strawon and russell

Answer each question separately. Please label your answers with the number of the question and subquestion that you’re answering.
1. In “Mr. Strawson on Referring,” Russell makes the following claim: “The gist of Mr. Strawson’s argument consists in identifying two problem which I have regarded as quite distinct – namely, the problem of descriptions and the problem of egocentricity.”
(a) What, according to Russell, are each of these two problems (the problem of descriptions and the problem of egocentricity)?

(b) Ignoring Russell’s explicit discussion of his own past solution to the problem of egocentricity, what is Russell’s solution to the problem of Descriptions?

(c) What parts of Strawson’s “On Referring” does Russell appear to have in mind as Strawson’s treatment of the problem of descriptions? What is Strawson’s treatment of the problem of descriptions? Would Russell object to Strawson’s treatment of the problem of descriptions? If so, what part of Strawson’s reasoning would Russell reject? If not, why not?

(d) What parts of Strawson’s “On Referring” does Russell appear to have in mind as Strawson’s treatment of the problem of egocentricity? What is Strawson’s treatment of the problem of egocentricity? Would Russell object to Strawson’s treatment of the problem of egocentricity? If so, what part of Strawson’s reasoning would Russell reject? If not, why not?

(e) When Russell writes that Strawson “does not seem able to grasp that, if for the word ‘present’ I had substituted the words ‘in 1905’, the whole of his argument would have collapsed”, what argument of Strawson’s is he referring to? Explain.

(f) Does Strawson confuse the above two problems? If so, describe where the confusion occurs? If not, say why you think not.

2. Russell and Strawson disagree on what to say about the question of falsity for sincere utterances of the sentence “The king of France is wise” in contexts where there is no king of France. In “Mr. Strawson on Referring,” Russell claims that their dispute is “a mere question of verbal convenience.”
(b) What are their respective positions?

(b) How does Russell argue that their dispute is merely verbal?

(c) Is Russell accurately describing his own position in “On Denoting”? Explain.

3. Russell says “My theory of descriptions was never intended as an analysis of the state of mind of those who utter sentences containing descriptions… I was concerned to find a more accurate and analyzed thought…”

(c) Do you think Strawson’s theory is intended as an analysis of the state of mind of those who utter sentences containing descriptions? Why?

(b) Does Russell’s theory’s claim to “accuracy” lie in its agreement with what we would ordinarily say about the truth value of sentences containing definite descriptions? If so, where does Russell indicate this? If not how does Russell’s theory solve puzzles?

(c) Does Strawson’s theory aim to agree with what we would ordinarily say about the truth value of sentences containing definite descriptions? If so, where does Strawson indicate this?

(d) Whose theory comes closest to capturing what we would ordinarily say about the truth vale of sentences containing definite descriptions? Why?

i have pdfs of russell’s and strawson’s “on referring” if you don’t have access to it i can email it