Talk:John Searle

Content

I’ve re-worked the content, focusing on the role of intentionality in Searle’s work. I’ve removed the reference to The construction of Social Reality (linked to social construction) and to Ian Hacking because they neither added any information about Searle’s work nor linked to relevant information – apologies to the author. -Banno

Can anyone find a more scholarly critique of the Chinese room argument than the one offered by Bob Murphy? It's really poor. Rclb

NPOV removal (again)

I removed a bit that said words to the effect of "One of the few arguements for realism in modern philosophy". I would argue that there are quite a few arguements for realism. I replaced it with a statement which is neutral to the overall number of arguements for realism in modenr philosophy.

(the above was not signed separately, but I presume it was Banno?)

Not I; but I did write the text that was removed. Banno 19:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of the following (from the end of the section on Illocutionary Acts) also failed for NPOV:

Although many think so, Searle has never proposed a clear definition of what illocutionary acts actually are. Furthermore, the conceptions he suggests in more or less detail vary substantially over the years, his fundamental assumptions are to a considerable extent implausible and lead to different technical problems such as self-contradictions (cf. Searle 1969, 1979, 1983; Doerge 2006). Searle's involvement in debates over speech-act theory includes an engagement with Jacques Derrida, one side of which is printed in the book Limited Inc.

The last sentence was OK, but the rest was (at best) completely vague and needed to be either recast or cut. I have replaced the lot with simply:

Searle's speech-act theory is rooted in the modern analytic tradition and has, unsurprisingly, been challenged by continental thinkers. A wide-ranging critique is in F C Doerge Illocutionary Acts[1]. See also Jacques Derrida 'Limited Inc'[2] and, in (brief) reply, Searle 'The Construction of Social Reality'[3] for a flavour of the motivation behind these debates.

Also, I have moved the next section (Strong AI) because the section after it (Intentionality) was written to follow on from the Illocutionary Acts section. And I have added an example to that section, to clarify Searle's use of the technical term 'Background', as well as lifting the brief explanation of intentionality from the section on Social Intentionality - it makes more sense to include it earlier in the article.

-Mark 06:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Much of the article still seems unduly POV to me though much of the discussion is far over my head.68.49.36.18 (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems like original research at least, if not also POV "Still, despite his announced intention (1969, 54) to present a "full dress analysis of the illocutionary act," Searle in fact does not give one." Anyone disagree? Tomcrocker (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Biological naturalism

I agree that Biological naturalism should be mentioned. I hope someone can provide a short description of what it means.

"Biological Naturalism states that consciousness is a higher level function of the brain's physical capabilities. The neurophysiological processes in the brain cause mental phenomena, which are also a feature of the brain. However, such features as consciousness are not reducible to neurophysiological systems." (source)

Given my understanding of reducible this (above) description of Biological Naturalism makes no sense to me. I think Searle has a special definition for "reducible" that needs to be stated explicitly. JWSchmidt 18:48, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Searle lists five possible senses of 'reduction' in ch.5 of Rediscovery of the Mind, but what he's claiming above is that sense data aren't reducible to brain states in the way that raindrops are reducible to water molecules. -Mark 03:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Reducible doesn't just mean that one thing is identical to another it also means that true propositions about a system at one level can be adequately re-expressed in a lower level system, i.e. psychological facts can be re-stated as biological facts. It may turn out that our biological theory lacks the expressive power or that there is some further epistemological constraint that prevents the reduction.

Construction of social reality

Removed from article:

The above is not a very good example of a social construct, as a five dollar bill has the economic guarantee of a third force (The United States Government), therefore it does not rely simply upon the agreement of two parties, but rather upon the real economic integrity of a government's ability to back up its tender. Whether the second party believes a five-dollar bill to be a five-dollar bill is immaterial to the five-dollar bill's value.

Stronger examples of social construction would be the values of antiques, collectors' items, name-brand goods, or fetishized commodities, which rely upon a covenant of agreed value between two parties.

This note appears to be an opinion, and so should have been placed in talk, rather than the main article. It also shows how inadequate the section on the social construction of reality is, since it appears to contain a basic misunderstanding. The role of a nation’s government is irrelevant to the sort of social construct Searle is discussing – they are simply another party to the convention of calling certain pieces of paper money; The phrase 'real economic integrity' is telling – what the hell could 'real economic integrity' be, without a shared intentionality? As is 'Whether the second party believes a five-dollar bill to be a five-dollar bill is immaterial to the five-dollar bill's value'. No second party will use such a bill in a transaction unless they believe it has value, and furthermore, if they do not believe it has value, then ipso facto it does not have value. That the note has any value at all is a matter of shared intentionality, not economic integrity. Any economic integrity derives from that same shared intentionality.

I’ll put a re-write on my ‘’to do’’ list, but it might take a while… Banno 22:53, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

This is not an effective criticism of Searle. The value of money, in his vocabulary, is an institutional fact. It isn't valuable because one or two people agree it has value; it's valuable because society collectively agrees it has value. The guarantee of the government is merely an element of that collective intentionality. If people stopped taking the word of the government (also another socially realized fact) it would cease to be meaningful. Twinxor t 07:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A better analogy might be UK banknotes. A Bank of England note is accepted pretty much anywhere in the UK, while banknotes from Northern Ireland or Scotland are generally only accepted in the relevant regions. Anyone who has ever received a blank stare from an English shopkeeper when confronted with an Ulster Bank five-pound-note will immediately understand what Searle is discussing here. ;-) -- Grey Knight 08:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Unified Field Theories of Consciousness

Searle has been a strong proponent of unified field theories of consciousness (See "Consciousness" - Annu Rev Neurosci. 2000;23:557-78), and I think he's exerted some influence on the neuroscience community in this regard. Yet, I don't find anything related to unified field theories of consciousness on his page. Is there a reason, or is this something that maybe I should think about adding? Cerebral 02:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I noticed that some sites give his date of birth as July 31, 1932. Since that's more precise that what we've got now, I'm inclined to think it might be correct, but I don't know, so I didn't change it. I'm also not quite sure if the middle name is "Rogers" or "Roger". Everyking 05:40, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What an awful photograph, he looks like he just got out of bed after having been kept up all night with a cold. Does he look like that normally? If not, is there a more appropriate picture for him that could be used? -mqbs Oct 25 23:43:20 EDT 2004

That's what he looks like in person, at least when I saw him (I took the picture). In his "official photos", those which are not from the 1970s, he is done up a bit more. But I've never seen any of those that could be released under the Wikipedia license. --Fastfission 02:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ontological Objectivity vs. Epistemic Objectivity

I've been editing Objectivity (philosophy). That article only states Searle's distinction between [ontological] and epistemic objectivity. Since that distinction isn't in the John Searle article, I'm questioning whether that distinction warrants its own article. Perhaps it should be moved here and that page redirected to Object (philosophy). I really don't know much about Searle, so I was hoping that someone here has an opinion. Chiok 02:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I've changed 'metaphysical objectivity' to 'ontological objectivity', Searle's preferred term, in the above. I have also added a section to this article about Searle's views and terminology, though I have not added a link to it from the article on Objectivity (philosophy).

-Mark 14:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Better picture available?

The front picture looks an unkind shot of Searle. Frankly, it is the worst Searle pic. I've ever seen. Can't we find a better one? -- Orz 11:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's not intentionally unkind -- it's what he looks like these days (almost all of his published photographs are from a much earlier period, apparently). But if a better one can be found -- go for it. I donated that one just because I happened to have taken it, and thus it could be released under a free license. --Fastfission 17:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Better to have a picture than not; and removing the pic removed the info box. So I;ve restored it, but agree that a different picture might be better. Banno 19:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree too; I came to this talk page to suggest this but I found it was already being discussed! EdGl 21:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm here for the same reason! I recommend his UC Berkeley photo, though I haven't the time to properly put it on there just now... hurtstotouchfire 5:19 (UTC) - 3 September 2006

He looks nothing like the photo. Please change it. 169.229.84.149 04:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The one there now looks quite good. I saw him just the other day and that photo represents a rather charitable account of how he's doing these days, although I suppose some strong AI folks might demand a less attractive photo, don't you think? :) Loganbartling 08:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless whether the present (10 April 2008) picture represents the truth or not, in my view this is not the kind of photo supposed to be used for an encyclopedia. As far as I remember, the predecessor was more adequate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.189.164.49 (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Searle's influences

I think it's fair to say that Searle has has philosophical influences besides Strawson and Austin. For instance, he's repeatedly called Wittgenstein "the most influential philosopher of the twentieth century" and his dog is named Ludwig Wittgenstein Searle. He also continuously recommends Russell's History of Western Philosophy and claims it had a "big impression" on him as a teenager. Can whoever it is who jealously deletes any new additions to this category either cease or explain himself?

So provide citations in the text, as per the guidelines: Entries in Influences, Influenced, and Notable ideas should be explained in the main text of one of the articles. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted.[1] Banno 10:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; I certainly don't want to require exceptions to the rules. I shall try to see if I can fit them in without compromising the integrity of the article; if not, then I'll drop the issue.

Thanks. Banno

Banno: Searle's *former* dog was named Ludwig Wittgenstein Searle. His current dog is named Gilbert Ryle Searle.

I once had a rooster named Bertrand Russel, after his example of the fallacy of induction. Hardly a vital fact. Find a citation. Banno 20:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Banno: There are articles on Searle's website. One of them is 'What is Language?'. It is dated Sept. 7, 2006. On page 8 of the article, in the middle, you will find a reference to Gilbert. "I, on the contrary, think that it is obvious that many animals, like my dog, Gilbert,...." http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jsearle/whatislanguage.pdf

Wow. Banno

Hey guys, Grice was one of his teachers. Grice should probably be added to the influences. 169.229.84.149 11:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In the section on intentionality, I have mentioned Searle's claim that Wittgenstein's On Certainty is all about what Searle calls the 'Background', and Searle has also cited Kant as a major influence. But many, many modern thinkers would cite these two, so I'd still leave them out. On the other hand, Julius Weinberg, who taught Searle at Wisconsin Uni, should definitely be in as Searle himself cites him. -Mark 05:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Landlord

This section appears potentially unbalanced, particularly as Searle won his legal case in the Courts. Regardless of the desires of Berkley residents for cheaper rents the courts are the final arbiters. 06:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you think is non-neutral? Searle sued, won his case, and Berkeley residents were upset. All of these are objective facts and easy to understand; the article doesn't take the side of any of parties. AaronSw 06:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The opening sentence - 'Berkely residents refer to Searle as a "notorious slumlord" for his ownership of a great deal of housing in the area' are weasel words. Which residents did this? When? What percentage? What documentation is there of this? Jaxsonjo 08:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Although the paragraph does contain factual information the tone presented is one which gives a feeling of being against Searle. The quotes presented attack his character rather than his motives (which are left completely unstated). Tom P Joyce 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the whole section. We dont have a biography section but 20 sentences about Searle as an landlord ... that's really absurd. Of course, we can mention it in a biography section with one or two sentences. But its an article about philosophy - we dont need a section "Kant and the women", "David Chalmers' hair cut" or "The landlord John Searle". --Davidlud 06:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, we did have a section on Chalmers haircut. This isn't an encyclopedia of philosophy; being a landlord is part of Searle's biography. Perhaps history won't judge it to be as important as his philosophical contributions, but it's nonetheless as important as many other biographies that appear in Wikipedia. AaronSw 15:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Four speech acts, or five?

