[FOM] Simmons' denotation paradoxes

[Sandy Hodges]

The following is a clipping from Hartley Slater's recent post.

(22) "If I have a 'position' at all it is that such a situation does not
rule out the referring expressions [e.g. (4)] having references."

May I ask Slater if he continues to support (22) now that I have given
it a number?

One of the example sentences was:
(11)  "It is a matter of choice whether (4) refers attributively or
not."

Slater's position on (11) is:
(23) "Here is my judgment on this matter, in connection with Hodges
numbered statements: [ 11, 12, and 13 ]  These do not follow"

Sentence (11) was itself based on language Slater used in an earlier
post.   So I'm a bit surprised if he is willing to assert (22) but
thinks (11) does not follow.     Naturally, if there is a distinction
which makes (22) a correct assertion about the situation, while (11) is
not, then I will just rephrase the example once again, putting phrases
from (22) into the mouths of the characters.

I am sorry if it seems that I am harping on this matter.   But I am
trying to find the rules that must govern "Denotes," when it is a
relation in the object language.   This is rather a different question
than understanding denotation in general, but a question which I think
worth investigating.   Thus I have responded to the challenge:

"Like Simmons before him, however, he forgets about the possibility of
non-attributive (and also anaphoric) reference."

by attempting to show how when a language is free to talk about itself
(including talking about its own descriptions of paradoxical statements)
there are some issues which the epsilon calculus (by itself) does not
resolve.

In any case let me thank Professor Slater for his stimulating responses.

------- -- ---- - --- -- --------- -----
Sandy Hodges / Alameda,  California,   USA
mail to SandyHodges at attbi.com will reach me.

Here is the example again, for reference:


Peter Abelard makes the two utterances only:
(1)    "17."
(2)    "The sum of the numbers referred to attributively by
        Heloise, in her utterances about which there is no
       choice as to whether they are attributive or not."
and Heloise says only:
 (3)    "62."
 (4)   "The sum of the numbers referred to attributively by
        Peter Abelard, in his utterances about which there is
       no choice as to whether they are attributive or not."
Alberic of Rheims says only
 (5)   "The sum of the numbers referred to attributively
        by Peter Abelard, in his utterances about which there is
        no choice as to whether they are attributive or not."
Hartley Slater says:
 (6)   "There is a choice as to whether Peter Abelard's
         second utterance refers attributively or not."
Suppose Hartley may say:
 (7)    "The sum of the numbers referred to attributively by
        Peter Abelard, in his utterances about which there is
       no choice as to whether they are attributive or not."