Unusual

References in Russells Three-Step System

Bertrand Russells On Denoting is one of the more cold-blooded attempts at

subjugating language into logic. Russell fails to identify certain sentences that, when
applied to his three steps for determining truth hood, simply break down his thesis.
Russell put forth his three-step criteria to determine the truth-value of
sentences.
Step 1: Existence claim
Step 2: Claim about predicate
Step 3: Uniqueness claim1

When considering
(C) The King of France is bald.

Step 12: There must be a present King of France (X)
Step 2: He must be bald (Y)
Step 3: There must be at least one (X) who (Y) and no more than
one (X) who (Y)

For Russell, this sentence is simple. (C) violates step oneand hence two and three.
But what happens to Russells steps when a true statement is made about a fictional
thing?
(D) 1984 is a fictional story.

Step 1: There must be a 1984 (W)
Step 2: It must be fictional (Q)

1 Uniqueness claim is only applicable on subject clauses using the definite article.
2 Here (and later) I break down (C) into its subject clause (X) and its predicate (Y). I.e. (C)=(X) +(Y)

Now the confusion begins to surface. 1984 is a fictional book, but is also considered
indicative of what the world could become when it was written. Terms like Big
Brother and Orwelian are based on fictional elements, but play a part in real
conversation and have references to real objects and ideas. But for Russell,
referenceless senses are not truths. Thus, step one is violated.
Consider that step one were true, step two only serves to further the same
confusion. I.e. There is something called 1984 that is true. But we just run into the
same debate when considering the second step. Is it completely fictional? Partially
fictional? If it is neither completely one thing nor the other, can it even fit into
Russells system?
An objection might occur that suggests (D) is in fact true. There is a 1984 that
is fictional. However, to accept this one must admit that everything in 1984 is
fictional and with no real references; hence falsifying what I have already said. Also,
take fiction novels that specifically reference real things to make purpose of the
fake. 1Q84 by Haruki Murakami makes specific reference to 1984 to put an idea in
readers minds as to what the book may be about. To conclude that no references in
fiction exist is to seriously undercut the human mind. In order to follow Russell, one
must object that any fictional element may play a part outside the confines of its
pages.

Bertrand Russells three steps to determining the truth or falsehood of a

given sentence breaks down when considering any complicated statement. When
the law of bivalence is even remotely considered to be possible, Russells rigidity

requires unusual sentences with unusual references to be boxed and wrapped in a

neat present marked true or marked false.