The article states:

Searle originally assumes that the illocutionary forces of a sentence consists in the subjection of this sentence to certain specifiable rules. These rules set out the circumstances under which it is admissible to utter the sentence, and what this uttering counts as. Searle assumes four general types of such rules.

Perhaps I'm at cross-purposes here, but if these 'four' are Searle's speech act types, these days he claims there are "exactly five":

assertives: "We're married."; directives: "Get married!"; commissives: "Yes, I'll marry you."; expressives: "I wish you'd marry."; declarations: "I declare you husband and wife."

The terms are his, the examples are of what I think he means by each. Were there only four in "Speech Acts"? Did he decide later that declarations are distinct from assertions, perhaps?

-Mark 13:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with Wikipedia is successive small edits by authors who do not take into account the structure of the section, and so progressively destroy it - a phenomenon called "Wikirot". In the original paragraph, the four types of rules Searle uses in speech acts were listed, in italics. but the paragraph cited above has come adrift from the rules. They are: propositional content, preparatory conditions, sincerity condition - and one other that seems to have been removed altogether, and which I cannot recall. I agree the section does not now make sense. Banno 20:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, of course - the intentionality of the rule - what it is intended to do. This has grown into a full sub-section. This is one of the best examples of wikirot I have seen. Banno 20:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

incidentally, each of the parenthetic comments in the article seem to be POV. I suggest they be removed, or at least re-written. Banno 20:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed most of them for lack of precision as much as POV, but the reference to the Doerge critique was good, so I've just moved to the end. (I think mixing references to comment/criticism with explanation just creates clutter). BUT: In the above comment, you say: "the intentionality of the rule - what it is intended to do". But the intention is what it is intended to do, the intentionality is what is it is about. So I've assumed you intended intention, and wrote intentionality unintentionally. (sorry...) -Mark 05:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't like the way Searle uses the word intentionality. But then, his work on the topic is not treated well enough in the article. Well done. Banno 07:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Joking apart, I'm somewhat bewildered about this concept (intentionality) too. But I don't think it's Searle's fault as such, because standard usage seems to more-or-less equate intentionality with 'aboutness', and my dictionary quite independently defines intentionality as "the property of mental phenomena whereby the mind can contemplate non-existent objects and states of affairs." But both non-existence and mentalness seem irrelevent to me, because (a) my true belief that Paris is in France surely has just as much intentionality as a false belief that Paris is in Germany, but only the latter is a 'non-existent state of affairs', and (b) my street map of Paris seems to me to be 'about' the real Paris in the same kind of way that my belief is, but maps are not mental phenomena. I'm just confused, I suppose. Or else my dictionary is crap. MaherCoen (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to dualism

With reference to this dif[2], if he claims to oppose it, isn't he opposing it? Or have you evidence that is claim is disingenuous? Banno 21:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cat:Wittgensteinian philosopher

Searle was a student of Austin, who is independent of Witgenstein. Banno 10:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification required

"It is this gap that makes us think we have freedom of the will" It's not clear whether Searl considers this thought (thinking we have freedom of the will) is valid or not. That is whether Searl thinks free-will follows or not. Can someone please clarify? Thanks. Amit@Talk 13:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I read this and now things are clearer to me. Amit@Talk 16:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I expanded his views on free will using that source. (Pats self on the back) Amit@Talk 14:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Low importance?

Shouldn't this article be atleast mid-importance given Searle's contribution? Thanks.Amit@Talk 16:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. He's actually relatively important. I read him as a computer science grad student, which means it's only him and Bertrand that we read... Wkerney (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I think the old photo was better :| ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How do you pronounce "Searle"? Could we get a phonetic spelling on the top of the page? Wkerney (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrible Criticism Section

I'm deleting the entire criticism section of Searle, not because I don't believe there are valid criticisms (indeed, I'm shocked that in the whole thing, the numerous critiques of his Chinese Room thought experiment isn't even mentioned in passing), but because the whole thing seems to be the writings of a displeased reader who has no interest in NPOV. Weasel words abound (e.g. "written in a clear and conversational style, supposedly with the goal..."), and unsupported opinion is the norm ("the explanatory benefit of which may be doubted", "given so much divergence, it is rather obvious, Searle is using the term 'rationality' in an unusual manner..." , "In the end it is impossible to say whether Searle's conception..."). The few typos only reinforce the notion that this is a section undeserving of the encyclopedia. I'm sure there are valid criticisms out there, and if this section could be rewritten in such a way that the opinions at least appear to be qualified, that would be appropriate. The only section that is cited and might be of interest is: "Searle owns a large amount of property in Berkeley, California. He is well-known for his 1980s lawsuit which led the California Supreme Court to overturn the city's rent control policy in what came to be known as the "Searle Decision".[11] The city government claimed this led to "significantly increased rent levels in Berkeley"."

I'm deleting this as well, mostly because it seems like a very irrelevant detail to make an entire section entitled "Criticism" over, and it does not seem to pertain to his life in general, which is an academic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaper Man (talk • contribs) 21:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reaper Man (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well there should be a section discussing criticism. Here is an example of just how dishonest Searle can be, as he builds an accusation of a misquote based off a misquote!! (and this most certainly pertains to his academic life)

"The mental gymnastics that partisans of strong AI have performed in their attempts to refute this rather simple argument are truly extraordinary[3] but the method employed by Hofstadter and Dennett is more direct: they simply fabricate a direct quotation that was never uttered by me and then attack the quotation. They claim "it is a mistake to try to impute the understanding to the (incidentally) animate simulator; rather it belongs to the system as a whole, which includes what Searle casually characterizes as 'a few slips of paper.' This offhand comment, we feel, reveals how Searle's image has blinded him to the realities of the situation." The trouble is, no such "offhand comment" was ever made by me, casually or otherwise; it is a complete fabrication, as any reader can verify from my article, which they reprint in full." ~Searle 1982, The Myth of the Computer

Here we see Searle accuses Hofstadter of misquoting him as saying "a few slips of paper", but if we look at Hofstadter's writing we see:

"Our response to this (and, as we shall show later, Searle's response as well, in a way) is basically the "Systems Reply": -that it is a mistake to try to impute the understanding to the (incidentally) animate simulator; rather it belongs to the system as a whole, which includes what Searle casually characterizes as "bits of paper." This offhand comment, we feel, reveals how Searle's image has blinded him to the realities of the situation." ~Hofstadter 1981

And worse yet, Searle really DID say "bits of paper":

"The idea is that while a person doesn't understand Chinese, somehow the conjunction of that person and bits of paper might understand Chinese."

~Searle 1980, Minds, Brains and Programs; see "1. The Systems Reply"

--Mike Spenard (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the point Mr Spenard has raised here. Specifically, Searle writes (reprinted in David Rosenthal "the Nature of Mind" (1991), in the paper referred to, ie "Mind's, Brains, and Programs"):

"The idea is that while a person doesn't understand Chinese, somehow the *conjunction* of that person and bits of paper might understand Chinese."

To be precise, "conjuntion" is italicised, but "bits of paper" is not and in any case is not the same phrase as the "a few slips of paper" quote given above. So where is the argument? If someone had misquoted me, even in a relatively technical way, I'd surely make that point. And so far from being settled, nothing said here makes any kind of case one way or the other.

I kind of hope that when these guys are all dead, we'll be able to sift the truth from the bitchery. As it is, I'd advise either getting hold of a copy of Rosenthal's relatively informative '91 book, or giving up on this debate altogether. -MaherCoen (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a discussion of criticism of Searle should also include his spat with Derrida in Limited Inc and "Reply to Derrida" about intentionality in language, although it gets pretty bitter pretty quickly. 76.115.84.129 (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-specialist language

I'd appreciate if someone with the knowledge could write a short description of Professor Searle's key contributions in non-technical language. I came to this page to get the gist of what he is known for. (His website is somewhat opaque, even to a well-educated non-specialist.) Unfortunately, I couldn't figure it out from this Wiki article either. The challenge is that each paragraph dives into philosophy jargon right away. It is apparent that the jargon is useful for describing his position in the context om modern philosophers; but that jargon is impenetrable to many outsiders.

Even two or three sentences of explanation would do a great deal. Assume I don't know any other philosphers. Assume that I have no idea what "illocutionary" means (even after reading this Wiki article). There isn't space in those 3 sentences to give the whole nuanced explanation of illocutionary and still get around to why Searle is important.

Here's a start: Below are a few statements that I got from a journalist. I can understand the concepts they describe. However, I don’t know whether they accurately reflect Searle’s position. Nor do I know whether these are the major concepts for which he is known.

Paraphrased from Harvey Blume, The Boston Globe, Feb. 7, 2007.

Searle studies how the mind creates a sense of self.

Mental processes do not work like computers, even when doing the same task. Therefore, the computer model of the mind can tell us nothing about how our brains produce mind, consciousness, and a sense of self.

Our modern knowledge of biology has made it unnecessary to call some mystical force to explain how life works.

It is impossible to reconcile a universe consisting entirely of mindless, meaningless fields of force with a concept of ourselves as conscious, mindful, free. But free will is not an illusion: we are stuck with a paradox.

Thanks so much! Phytism (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Journalist or not, you might have to contemplate buying a few books, rather than relying on Wikipedia. A fifteen-dollar-plus philosophical dictionary is a must. Console yourself that it'll be the best fifteen dollars you ever spent, if you give it time to spread to your brain. Philosophical language is too technical for guesswork (eg: intentionality), and you just won't be bothered to keep checking on the net. Buy the book and take it to bed instead.

After that, remember that philosophy is important and inescapable. It doesn't meet deadlines. But you already know enough, and I don't want to distract the kind of hero who can throw together 2500 words on demand, so I'm gonna shut up and let you think. You'll get it down to the standard three sentences eventually, no worries.

Searle's most accessible book is perhaps "Mind, Language, and Society". His "Mystery of Consciousness" is also easy, and the kind of riot hacks enjoy most: a fresh mix of mature thought and juvenile academic bickering. Between those, this article, and that dictionary you just ordered from Amazon, you'll be fine. Even if you've missed a deadline. Oops!

