Since I can't seem to get answers to my questions, perhaps it would help
if I asserted what I understand to be Slater's position on the questions
I have repeatedly asked, and he can disagree if he likes. I have read
his paper "Choice and Logic" but do not find it especially relevant.
Note that the numbers refer to the tokens uttered by the characters of
the example, and not the formulas those tokens instantiate.
The example:
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."
It is very kind of Hartley Slater to have explained his position so many
times; although what I've been asking is for him to say what his
position is. I think it is as follows:
(8) (1) refers to 17 attributively, and this is not a matter of
choice.
(9) It is a matter of choice whether (2) refers attributively or not.
(10) (3) refers to 62 attributively, and this is not a matter of
choice.
(11) It is a matter of choice whether (4) refers attributively or not.
(12) It is a matter of choice whether (5) refers attributively or not.
(13) It is a matter of choice whether (7) refers attributively or not.
(14) Those utterances of Peter Abelard, for which it is a matter of
choice whether they refer attributively or not, include (2).
I am less certain as to which of the following are Slater's position.
(15) Those utterances of Peter Abelard, for which it is not a matter
of choice whether they refer attributively or not, do not include (2).
(16) Those utterances of Peter Abelard, for which it is not a matter
of choice whether they refer attributively or not, are (1) only.
(17) The set of numbers referred to attributively by the set {(1)} of
utterances, is {17}; the sum of this set is 17.
(18) The sum of the numbers referred to attributively by Peter
Abelard, in his utterances about which there is no choice as to whether
they refer attributively or not, is 17.
(19) It is reasonable to assert one's position on a matter of logic by
asserting "A = n", even when A is an utterance about which it is a
matter of choice as to whether it refers attributively or not.
(20) (18) is of the form "A = 17" where A is an utterance (of the same
formula as (7)) about which it is a matter of choice as to whether it
refers attributively or not.
I do not want to use up any more of Slater's valuable time than
necessary, so I will gladly go without yet another explanation as to why
he takes the position he does, if he will only say what his position
is. In particular, with which of (8) - (20) he disagrees, if any.
------- -- ---- - --- -- --------- -----
Sandy Hodges / Alameda, California, USA
mail to SandyHodges at attbi.com will reach me.