Odwoływalność (cancellability) jest powszechnie uznawana za swoistą własność implikatur konwersacyjnych, czasami bywa jednak rozciągana także na inne implikacje pragmatyczne. W pracy zostają postawione i rozważone dwa następujące pytania: 1) czy wszystkie implikatury konwersacyjne są odwoływalne? 2) czy odwoływalne są też inne implikacje pragmatyczne, w szczególności presupozycja i eksplikatura? Przedstawiam argumenty prowadzące do twierdzącej odpowiedzi na pierwsze pytanie oraz przeczącej odpowiedzi (odwoływalność eksplicytna) na drugie.

In this paper Peter Strawson’s idea of non-reductive analysis is illustrated with the example of an analysis of knowledge along the lines of my book on the ‘sandwich theory of knowledge’: Epistemologia. Sandwiczowa teoria wiedzy (Kraków 2019). On this theory, knowledge and justification are intertwined and relativized to the context that has been determined, on the one hand by pragmatic presuppositions, including idealizations and the ceteris paribus clause, and on the other by the intended scope of applications. Knowledge so conceived need not be true, which permits granting to the outdated knowledge an epistemic status different than that of mere superstition. Still, the mechanism of revision of presuppositions in the face of novel applications can be thought of as driven by the regulative idea of truth in Kant-Popper sense.

In the paper I present the famous argument between Peter F. Strawson and Bertrand Russell on definite descriptions. I do not go into details of the two rival solutions to the problem of definite descriptions. Instead I present the controversy against the background of two traditions within analytic philosophy, i.e. the philosophy of natural language (Strawson) and the philosophy of ideal language (Russell). In consequence, the aim of this paper is to sketch the principal features of the two traditions and to indicate their influence on the argument. In the first paragraph I discuss Russell’s theory of descriptions and present it as a result of dramatic changes that he had made in his philosophy before he finally presented them in On Denoting in 1905. The second paragraph deals with the two traditions within analytic philosophy after the linguistic turn and underlines the role of Strawson in the philosophy of natural language. In the third paragraph I analyze in detail Strawson’s arguments against the theory of descriptions and I focus on some details that are usually omitted in standard presentations. The fourth paragraph discusses Russell’s response to Strawson’s objections, i.e. the counter-arguments formulated from the standpoint of philosophy of ideal language. I end with some suggestions about how to reconcile both approaches.