Three sentences, Mr journo? Trim these three down to two, add one more, and you'll make your page:

Californian professor John R Searle is a philosophical pugilist, a true heavyweight among contemporary thinkers, whose contributions to the so-called philosophy of mind might rather be called a philosophical body-blow to orthodox scientific thought. Beginning with the observation that ordinary words don't just describe the world ("We got married"), question it ("Did you guys ever date?"), or instruct it ("You'd just better marry her, buddy!"), but that they also create it ("I declare you man and wife!"), Searle has proceeded to demolish the claims of computer science with his notorious but yet-to-be-refuted "Chinese Room" argument, that no computer can ever really know, learn, or understand, and gone on to kick the shins of such esteemed luminaries as Noam Chomsky and the late Ludwig Wittgenstein, two intellectual giants who are often called the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. Who else could prove that the flimsy piece of paper in my back pocket is money just because millions of people I've never even met believe exactly the same thing, and that Obama just made president for precisely the same reason?

It's not exactly true, but before anyone else chips in, it'll sell papers, so who will mind? Indeed, who (or what?) has got one? -M MaherCoen (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting comment! I might mention that I'm not a journalist, I just stole some words from one to provide an example of clearer language than that used in the wiki article. I appreciate your alternate version, which reminds me of a different aspect of publishing. It reads like a hyperbolic blurb from a book cover. It's effective for making me more curious about this fellow, but I'm still not sure what he did.

Since Wikipedia is an all-purpose encyclopedia, with information for the lay reader, the specialist, and the afficionado of the abstruse, different parts of an article should serve those different audiences. What I'm suggesting is that this article does not serve the first audience satisfactorily.

In general, if you wish to communicate an idea to an audience, you have to do so in language that they are going to accept and understand. My comment is addressed to those who understand Searle's importance and would like more Wikipedia readers to do so as well.

I gather from your comment that you disagree with my purpose. I infer that yo do not think that people interested in individual philosophers, or the main themes of academic philosophy, should to be permitted any understanding unless they have done the necessary background. I am hopeful that someone with a different perspective sees fit to add some good language to this article. Phytism (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was with you for a while there, but that last paragraph was hardly warranted.

I do not think that people should not be "permitted any understanding" they want - quite the opposite! However, it is unreasonable to expect an article about a specific philosopher to cover the basics of a complex and technical subject, any more than an article about Vladimir Kramnik should have to explain the rules of chess.

My advice that anyone interested in philosophy should spend fifteen dollars on a philosophical dictionary was given in the best of faith, and I am entirely unrepentant for suggesting it. Such a dictionary will convey the balance of the subject in a way that flicking around Wikipedia will never do, because a good editor will ensure that the space afforded to different topics is in proportion to the level of interest they excite among professional philosophers. It will also have the coherence of a complete work, a quality that of course Wikipedia should aim at too, but by its nature is unlikely ever to achieve.

Finally, I think the opening paragraph of the Searle article is well written (nothing to do with me!) and sets the scene well. It provides links to the main topics of interest to Searle, and in my opinion it is rather those articles which should properly be addressed to lay readers as well as to the philosophical cognoscenti. MaherCoen (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the last paragraph was certainly warranted - you come across as a jerk, and not in the elitist way you seem to be shooting for: you sound like a disgruntled undergraduate philosophy major (but then again, so does Searle...). You've constructed some imaginary narrative about a journalist trying to spread philosophy to the unwashed masses, thereby failing at the most important part of academic work: reading closely. You then to proceed to belittle this person in a decidedly acerbic manner, based again on this same mis-reading. While I would also strongly resist the suggestion that articles on philosophy should be written non-technically, your inflammatory rhetoric and Hearst-worthy prose make you seem like a buffoon.

71.54.203.30 (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

request

That editors who contribute to and watch this article check out this Article for Deletion nomination and comment. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism in speech acts section

There is criticism of Searle's work inserted in the speech acts section of the article, but this criticism appears to come from nowhere:

Despite his (1969, 54) announcement to present a "full dress analysis of the illocutionary act", he (1969, 57-71) in fact merely provides an analysis of the (allegedly prototypical) illocutionary act of promising, together with sets of semantical rules, intended to represent the linguistic meaning of devices indicating further (supposed) illocutionary act types (these sets of rules enable the reader to reconstruct at least in part Searle's conceptions of these act types). Thus in fact he fails to distinguish illocutionary acts from other acts; that is, he fails to install any concise terminology: it remains in the open whether, for instance, answering a question, expressing love, or cursing actually are supposed to be 'illocutionary acts'. As a consequence, a serious examination of the truth of what he says about 'illocutionary' acts is extremely difficult.

It doesn't include any citations of sources. I think it should be removed if it can't be sourced. Tweisbach (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I removed it. Tweisbach (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Original Research Template Added

As this article only refers to literature by Searle himself or his critics, it falls under the category Original Research. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research . 84.208.80.50 (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Moved this thread here to its place in order after coming to see what specific content was in question. Since the subject of the article is a famous living philosopher and there are no specific complaints, removing the tag. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

External Linker

Ckatz, I question the validity of removing what seems to be a valid, if somewhat low-value external link based on one's judgement of who added it. Is there some policy you can quote to educate me as to why this is verboten? I'll gladly end my objection to your deletion if there is. I would think that if you think the editor in question is doing something wrong you would report that editor and have the account blocked or banned. As it stands there seems to be nothing wrong with the link itself other than questioning the motives of the contributor. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not block-worthy; the editor in question has been notified of the external links guideline. As for the link itself, it has been removed per that guideline. Simply put, we do not link simply for the sake of linking. If the interview in question is truly useful, then we should consider using it to reference existing or new text. Hope this answers your question. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I note your use of the passive voice, but would it not be more informative to say that it was you who notified the user of the external link policy? I also note that the rationale has changed from his being viewed as a single-purpose account to the questionable value of the link. So far as I can see there is no straightforward violation of any policy. The only one that even comes imaginably close is the promotion of a site, but the link goes directly to the pdf in question, not to the site, which is in any case a non-profit scholarly website which offers free access and pushes no POV. The only way this can be called "promotion" is to define any linking at all as such. At this point it looks like a judgement call, and in the spirit of AGF, I have to assume that this contributor's motives are simply as they appear, the wish to provide a link to what he views as a relevant resource. I can see removing the link at this point only if it is redundant, (i.e., do the other links better cover the same exact material?) or if a consensus of editors and not just one person judges that it is not of sufficient value.μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

An error.

Didn't J. L. Austin introduce the term "Direction of fit" in How to do Things with Words? The article ascribes the idea to Anscombe. Did she actually use this term? I think the article is in error. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed / poor journalism

The critical attitude of the section on Speech Acts requires a citation, and I tagged it.

In general, the article this section could use much higher journalistic standards. We need to know who thinks what. The article section is missing phrases like: "Searle claims that ... " and "according to Searle," and the criticism needs to be attributed as well, as in "Daniel Dennett disagrees, writing that ...", etc. So I've tagged the whole article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Atheism

Can someone find an appropriate (i.e. reliable) source for Searle's atheism? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.236.44 (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there was no mention of atheism in the article, I have removed it from Category:Atheist philosophers. -84user (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Flamboyant atheist" Peter Dear, 'Today's television and radio programmes', The Times, 22 February 1984; pg. 31; Issue 61764; col A. μηδείς (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a quotation from a book by Vera, with a short quotation by Searl on the issue. Maybe he can be labelled as agnostic.

"His epistemology is intentional, therefore objective. Biologically he is a Darwinist, and theologically a naturalist: 'if it should turn out that God exists –he says- that would have to be a fact of nature like any other.'SEARLE, JOHN R., Mind, Language, and Society, cit., p. 34." Vera, F. THE PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS ACCORDING TO JOHN SEARLE, 2007, p. 36. User:guillermogp, 22 April 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.45.247.193 (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The quotation could imply pantheism as well as agnosticism. However, I'd say it makes little sense to ascribe such labels on Searle. Kopare (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Critism section: Lots of Derrida, little Searle

It seems that the critism section contains tons of references and explainations for Derrida's arguments but very little in terms of what Searle actually said. Perhaps Searle ought to be quoted more or much of the information about Derrida's arguments ought to be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.168.163.26 (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I quoted Searle but it was deleted. But please, if you can do it it will help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 20:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Limited Inc

User:Hibrido Mutante appears to be insistent on including a large section on Searle's dispute with Derrida. I am strongly opposed to this material, and in the absence of any consensus to include it in the article will continue to remove it. I would ask Hibrido Mutante to please review WP:UNDUE - we don't include everything in an article that could possibly be sourced, only the main points. In my judgement, the section you favor contains a grossly excessive level of detail; it would be better dealt with in an article dedicated to the subject, such as Limited Inc. Furthermore, your addition is poorly written, opinionated, and violates WP:NPOV, eg in sentences such as "Much more important in terms of theoretical consequences, Derrida criticized Searle's work for intending to talk about 'intention' without being aware of traditional texts about the subject and without even understanding Husserl's work when talking about it." That's essay-like writing that does not belong in an encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state facts, not to make assertions about what is "important". Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If the issue is really WP:UNDUE, shouldn't we just edit this down to a smaller section? It seems to me that simply axing an entire section is a bit drastic. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The material on Searle's dispute with Derrida is currently rather minimal. I agree that the information could be expanded, indeed, it probably should be. Unfortunately, Hibrido Mutante's addition is both far too detailed, violating WP:DUE, and inappropriately written, violating WP:NPOV, and probably WP:NOTESSAY as well. Instead of simply restoring the material I removed, it would be better if Hibrido Mutante could come up with a shortened and rewritten version of it that would be more appropriate to a biographical article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hope it's better now. Polisher of Cobwebs and CharlesGillingham, can you help to improve it? I try to support each assertion with quotes so it's not "my opinion". I think you agree it is important to add criticism and also references to the polemic in the media.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The amount of material you are trying to add continues to be excessive. The material on Searle's dispute with Derrida could be expanded, but I don't believe it deserves much more than one or two sentences, especially since the issue is already covered in some detail in Limited Inc. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir, if you think it's "excessive" please, fell free to edit it. Not to delete it. Acting like that it starts to look you are censoring. It starts to look "intellectual terrorism". I'm sure you can do better than that. It looks to me that there are 2 subjects that are important a) Searle's behavior that justifies Derrida's answer b) Derrida's critic not only to Searle, as he explains. I will make this more clear.

It looks you are not comfortable with it and I understand. But to censor is never a solution when it comes to philosophy (time is the only policy). Please, try to act differentlly. Hibrido Mutante— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.145.46 (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL, and other Wikipedia policies. Do not accuse me or other editors of "terrorism" (it is not welcome) or make assumptions about what I am or am not "comfortable" with. I am not "censoring" anything by removing material that is undue for this article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Toward An Ethic of Discussion": I didn't "accuse". I just said it was "starting to look". I know it is a term we shouldn't use (I just did it to paraphrase Searle's behavior that is here in question) ;)I'll not do it again.

