy seeing witnesses squirm!)

The practical moral of these bizarre examples is clear. Faced with the need to make a judgement as to whether or not something is true, first identify the presuppositions, and then satisfy yourself that all of them are themselves true. This may seem obvious, and said like that it is. Nonetheless, there are examples in most disciplines of breakthroughs that have come when an alert scholar or researcher finds that a commonly shared and unstated presupposition that may have been accepted for years is actually false.

TASK 1: Think of (or make up) some examples of propositions that are neither true nor false, and in each case identify the presupposition(s) that is/are false, so rendering your examples truth value-less.

TASK 2: Can you think of any examples in your own area of advanced work where breakthroughs have come about because a shared but overlooked presupposition has been exposed as false? Why do you think it was overlooked for so long?

By now you may be persuaded that, Strawson yea, Russell nae. So I should point out that, among those who work most closely in this area today, it is Russell’s theory th本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。