be relevant. It is my understanding that these Oxford "philosophical analysts" (if Mr. Copi will pardon the phrase) do not believe that everything that people say-whether common men or philosophers-is correct. Their position is, according to Mr. Copi, "never explicitly formulated." Not only has it been explicitly formulated in a number of papers, had Mr. Copi taken the trouble to look, but it has been practiced extensively, and I believe that Mr. Copi's airy refutation is rather less convincing than would be a list of reasons why, say, Strawson's "On Referring" is not philosophical analysis, whereas Russell's "On Denoting" is.