I didn't say you were or you were not "comfortable. Just that it looks (it does). But I'll not say it again. Please. Feel free to edit it (not just delete it as you are doing!) and we will try to come to a better section that is important to people coming here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Reread WP:CIVIL. It makes no difference to say that I am guilty of "intellectual terrorism" and that it just looks like I am guilty of "intellectual terrorism". It comes to the same thing, and it's a grotesque and unwelcome insult. You could, and in fact probably should, be blocked for it. It is impossible for me to engage in any discussion of any kind with you under these circumstances. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think that if we really care about philosophy we would describe the philosophical implications of the discussion between Searle and Derrida, and not simply give a "he said - she said" tabloid style summary of the public kerfuffle. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for cutting back some of that material; it's a step forward. I continue to have problems with the section even its reduced form. It is very strange to see a section called "Discussion with Derrida" that includes only Derrida's criticisms of Searle and nothing that Searle said in reply, so we have an WP:NPOV violation here, I think. And while it's less important, the section contains a number of spelling and formatting errors, and is quite badly written. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Searle only replied in the media (now deleted). I tried to make a resume of Searle's “arguments” quoting him. You can find the article in the internet (in many sites). You can find Seale's article in "Scribd". To my knowledge it was never reprinted (the name "limited Inc" is connected with this use of "intellectual property". But, please, improve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If Searle didn't give any serious reply to Derrida then it should perhaps just be named "criticism from Derrida" - or perhaps it should be in the Derrida article and be called "Criticism of Searle and Austin" or "Criticism of Analytical philosophy"?. Also the section as is now is not very clearly written - sentences are much too long and meandering. I think its should be rewritten to focus on the substance of the argument and not on the childish bickering. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's much better now Manus. It is great to confirm that collective work works :) I want to reiterate my excuses to Polisher of Cobwebs. Using Searle's terms was in fact excessive and unpolite. I will never do it again. (User talk:hibrido mutante) 13:18, 4 March 2012

Hibrido Mutante

It's a shame Manus, it's a shame... what can I say? Have a good night if you can... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.145.46 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You reinserted the block quotes that are fully unnecessary, and you reintroduced a lot of text that is about Derrida describing his own philosophy with only vague and oblique references to Searle. This article is about Searle and Searle's philosophy - not about Derrida. All material in the article has to be directly relevant to the topic. I am going to revert, and ask you to kindly get consensus for including the material through discussion before inserting it again. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No. I reinserted block quotes not about "descontructivism" but about Searle and analytic approach. That is what "critics" is about. It is 100% critic to the subject. If you want you should try to resume it better. Not to delete it. I'm really impressed. I will revert it and ask you to kindly get consensus before deleting it again. You can also add a "criticism section". You shouldn't act as the owner of what is and what isn't relevant, normal, or whatever.

Please, check here how you should behave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

“ As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage" ”

I am not removing it because it is biased, but because it isn't sufficiently relevant to the topic and because it is incorrectly formatted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You are inserting information that several other editors have expressed is unsuitable for the article. Specifically the block quotes in the footnotes that are completely unnecessary and destroy the page layout and which are discouraged by the Manual of Style. What gets included is not a question of ownership but of consensus - there is no consensus for inserting the material in the form you want, and if you try to impose it by force you will only get yourself blocked. You will have to compromise or convince us that your point is the best. Thats how wikipedia works I am afraid.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir - I see block quotes in the footnotes in many many pages around and they must be used everytime a) the subject is relevant and must be presented b) Controversial subjects must be supported by reliable quotes. I try to just quote the most important and pertinent arguments from Derrida. (why do you think I must stick with arguments like "unnecessary" (who says so?) and "destroy the page layout". I belive there is more reasons to block people that just deletes others editors contributions (well documented) based on "esthetic arguments"... please, check here how you should behave: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

“ Remove material ONLY where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage ”

I don't think quoting Derrida "misinforms or misleads readers" about Derrida's critics to Searle when the subject is "Derrida's critics to Searle"...

Manus said I "reintroduced a lot of text (...) ith only vague and oblique references to Searle". I edit it to make more clear that quotes ARE about Searle and ARE about Derrida CENTRAL critics to Searle, HAVE "theoretical consequence or implication" and "its effects on Searle's entire discourse are, he believes, non delimitable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 23:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Look, you really need to pause and think. This article is about John Searle, it currently only gives a very cursory introduction to his philosophy. Currently half the article is dedicated to a quite intricate critique by Derrida, which the reader has no way of understanding because there is no description of the parts of Searle's thought that Derrida is critiqueing. There are many proboems with the text you are editwarring to insert: It is not well written, it has grammatical problems and doesn't give adequate context for a reader to understand the substance of the argument. It is badly formatted using large block quotes for simple citations is not standard practice and is not endorsed by the MOS. And most importantluy it gives a huge amount of undue weight to one particular critique by Derrida which has not have any significant influence on Searle's subsequent thinking, and which has largely been unnoticed by followers of Searle. People come here to learn about john Searle, not to read a long winded badly written series of quotes from Derrida.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I Dear Sir - I see block quotes in the footnotes in many many pages around and they must be used everytime a) the subject is relevant and must be presented b) Controversial subjects must be supported by reliable quotes. I try to just quote the most important and pertinent arguments from Derrida. (why do you think I must stick with arguments like "unnecessary" (who says so?) and "destroy the page layout".

Toward An Ethic of Discussion": Dear Sir I'll try to address your new critics. Please, do not delete. Please be objective in your arguments a) The critic is not "half the article". b) About your arguments to behave as rules tell you to:

“ Remove material ONLY where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage ”

1)i - "there is no description of the parts of Searle's thought that Derrida is critiqueing" ii- "doesn't give adequate context for a reader" - Before being deleted it you could understand the all context and that Derrida is critiquing Searles distinction between "normal" and "parasite" when talking about a text. You also deleted the critic about this. Please, do not delete. I think that is a problem that can be addressed by rewriting the passage.

2) i- "It is not well written"; ii "it has grammatical problems" - it looks to me you have done a good job editing it until you started to delete it. Basically it paraphrase Derrida (that was quoted, and you delted quotes). You will do us all a favor to edit (without making it "vague" (I think it is one more step before deleting the all criticism section. For each one of the sentences you have a quote. You just have to concentrate yourself on it and try to paraphrase it. It’s not reason to delete. I think that is a problem that can be addressed by rewriting the passage

3) No "influence on Searle's subsequent thinking" - is this an important fact in all the other articles in Wikipedia when bulding "criticism"? No, it isn't (I believe you are not used to have critics in articles about authors you like. Check Derrida's page just to start (And people don't "delete it"... I'm not a Derrida's fan, but I would feel bad if people there acted like that (I would know that it was wrong).In fact, we read the critics, compare with the article (and it's a mess), and we just get more convinced there is something important about the author. It looks it is not the same with Searle.

4)"largely been unnoticed by followers of Searle" - After what I see here.. I just wonder why... could you try to act differently. Does it really upset you so much? You really need to pause and think...

You are quoting a policy (WP:NPOV) that doesn't apply and which obviously do not understand. You are repeating your claims about seeing block quotes in other articles which even if true does not mean that the MOS encourages that or that this article should have them. The problem with the writing was not one that could be solved merely by rewriting - the main problem was that it only included trivial or irrelevant information (such as which published published what and what year) and left out the relevant information and the context necessary for understanding it. It would require me to go and read the entire exchange between Searle and Derrida and any thirdhand descriptions of it in order to rewerite form scratch a new section. I may do that someday but not now. It is a prime criteria for inclusion that the material be relevant to the topic - if Derrida's critique had had an impact on Searle that would be one way of showing that thte critique was rleevant - other ways could be if you could show that anyone cared enough about Derrida's critique to write about it in third hand publications - which you haven't done. You need to produce new arguments now and try to convince us that you are right - by simply reverting and repeating the same arguments over and over you will just get blocked for disruption.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Toward An Ethic of Discussion": Dear Sir - From what you have to say about this (you even admit that you haven't read the book!! Not even Searle's article (20 pages!!!), honestly, who are you to judge what is and what isn't important? From your behavior I want to believe that you are not even really familiar with philosophy. I want to believe that real philosophy make us able to accept critics and promote pluralism, freedom of thought and freedom of expression. You don't argue, you just simply delete and repeat the same arguments over and over. Cambridge, for example, doesn’t agree with you. Is that enough (I know it isn’t… another episode to remember the way some people “argue”)

Can't you read what Derrida has to say? I quoted him? What do you don't understand? Can I help you? Do you really need someone to explain you the importance of what he is saying? Can’t you understand the implications to Searle (and all analytic) project? Do you understand that we ALL would like to know Searle’s answer that never came? Can you explain me why he didn't answer with ARGUMENTS? Why do you think he preferred to go to the media (why did you delete references to this? honestly.. do you feel comfortable to be on his side?) And you want to edit philosophy articles? --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary

I will try do do my best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.145.46 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this stuff about Derrida seems misplaced, and it's not all comprehensible. The article claims that the dispute was or is famous. Splendid: this means that there will be accounts of it. In the meantime, for example:

Derrida even argued that in a certain way [Which way?] he was closer to Austin than Searle was, who [Searle, I suppose, but I'm not entirely sure] in turn was closer [than Derrida was?] to continental philosophers that he himself tried to criticize.

I'm aware that in philosophy "be close to" [philosopher X] is accepted shorthand for "have a standpoint that is close to that of" [philosopher X]. But even so, the sentence above strikes me as a bog. Derrida even argued that -- ah, good, I expect to see something substantive -- but no, this instead sinks into some remark about relative closeness to the unspecified opinions of unspecified philosophers. And even if it were clear, what would it tell us about Searle? Very little, I suspect.

The only book I happen to have with me on Searle is Joshua Rust, John Searle and "The Construction of Social Reality" (2006). This has an index. In its "D" section appear the personal names Dickinson, Michael; Dowd, Kevin; Dreyfus, Herbert; Dupré, John; Durkheim, Emile. No Derrida. I'm also looking at Devitt and Hanley, eds, The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language (2006). This has plenty of discussions of Searle, and plenty of talk of criticism by other philosophers of his work. But Derrida? Not a mention anywhere, as far as I can see.

I suspect that Derrida is not important to this area. But I could be wrong. If there was a famous dispute, let's see independent references to it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good evening Sir,

Most of your doubts were answered in the quotes. If you take a look, EACH one of the sentences finishes with a quote. Each sentence is just a paraphrase of the original text. They were deleted and the text was edited until you can think it is arbitrary. They were deleted so you have to go and confirm Derrida is saying what is being said in the book. I suggest you go to the article "limited ink", try to get perspective about it (if you don't even know about the subject!) and try to make it less "vague" here. I know that if I try to support the sentences with quotes I will be censored.

I'm sure that is a problem that can be addressed by rewriting the passage

I'm sure the community will thank you.

