[FOM] Simmons' denotation paradoxes

[Sandy Hodges]

Hartley Slater writes:
> "So the answer to which utterances refer attributively is: it's a
matter of choice."

The example was:
Peter Abelard makes the two utterances only:
   "17."
   "The sum of the numbers referred to attributively by Heloise."
and Heloise says only:
   "62."
  "The sum of the numbers referred to attributively by Master Abelard."
and Alberic of Rheims says only:
  "The sum of the numbers referred to attributively by Master Abelard."

I asked Hartley which of these five utterances referred attributively.
I was especially interested in his answer about Alberic's utterance, but
he has not specifically addressed it.   I'm also not clear whether he
thinks the first utterances of Abelard and Heloise refer attributively
or whether they also are matters of choice.    But I will guess that he
thinks that the first utterances of PA. and H. refer attributively
(without any choice), and that Alberic's utterance is a matter of
choice.
----
But we know the rules: anything H.S. can say, so can PA. and H.    So
the example becomes:

Peter Abelard makes the two utterances only:
   "17."
   "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:
   "62."
  "The sum of the numbers referred to attributively by Master Abelard,
              in his utterances about which there is no choice
                as to whether they are attributive or not."
and Alberic of Rheims says only:
  "The sum of the numbers referred to attributively by Master Abelard,
              in his utterances about which there is no choice
                as to whether they are attributive or not."

My guess is that Hartley will say that PA. and H.'s second utterances,
in this latest version of the example, are still such that it is a
matter of choice whether they are attributive or not.  So suppose
Hartley says:
  "It's a matter of choice whether Peter Abelard's second utterance
refers attributively."
Then it seems to me that it must be the case that if Hartley were to
say:
   "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."
he would be referring to {17}.    But I would like to know if he would
be referring to {17} attributively.


H.S.
> "he used non-attributive reference to call me 'Harvey'!"
S.H.
My apologies.

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