I will try to help giving you material so you can do better than me:

Hoary: "Derrida even argued that in a certain way [Which way?]" Derrida:

“ Searle had written, "It would be a mistake, I think, to regard Derrida's discussion of Austin as a confrontation between two prominent philosophical traditions." I agree with the letter if not with the intention of this declaration, having made it clear that I sometimes felt, paradoxically, closer to Austin than to a certain Continental tradition from which Searle, on the contrary, has inherited numerous gestures and a logic I try to deconstruct." ”

Jacques Derrida, "Afterwords" in Limited, Inc.' (Northwestern University Press, 1988) p.131

Hoary: "Derrida even argued that -- ah, good, I expect to see something substantive -- but no, this instead sinks into some remark about relative closeness to the unspecified opinions of unspecified philosophers. And even if it were clear, what would it tell us about Searle? Very little, I suspect"

Derrida:

“ "That is one theoretical consequence or implication that I wanted first of all to recall to Searle, and its effects on his entire discourse are, I believe, non delimitable. In the description of the structure called "normal," "normative," "central," "ideal", this possibility must be integrated as an essential possibility.

The possibility cannot be treated as though it were a simple accident-marginal or parasitic. It cannot be, and hence ought not to be, and this passage from can to ought reflects the entire difficulty. In the analysis of so-called normal cases, one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. Not even provisionally, or out of allegedly methodological considerations. It would be a poor method, since this possibility of transgression tells us immediately and indispensably about the structure of the act said to be normal as well as about the structure of law in general.

”

Jacques Derrida, Afterwords" in Limited, Inc. (Northwestern University Press, 1988) p. 133)

(deleted)

“ I will not repeat my objection to the order of "logical dependency" invoked by Searle concerning the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite." But I recall this example here apropos of your question. One cannot subordinate or leave in abeyance the analysis of fiction in order to proceed firstly and " logically" to that of "nonfiction or standard discourse. " For part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were. ”

Jacques Derrida, Afterwords" in Limited, Inc. (Northwestern University Press, 1988) p. 133

He would also argument about the problem he found in the constant appeal to "normality" in the analytical tradition from which Austin and Searle were only paradigmatic examples.

“ In the description of the structure called "normal," "normative," "central," "ideal,"this possibility must be integrated as an essential possibility. The possibility cannot be treated as though it were a simple accident-marginal or parasitic. It cannot be, and hence ought not to be, and this passage from can to ought reflects the entire difficulty. In the analysis of so-called normal cases, one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. Not even provisionally, or out of allegedly methodological considerations. It would be a poor method, since this possibility of transgression tells us immediately and indispensably about the structure of the act said to be normal as well as about the structure of law in general. ”

“ I will not repeat my objection to the order of "logical dependency" invoked by Searle concerning the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite." But I recall this example here apropos of your question. One cannot subordinate or leave in abeyance the analysis of fiction in order to proceed firstly and " logically" to that of "nonfiction or standard discourse. " For part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were. ”

The polemic was in fact famous, specially because Searle's behaviour... taking a subject that should stay in the academy to the media... I wonder how you are not aware of it.. but I can give some clues (all mentions to it here were deleted)... in fact it will be difficult to talk English and hear about it.. I can now understand why it is so ;)

“ In the first essay, "Signature Event Context," Derrida engages with J. L. Austin's theory of the illocutionary act outlined in his How To Do Things With Words.[1] The second essay, "Limited Inc a b c...", is Derrida's response to John Searle's "Reply to Derrida: Reiterating the Differences," which criticizes Derrida's interpretation of Austin. The book concludes with a letter by Derrida, written in response to questions posed by Gerald Graff in 1988: "Afterword: Toward an Ethic of Discussion". Searle's essay is not itself included: he denied Northwestern University Press permission to reprint it. A summary is included between the two Derrida essays, and Derrida quotes the essay extensively.[2] ”

Derrida (1988) Editor's Foreword, in Limited Inc. page VII - Editor's Foreword

In 1972, Derrida wrote "Signature Event Context," an essay on J. L. Austin's speech act theory; following a critique of this text by John Searle in his 1977 essay Reiterating the Differences, Derrida wrote the same year Limited Inc abc ..., a long defense of his earlier argument. The only answered that I'm aware of was Searle interview in The New York Review of Books, February 2, 1984;[5]where he talked about Deconstruction like this (I don't have any problems to quote it....):

“ ...anyone who reads deconstructive texts with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me: the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial. ”

This episode become quite famouse specially beacause Searle told to The New York Review of Books a remark on Derrida allegedly made by Michel Foucault in a private conversation with Searle himself; Derrida later despised Searle's gesture as gossip, and also condemned as violent the use of a mass circulation magazine to fight an academic debate.[6] According to Searle's account, Foucault called Derrida's prose style "terrorist obscurantism"; Searle's quote was:

“ Michel Foucault once characterized Derrida's prose style to me as "obscurantisme terroriste." The text is written so obscurely that you can't figure out exactly what the thesis is (hence "obscurantisme") and when one criticizes it, the author says, "Vous m'avez mal compris; vous êtes idiot' (hence "terroriste") ”

Louis Mackey and Searle (1984) In 1988, Derrida wrote "Afterword: Toward An Ethic of Discussion", to be published with the previous essays in the collection Limited Inc. Commenting this critics in a footnote he questioned:

“ I just want to raise the question of what precisely a philosopher is doing when, in a newspaper with a large circulation, he finds himself compelled to cite private and unverifiable insults of another philosopher in order to authorize himself to insult in turn and to practice what in French is called ajugement d'autorite, that is, the method and preferred practice of all dogmatism. I do not know whether the fact of citing in French suffices to guarantee the authenticity of a citation when it concerns a private opinion. I do not exclude the possibility that Foucault may have said such things, alas! That is a different question, which would have to be treated separately. But as he is dead, I will not in my turn cite the judgment which, as I have been told by those who were close to him, Foucault is supposed to have made concerning the practice of Searle in this case and on the act that consisted in making this use of an alleged citation.” ”

I would say that, at least, Cambridge considers Derrida important in this area... but there are other opinions.. and methods... no doubt.. That is what we call "different opinions and values". We should respect them all... and when we feel the temptation to censorship critics, we should know we are in the wrong side of the fence. Critics are just that: critics. Let people that come here judge with their own criteria .. not mine, not yours...(give extra info if you can. I'll be pleased

“ Remove material ONLY where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage ”

Sleep well --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What would you think about having the last part of the Derrida article be about how he had been criticized as being obscure, pompous, self-serving, and suspiciously evasive? --JimWae (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You say:

The polemic was in fact famous, specially because Searle's behaviour... taking a subject that should stay in the academy to the media... I wonder how you are not aware of it.. but I can give some clues [...]

You repeat that this affair was famous. So (i) provide clear evidence (and not merely "some clues") for this claim, and (ii) show that the affair is of importance for Searle. After all, this article is about Searle, not about Derrida.

Actually, yes, I have found mention of a substantive argument since I last wrote. But it's an argument over work by Austin. It might belong in an argument on Austin. What you quote above by Searle is an argument over (i) the prose style of Derrida (which might belong in an argument on Derrida), and (ii) the etiquette of Searle's public utterance of a critical comment on Derrida's prose style made to him (S) by Foucault. This last matter seems to me to turn philosophy into mere soap opera. Maybe Derrida was entirely justified in being offended by it: I don't know or (at this point) much care. Does any disinterested philosopher comment on the matter? If not, I'd dismiss it as trivial (even if unfortunate). -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Searle/Derrida debate

Having done a small literature search it seems that the debate is indeed something that should be covered. It should however be baased on tertiary literature and not on clumsy summary of the he-said/she-said of the debate. Here are some sources that should be used if we are to expand this section.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• FARRELL, F. B. (1988), ITERABILITY AND MEANING: THE SEARLE-DERRIDA DEBATE. Metaphilosophy, 19: 53–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9973.1988.tb00701[3]
• With the Compliments of the Author: Reflections on Austin and Derrida

Stanley E. Fish. Critical Inquiry , Vol. 8, No. 4 (Summer, 1982), pp. 693-721[4]

• Derrida, Searle, Contexts, Games, Riddles. Edmond Wright. New Literary History , Vol. 13, No. 3, Theory: Parodies, Puzzles, Paradigms (Spring, 1982), pp. 463-477[5]
• Convention and Meaning: Derrida and Austin. Jonathan Culler. New Literary History , Vol. 13, No. 1, On Convention: I (Autumn, 1981), pp. 15-30[6]
• Another Look at the Derrida-Searle Debate. Mark Alfino. Philosophy & Rhetoric , Vol. 24, No. 2 (1991), pp. 143-152[7]
• Language, philosophy and the risk of failure: rereading the debate between Searle and Derrida. Hagi Kenaan. CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY REVIEW. Volume 35, Number 2, 117-133, DOI: 10.1023/A:1016583115826[8]
• Understanding Each Other: The Case of the Derrida-Searle Debate. Stanley RaffelHUMAN STUDIES

Volume 34, Number 3, 277-292, DOI: 10.1007/s10746-011-9189-6 THEORETICAL / PHILOSOPHICAL PAPER[9]

Yes, this is the right way to go. I'm sorry, I'm not volunteering to do the work. The reason: Wondering what philosophical arguments might have to do with new literary history, I clicked on the link for the article by Wright. Its first sentence:

Charles Altieri has argued in these pages that even if one allows that contextual constraints have a part to play in the deliverance of meaning, the human action in the text upon which they are based will still have that necessary objectivity that is the anchor against relativism.

I don't know what that means. I don't even know what various constituents of it mean. Oh, I can make guesses, but that's not good enough. Perhaps I could put effort into understanding it; but unlike what I've seen of Searle's work, it's powerfully soporific so I'm not going to. Sorry. It seems that Altieri is a professor of literature (as in novels and poetry); frankly I don't see how literature is important to Searle's career. How much of this Searle/Derrida dispute is a mere sideshow, irrelevant to Searle's main concerns? -- Hoary (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(deleted comment) --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello 89.152.84.65. You raise all sorts of points, such as that of my mental incompetence, my lack of manners, and my banworthiness. I don't at all mind your bringing them up, but a page to discuss the article on Searle is probably not the right place to do so. One of your concerns is very straightforward, so let's deal with it first. It seems that you strongly object to my deletions. This surprises me. As far as I am aware, I only (here) deleted (Northwestern University Press, 1988), so that what was previously (Northwestern University Press, 1988) (Northwestern University Press, 1988) is now simply (Northwestern University Press, 1988). Was I wrong to do this? What else have I deleted? Please present the diff of the most egregious example. (If you're unfamiliar with "diff", this is an example.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Good morning. I'm sorry. English is an ambiguous language when making the distinction between singular and plural "you". I will delete it from here, create a section and change it to make it more clear that I'm talking to people that are deleting the text without trying to edit or to make an effort to add contra-arguments, and look for some sources that could be used if they are to expand this section.

Best regards --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Remove material ONLY where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers"

See alsoNPOV noticeboard

• Dear Sirs, It is clear that those that are deleting my contributions are not competent to decide what is or what is not important on this subject. Those editor(s) were not even aware of this until today and so they ignore the most basic issues about criticism to Searle (but this doesn't change their sad behavior!). They should be humble and assume their ignorance on the subject. If they want to add contra-arguments, please do. If they are not able to do it, than should step aside.Ignorance is not, never was, and never will be an argument

I added the only "critics" I know from Searle in an important magazine, but they were deleted.

If an editor ignores the subject, if an editor don't have the competence, if he is "not volunteering to do the work", than he should stop deleting others contributions, only because they don't like criticism.If they think it doesn't matter, than let it be. Maybe others do. It's not up to them to decide (and it is not up to them to decide others can't even decide).

They are clearly DELETING critical arguments from Derrida to Searle:

"He continued arguing how problematic was establishing the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, “for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were”.[37] He would finally argue that the indispensable question would then become "what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc."? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites, "are not things found in nature, but symbolic inventions, institutions that,in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.[38]"

Here is the quotation. I leave here my appeal: Please, try to resume it (it looks my paraphrase is "to clumsy" ). Deleting it is pure censorship and no one that loves philosophy can support this kind of attitude:

That is one theoretical consequence or implication that I wanted first of all to recall to Searle, and its effects on his entire discourse are, I believe, non delimitable. In the description of the structure called "normal," "normative," "central," "ideal,"this possibility must be integrated as an essential possibility. The possibility cannot be treated as though it were a simple accident-marginal or parasitic. It cannot be, and hence ought not to be, and this passage from can to ought reflects the entire difficulty. In the analysis of so-called normal cases, one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. Not even provisionally, or out of allegedly methodological considerations. It would be a poor method, since this possibility of transgression tells us immediately and indispensably about the structure of the act said to be normal as well as about the structure of law in general.

what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc.)? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules, and even the statements of the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites," are not things found in nature, but laws, symbolic inventions, or conventions, institutions that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.

Jacques Derrida, Afterwords" in Limited, Inc. (Northwestern University Press, 1988) p. 133

Is it difficult to understand what Derrida is saying?

That is one theoretical consequence (...) The possibility cannot be treated as though it were a simple accident-marginal or parasitic. It cannot be, and hence ought not to be, and this passage from can to ought reflects the entire difficulty. In the analysis of so-called normal cases, one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. Not even provisionally, or out of allegedly methodological considerations. It would be a poor method, since this possibility of transgression tells us immediately and indispensably about the structure of the act said to be normal as well as about the structure of law in general.(...) This question is all the more indispensable since the rules, and even the statements of the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites," are not things found in nature, but laws, symbolic inventions, or conventions, institutions that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.

What exactly they don't understand? What exactly are their arguments? They "don't like it"? I don't know.

I already appealed for moderation on this conflict. Until someone competent decide what to do, please, respect different opinions, respect Wikipedia NPOV norms: "Remove material ONLY where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage"

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Derrida is obscure. Example: In the analysis of so-called normal cases, one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. "So-called normal cases" of what? "Transgression" by whom and of what?

But luckily there's no need to attempt to work out what Derrida means (admirable or even necessary though this would be for other purposes): there are published papers that do it. (Wikipedia, you'll remember, encourages the use of secondary sources.) Another kind editor has specified these above. -- Hoary (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

See alsoNPOV noticeboard, you say. You mean here. -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL Dear Sir, It's Austin and Searle (and you?) that must explain us all "what the hell" do they mean with "So-called normal cases" (speech acts) and "transgression". I see you agree with Derrida when he says Austin and Searle are "obscure" and lack rigor on this core matter LOL It looks to me you agree the critics are fair.

one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. Not even provisionally, or out of allegedly methodological considerations. It would be a poor method...

Sir, it really looks you don't know what you are talking about. Please, do some homework. If you are lazy, you just need to read Searle's article and the Afterword from Derrida. It's only around 60 pages long. I'm sure you can handle it. If you want to do some serious introduction to the subject, you should try to read the book, Searle's article and Austin "How to do things with words" (it's a very small book). It will take you around 250 pages.. to much? If you want to quote secondary sources, it is up to you how deep you want to go. We would all be grateful.

Please, if you want to give positive contributions, do us a favor: make some homework first. This is philosophy, not sports. It's not "YOUR club" against the world in the tabloid YOU choose to read.I will stay here and wait for POSITIVE contributions (delete is a negative one... I hope you know that)

"Remove material ONLY where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers"

Have a nice day --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My day is very nice, thank you. Concision is a virtue. -- Hoary (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with this article. The thread is "Derrida criticism to Searle". Thank you.

This is the paragraph I beleive should be the last section, so Derrida's arguments are presented to readers coming here (not only concerned with philosophy, or Searle, but also, for example, social sciences, once this is an author that made contributions considered "relevant" when talking about "speecha cts", "institutions", etc):

"He continued arguing how problematic was establishing, as Searle did, the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, “for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were”.[37] He would finally argue that the indispensable question would then become "what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc."? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites, "are not things found in nature, but symbolic inventions, institutions that,in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.[38]"

If not, in alternative (and I propose alternatives...), and once there is no real answer from Searle after Derrida's reply, I suggest to revert the section's title to "Criticism" (as is normal practice in Wikipedia and making the section more focused in what is clearly missing from this article - criticism)) and present only the critics from Derrida based on explicit quotes (normally criticism doesn't includes authors reply from what I can confirm in most articles in Wikipedia - I wonder, if that was a criterion, if we coulf find a "valid one" in Derrida's page... Sometimes the author was even dead when they occurred...I imagine that we couldn't have Einstein's critics to Newton if that was a criterion):

"Derrida criticized directly Searle's work in his book "Limited Inc" (1988) for intending to talk about "intention" without being aware of standard texts on the subject, such as the seminal work of Husserl.[34] Because Searle ignored the tradition, as he himself admited in his book book on intentionality (1983), he rested blindly imprisoned in it, repeating its most problematic gestures and logic, falling short of the most elementary critical questions.[35] Derrida even argued that in a certain way he was closer to Austin than Searle was, who in turn was closer to the continental philosophers that he himself tried to criticize He continued arguing how problematic was establishing, as Searle did, the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, “for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were”.[37] He would finally argue that the indispensable question would then become "what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc."? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites, "are not things found in nature, but symbolic inventions, institutions that,in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.[38]"

-Hibrido Mutante (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Of course we can include information about Derrida's critique. But it will be in accordance with WP:WEIGHT (the amount of material to be included will be proportional to the importance and to the rest of the article).

2. Criticism from Derrida should be based on secondary sources, not on the writings of Searle and Derrida themselves.

3. It will have to be a succinct and well written summary of the actual TOPIC of the dispute, not just a summary of publications.

4 In order for it to make sense to have the critique the rtaicle must first describe the actual viewpoints of Searl that Derrida is critiqueing. The article currently does not give a very good summary of Searle's own ideas - this means that including many of Derrida's ideas will be disporportionate to the coverage of Searle's ideas which is the actual topic of this article. Ergo - the article need to expand the description of Searle's thinking before going into details about Derrida's critique.

5. The section is not about criticism, but about a specific critique (criticism and critique is not the same thing).

6. There is no "criticism" section in the article on Isaac Newton, nor any mention of Einstein's critique.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The article now has a top-level section titled "Searle-Derrida debate", which implies that such a debate was important to Searle. In the current state of the article every source to this section cites Derrida.

If this "debate" is so significant, why are third-party accounts of it not cited?

Having looked for books about Searle, finding only one (although mentions of at least one more), and looking within this book for references to Derrida and finding none whatever (search within this page for the string "rust"), I thought I'd try surveys in reference books. I found four:

• Fontenot, Karen Anding. "John R. Searle." World Philosophers and Their Works (Salem, 3 vols, 2000). 3:1756-1762.
• Gochet, Paul. "Searle, John Roger, 1932-". Dictionnaire des Philosophes, 2nd ed (PUF, 2 vols, 1993). 2:2603-2607.
• Harnish, Robert M. "Searle, John (1932-)". Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd ed (Macmillan Reference USA, 10 vols, 2006). 8:705-707.
• Lepore, Ernie. "Searle, John (1932-)". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (10 vols, 1998). 8:589-591.

Possibly I overlooked something, but as far as I am aware these four bring a grand total of zero (0) mentions of Derrida.

I tentatively infer that neither Derrida nor the debate with him is of much lasting importance to the work of Searle (the subject of this article).

(Whether Searle or the debate with him is of lasting importance to the work of Derrida is something of which I have no opinion.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Let see how this ends.. I'm really curious ;) Could you please try to improve the article? ;) "Agora" lesson. Have a nice day --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless you start trying to see other points of view than you own this has already ended. Yes the article should be improved - Derrida's critique is not the first priority on my list in that regards.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, do it :) It will be a pleasure to see what you can do ;) It's not, "my point of view" that is important here, only "criticism from Derrida to Searle" (?'m sure you know what "criticism" is and you understand the critics from Derrida)

a) Could you agree between you if the debate is important and the title must be maintain (and you should try to add Searle's position and Derrida's answer) or if it is not and we should concentrate with Derrida's critic and give an honest resume of it (Searle answered, once in a text, the other in the media... is it enought? Can I add what he said without you delete it?).

b)Could you try to give the different views about the subject and not only "yours"? (I tried but you deleted). I'm only able to quote people, not censure or make it "vague"

Resume: Can you confirm positions with authors that are not on "Searle's side" (Can you add some real criticism)? Can you deal with Derrida's critics (they are in the paragraphs)? Can you add positions from authors that are not "abnalitical, for example, from the social sciences? (or Searle is not important for scientists?)

(do you think we should delete all critics from "analitical philosophers" in Derrida's article, once he never talked about it (except about Austin and Searle) and all philosophers and social scientists interested in him are not much interested in "analitical normality"?

Thanks

Best regards

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't have the time to do the research that would be required to understand and explain the scope and importance of Derrida's critique relative to Searle's other work. Hoary and I have already told you what would be the basic requirements for something about this to be included - first and foremost you must show that the critique was important to other people than Derrida (i.e. you must use secondary sources about the debate as a basis for a summary of the arguments and for assessing the overall relevance to Searle and Derrida's respective works - sinc e this article is about Searle your best bet would be to find a book about Searle and see what amount of space and verbiage they devote to the debate - wikipedia's coverage should weight the relative importance of different facts in acordance with the weight given in secondary and tertiary literature). This is all stuff you will have to do in order to include this material, the burden of justifying inclusion is on the shoulders on the person who wants to include, not on those who want to exclude something. If you include material without trying to understand or respond to our objections yes then we will have to remove it again. Alternatively you could begin to rpoduce actual arguments based in sources why the material you want to include should be included - that might convince us that what you are doing makes sense. Up untill this point you have not provided arguments but simply taken it for granted that the material should be included, and you have not listened to the many arguments by us explaining to you why it does not seem to deserve nearly as much weight as you are wanting to give it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh! It is a pity :( I was so interested in seeing you doing something positive. But ok. I do the work.Once you are not able to just read and try to paraphrase critics, I will try to do it better (and it was me that created the section). It looks I'm the only one that has read Derrida and Searle (we talk as Searle never answered to Derrida and if we needed anything more it shows how you are not being honest with yourself).

You: "first and foremost you must show that the critique was important to other people than Derrida"

Someone as done some positive search and presented here:

ARRELL, F. B. (1988), ITERABILITY AND MEANING: THE SEARLE-DERRIDA DEBATE. Metaphilosophy, 19: 53–64. doi:

Stanley E. Fish. Critical Inquiry , Vol. 8, No. 4 (Summer, 1982), pp. 693-721[4]

Derrida, Searle, Contexts, Games, Riddles. Edmond Wright. New Literary History , Vol. 13, No. 3, Theory: Parodies, Puzzles, Paradigms (Spring, 1982), pp. 463-477[5]

Convention and Meaning: Derrida and Austin. Jonathan Culler. New Literary History , Vol. 13, No. 1, On Convention: I (Autumn, 1981), pp. 15-30[6]

Another Look at the Derrida-Searle Debate. Mark Alfino. Philosophy & Rhetoric , Vol. 24, No. 2 (1991), pp. 143-152[7]

Language, philosophy and the risk of failure: rereading the debate between Searle and Derrida. Hagi Kenaan. CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY REVIEW. Volume 35, Number 2, 117-133, DOI: 10.1023/A:1016583115826[8]

Understanding Each Other: The Case of the Derrida-Searle Debate. Stanley Raffel

HUMAN STUDIES Volume 34, Number 3, 277-292, DOI: 10.1007/s10746-011-9189-6 THEORETICAL / PHILOSOPHICAL PAPER[9]

This is mine ;)

"Derrida" 2010 - Les Belles Lettres - Jean-Michel Salanskis (author of "Philosophie Des Mathématiques" Vrin, 2008 (no, not "literary critic"), "professeur de philosophies des sciences, logique et épistémologie à l'úniversité Paris-Ouest Nanterre-La-défense". Is it ok or will I have to wait to be translated to English so you can confirm? ;)

All this contributions are "normal" and "valid", I believe (can they talk about what Derrida is saying without respecting the meaning of what Derrida said in the paragraphs I quoted? Should we assume they are saying Derrida said something different from what Derrida said? I quoted the answers Searle gave in a famous magazine... you deleted. I believe I can add this quotations and, once we only need to know what Derrida's critics are, we can paraphrase him (to be 100% honest and we don't loose nothing in "translation"

Once you are not "doing the work", I will try to do it myself. I will concentrate in adding a "criticism" area, that is normal in wikipedia's article and try to keep with the number of characters you propose ;) All quotations added (because you don't think we need people can confirm Derrida's said what it's said Derrida said)

Could you please tell me what do you consider "arguments" (and about what should I argue about)?

What are exactly your arguments against what Derrida is saying? Please, could you concentrate yourself in the content of what Derrida is saying? What is that you don't understand? Can I help you?

(meanwhile I will use some quotations from you here to clean up some articles around Wikipedia if you don’t mind. I will respect your “intellectual property” about it, I promise ;)

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 18:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

While you were writing this I actually did do the work and rewrote the section to focus on the content of the debate. Thanks for finally producing some secondary sources. Please correct any misunderstandings I may have of Alfino's description of the debate. Oh and the "someone" who has done some positive research by tracking down secondary sources was me. Thanks for noticing now, even though it would have saved us sometime if you had noticed when I actually presented them. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes.. I can see that. You have done it without respecting rules from wikipedia. You didn't argue about it. You didn't try to reach consensus. It is very hard to "argue" with you sir...

Once you act as you were the owner of the article (and of truth). Could you please, try to resume this critic from Derrida (I believe there is also one about trying to talk about "Intentionality" without reading Husserl", there is one about "normality", about "normativity" and about "nonfiction or standard discourse “and its fictional "parasites, "are not things found in nature, but symbolic inventions, institutions that, once in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.[38]"

A) Derrida criticized directly Searle's work in his book "Limited Inc" (1988) for intending to talk about "intention" without being aware of standard texts on the subject, such as the seminal work of Husserl.[34] Because Searle ignored the tradition, as he himself admited in his book book on intentionality (1983), he rested blindly imprisoned in it, repeating its most problematic gestures and logic, falling short of the most elementary critical questions.[35]

B) Derrida even argued that in a certain way he was closer to Austin than Searle was, who in turn was closer to the continental philosophers that he himself tried to criticize He continued arguing how problematic was establishing, as Searle did, the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, “for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were”.[37]

C) He would finally argue that the indispensable question would then become "what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc."? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional "parasites, "are not things found in nature, but symbolic inventions, institutions that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.[38]"

(I will also ask for some quotation since you explicitly make your own "interpretations" about what Derrida was wrong or right... This is incredible... I'm really curious to know what "wikipedia" can do when things start to go this way ... so... there is no criticism section now, and you give us your interpretation ... this is great!!! Can I go to the authors I prefer and act the same way? I will just quote you and give your example, Sir... no I'm not able to do it...

(rearding the fact you were the one that gave the quotations... I'm glad you have some sense of humor ;)

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I had already argued what I believed to be the correct solution to our debate and since you did not contradict that but in fact encouraged me to "do the work" I went ahead and did it. I am not saying that it is perfect or that it cannot be changed, I welcome any suggestions to improvement. I am not an expert on either Derrida or Searle, I have read a little about both - but I am a bit of an expert on how to write wikipedia articles. That is the expertise through which I am arguing here - I am quite aware that you are an expert on both Searle and Derrida - but you need to translate that expertise into a form that works for wikipedia (we require secondary sources). I don't make interpretations of whether Derrida was wrong or right - they come from Alfino's summary of the debate which is in fact mostly sympathetic to Derrida. Also in fact it is preferred not to have a separate section on criticism, but to integrate the criticism into the relevant sections of the article as I have done (see WP:CRITICISM) - the critique by Derrida was specifically about Speech Act theory, not about Searle's person or other work so it belongs in the section on Speech act theory where it is now. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

show that the critique was important to other people than Derrida

I see that now you accept the debate is worth 3.282 characters, 5 paragraphs and 36 lines and even so it is still "vague"

From what I understand, it is polite to first propose here what we would like to edit, try to get consensus and then do it... you not only edit "the section".. You deleted, changed its place and gave what, for me, is an interpretation (I will read what you suggested, but it looks to me we get to much stucked in interpretation of “authors intentions”… but ok, I will read it…)

I will think for a while how to proceed (and read what you have suggested. But, if you could review your contribution so it could include the 3 main ideas I'm proposing here, I believe it could help us to get a final consensus.

Best regards

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Just making sure I understand you: Your three points are 1. Derrida argued that Searle was not conversant with the phenomenological tradition of perspectives on intentionality (I am alluding to this in the second paragraph, where I write "Derrida argued that the focus on intentionality in speech act theory was misguided, because intentionality is restricted to be intentional about that which is already established as a possible intention" and "Searle agreed with Derrida's proposal that intentionality presupposes iterability, but Searle did not apply the same concept of intentionality used by Derrida."). 2. Derrida claimed to be more akin to Austin than Searle "in a certain way" - it would be useful to know in which certain way he meant. 3. I have tried (using Alfino's summary) to rephrase Derrida's critique regarding fiction into language that is more accesible for the layreader. If I misrepresent his ideas I do not do so out of bad faith but in an attempt to make intelligible something that I do not fully understand myself (hence my reluctance to "do the work").·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Manus, I will accept your good faith, even if I'm not comfortable with the final result (I will explain later why I don't think it gives a good picture of what happened and my 3 points are not covered. But I have to review your sources and, I reinforce, I accept your good faith). As I said before, I will think for a while how to proceed.

Sorry if sometimes I look more aggressive, but there were things in the way you preceded that disturbs me (and sometimes I also committed the fault of judging all editors as a group identity. I’m also sorry about that).

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I accept the apology and offer my own as well. I also realize that part of this was exacerbated by my brusque dismissal of your critique, before having fully understood it. If you can explain to me why you don't feel the current version is adequate I am sure we can find a way to improve it cooperatively.

Dear Manus. I can't tell you how glad I'm for us to have arrived to this tone (if not yet to the content). I can see you are doing a real effort to understand both positions and give them voice.

I believe the best way for us to go forward is to try to arrive to common ground, using authors that make an effort to build a bridge between both "traditions" and to go step by step and not try to discuss everything at once. I will select one point and suggest a paragraph from another author that I consider pertinent to the subject, and that can highlight the pertinence to the specific critique from Derrida that I think should be more explicit (and less "vague").

"rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional "parasites" are not things found in nature"

Lets concentrate our selves in this paragraph from Derrida for now (and please, remember that not only “speech acts” as well as “institutions” are important here:

c)what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc.)? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules, and even the statements of the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional "parasites" are not things found in nature, but laws, symbolic inventions, or conventions, INSTITUTIONS that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.

Please consider this paragraph from Umberto Eco (one of the main "fathers" of contemporary semiotics and the author of "Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language"). This paragraph is from the article "Sign", in Encyclopedia Einaudi (one of the most important encyclopedias in "continental Europe”, to which some of the most prominent intellectuals and scientist from the XX century contributed, vol. 43, “Systematic” p. 108, after exposing the example of divergences about the concept of "Denotation" in Stuart Mill and Hjelmslev, concluded that:

“the reason for the confusions is not accidental, nor Esperanto full of goodwill will be able to solve it. It is that the semiotic thought presents itself, from the beginning, as always divided by a dilemma and marked by a choice, more or less implicit, that guides the thinker:

is it his task when studying languages

to know when and how to refer to things properly (problem of truth)

or to ask how and when they are used to produce beliefs?

Or, downstream of any terminological choice, there is a deeper choice between

transparent systems of signification about things

or systems of signification as producers of reality.

Pathetic confidentiality of this division, the two sides of the fence, when the division is manifested, rates the opponent as idealist (at least in more recent times).

I hope this can help you to figure out what I think is important to highlight here. I’m not expecting you to change anything "now". Please, think for a while about these paragraphs. Lets both return here in a week. Read again your contributions and see if we should change anything.

Have a nice week

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Revert to previous version that we could agree

Once you: a) agree this is an important subject b) you are not familiar with the subect c) I don't have to accept your authority and I don't give the legitimacy to delete my contributions, I will revert to the moment you made your first changes and that I could agree with. We start the editing from there.

If you want to do any changes, please, publish it here first and lets do it together.

Thanks Best regards --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is not how it works. Nobody needs any particular authority to revert your work - when you click "save" you agree to give anyone in the world legitimacy to delete or change your contributions. because I respect you as a scholar and a philosopher I will not make any changes to the article form now on, or engage in more discussion. But I will note that I do not consider your additions an overall improvement to the article - not because they are not good scholarship, because they are, but because they do not fit the formal criteria for how an encyclopedia presents its material. I am supposed you probably don't care much for such formal criteria - but consider if you were asked to contribute an article on the scholarship of Searle to the Cambridge Handbook of Philosophy - whether you would write it in the way you did here? I find it hard to believe that the handbook would accept it without very heavy editing. The principle here is the same - there is a standard for how articles are supposed to be. Part of that standard is that they are supposed to describe the topic in general without going into undue details about particular minor issues. Happy editing. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please reconsider. You don't have to accept anyone's "authority", but you do have to accept consensus, because that's how Wikipedia operates. See WP:CONSENSUS. Many of your changes here have not found acceptance in the past, and have been rejected by multiple editors, so if you insist on making them again it's likely that they will simply be reverted again. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, be more explicit and give arguments. I believe the ones you gave before were considered not valid (lack of information about the subject)

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

To whom is that comment addressed, myself or Maunus? I don't believe any arguments I made were "considered not valid", except perhaps by you. The problem here has always been the same: you want to add too much detail, the kind that isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. See WP:DUE. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

My comment was addressed to both of you. You can't come to me and think you are the owner of truth and you establish the criterion (even when you are not able to do so). Please, be polite. You are not the owner and you are not familair with the subject. You should spend your time with articles you know something about it. If you were honnest (and you just need to go back and read, you will remember that your "arguments" changed during the discussion (and in the end Manus published a much larger paragraph than the one I proposed).

If you want to do some positive contributions, please suggest it here so we can get an agreement. I have mixed my contributions with Manus one's. Please, do the same and respect your interlocutor.Try to understand wikipedia spirit (and what is pluralism)

What exactly you don't understand or you think is not useful to explain Derrida's critics? You have the quotes. Try to paraphrase it. --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should reread WP:CIVIL. Ranting, semi-incoherent comments like those you made above don't help you make your case, and they aren't welcome. The objections to the material you want to include have already been stated several times, and I don't see much point in repeating them.

However, let's try. Part of the material you wanted to include was, "Derrida than criticized Searle's work for intending to talk about "intention" without being aware of traditional texts about the subject and without even understanding Husserl's work when talking about it. Because he ignored the tradition he rested blindly imprisoned in it, repeating its most problematic gestures, falling short of the most elementary critical questions. Derrida would even argue that in a certain way he was more close to Austin than Searle that, in fact, was more close to continental philosophers that he himself tried to criticize." That's all terribly vague. What traditional texts are being referred to, what problematic gestures, and which elementary critical questions?What was the "certain way" in which Derrida was closer to Austin? It's all terribly vague and quite unhelpful to readers. It's also probably more appropriate for other articles, eg, Limited Inc. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"Remove material ONLY where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers"2

See alsoNPOV noticeboard --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC) "You have not presented any alternative proposals incorporating the concerns of other editors. Doing so would be the way forward" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not the only applicable policy since nobody is removing the material because of NPOV concerns. It is perfectly acceptable to remove any material if there is consensus to do so, if it judged to not be an improvement to the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Who says so? Who decides about the "applicable policy"? You?

I say you don't have a neutral point of view. That is 100% clear to me and you don't respect my contributions. You act like you were the owner of truth. You use symbolic violence and unilateral deleting and editing. I try to combine your contributions with mine. I made "alternative proposals incorporating the concerns of other editors. Doing so would be the way forward"

Do you really think your "contribution" explains better than my paraphrase of Derrida, what were the critics from Derrida? really? Or simply don't care about it? Please, be honest.. What do you want to delete this time and WHY? I will tell you what I think we could delete instead from your contribution (not an improvement to the article)...

--89.152.84.65 (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Professor, I have not removed your additions and I will not, because I respect you as a scholar. I do however encourage you to try to be a little more aware of the situation - there are several editors who do not feel that your additions are an improvement to the article. The removal is therefore not unilateral. Your new version did not incorporate the main concern of other editors - namely that the topic received too much attention relative to the larger work of Searle and that the particular text you proposed was not well written. It just combined the text written by me and by you into a large mishmash. You are free to remove anything from my version that you find erroneous or misleading. What is not acceptable to others is that you insist on including a disproportionate block of poorly written text into the article. No editor would accept this either if you were publishing a professional article about Searle. You need to work with other editors not against them. I do not claim expertise on Searle and never have, but I do claim expertise on how to write this particular encyclopedia - that is expertise that you clearly do not have. Therefore we need to work together and not just stubbornly stick to our own versions. As for neutral points of view - it is clear i don't have a neutral poin of view, neither do you (by definitions points of view are not neutral). That is not what the policy you cite is about - it is about maintaining a neutral point of view in the article. The reason your text was removed was not that it was non-neutral (although actually it wasn't), but that it was poorly written and gave exaggerated importance to a minor part of the topic of the article. And now please listen: I have not now and will not remove your additions from the article. Don't hold me responsible for others' actions. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

“ tenho estado a acompanhar esta disputa” e realmente não compreendo porque querem apagar a contribuição do Hibrido que é pertinente e bem fundamentada. Ele permitiu a edição dos outros, parece-me que é de respeitar a dele, que parece bem informada (pelo menos mais bem informada do que a dos demais editores que já demonstraram e admitiram não dominar o tema” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofia Almeida (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Dominando o tema não é suficiente. É preciso também ser capaz de escrever Inglês acadêmico coerente. E deve-se considerar a coerência geral do artigo, que é de cerca de John Searle e os seus pensamentos, dos quais o debate Derrida-Searle é apenas um capítulo muito pequeno.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but one thing is to correct grammar, another one is to delete content. I’m not the most competent person to correct English (it looks ok for me, especially after reading Derrida’s quotes). And I from what I can read Hibrido will thank you for that. But you are doing much more than that… aren’t you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofia Almeida (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am actually not doing anything at all - apart from encouraging Hibrido to cooperate instead of just stubbornly insisting on his version that doesn't conform to the styleguide for the wikipedia in the way it is written and formatted and in the way it devotes a large amount of space to a minor subtopic within a larger article. I think the best solution would be to have a separate article on the Searle-Derrida debate and summarise it very briefly here with a link to the larger article. Then Hibrido could write at length about the topic that interests him without high-jacking the article on Searle to describe an issue that was obviously much more important to Derrida than it was to Searle. Searle never himself considered that exchange to be of any significance for his thinking.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I just finished reading this "dispute".

Well, saying that Derrida criticized Searle for not "being aware of traditional texts about the subject" is NOT being "opinionated" - is being precise. Derrida himself said it:

«I sometimes felt, paradoxically, closer to Austin than to a certain Continental tradition from which Searle, on the contrary, has inherited numer­ous gestures and a logic I try to deconstruct. I now have to add this: it is often because "Searle" ignores this tradition or pretends to take no account of it that he rests blindly imprisoned in it, repeating its most problematic gestures, falling short of the most elementary critical questions, not to mention the deconstruc­tive ones. It is because in appearance at least "I" am more of a historian that am a less passive, more attentive and more "deconstructive" heir of that so-called tradition. And hence, perhaps again paradoxically, more foreign to that tradition.» ("Limited Inc.", p. 130)

If Wikipedia is not about "misinforming" or "misleading" people, it's better to keep up with the source, as close as possible.

"Criticism from Derrida should be based on secondary sources, not on the writings of Searle and Derrida themselves"?!

How can someone seriously defend that an encyclopedia should not take into account the original sources? From an academic point of view, that's an weird thing to say... If we are supposed to build an encyclopedia based on "word-of-mouth", we should call ourselves "gossip tellers".

Someone allegedly said that Searle-Derrida debate is "a minor part of the topic of the article". Though, if the Searle-Derrida debate is "minor", then the role that intentionality plays in Searle's work is "minor", too. Why mention it at all? You see that there are consequences...

We cannot consider "minor" a fundamental critique to someone's major work without consider that major work "minor", too. Are you willing to remove "Intentionality" topic from this article?

In fact, presenting Derrida's arguments turns Searle's theory more interesting.

It's a pity if someone decide to truncate it.

Sonduarte (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well come to wikipedia Sonduarte. The policy that dictates that wikipedia should use secondary sources is WP:RS which stipulates that we must only include viewpoints that have already been advanced by others because our primary role is to summarise, not to interpret primary sources. Therefore our interpretations and summaries of primary sources must have been advanced previously by other scholars. This way we strive to keep wikipedia from publishing Original Research. You are very welcome to participate in writing wikipedia, but it is a good strategy to start by familiarizing oneself with out policies and practices. Also as I have said, Searle did not consider Derrida's critique to be substantial or to have any bearings on his general philosophy. No one is arguing that the debate should be nexluded - but it should not be the largest part of the article. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

That policy "dictates" this too:

«To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.»

Are those 2 policies supposed to enter in contradiction?

Of course, Searle would dismiss forever Derrida's critique (if he could...). Searle, as a theorist, is usually not the type that "flirts" with the enemy.

Sun Tzu is. "Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer".

Sonduarte (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No and they don't enter into contradiction - it is because you you are quoting a phrase in the policy out of context - the policy says that whe you quote someone you must cite the source of the quote. It does not say that we must quote primary sources for every claim, indeed that would contradict the policy that clearly says that primary sources should be used sparingly and with extreme care. Very few articles incorporate large quotes and when they do they only do so when there is explicit agreement that the quotes should be included. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"Explicit agreement"? Does it mean "consensus" by certain "legislators"? Sonduarte (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No it does not - it means a consensus based on policy among the group of editors participating in the discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sofia and Sonduarte.

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What happens if that "consensus" doesn't arise? Do we vote democratically? Or it is decided by any hierarchichal role within Wikipedia (which means that some would impose their personal preferences and views on others)? I really would like to know that, just in case I decide to edit more than I previously did, depending on how it works.

Ahahah - I'm certainly not a "sockpuppet" of Hibrido, but that's a funny idea. Similarly, I could think of you as a "sockpuppet" of Searle legion of fans... ;-)) Sonduarte (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Toward An Ethic of Discussion

Dear Manus, your "contribution" to this section is now 4.500 characters. Mine is 2.000: 9 sentences. To each "sentence" (a paraphrase of Derrida) you have a full quotation I offer to the community so we can try to build a final text. Are we able to do it together?

These are the sentences. Can you explain me why you want to delete it? 1) Derrida argued that Searle avoided reading him[31]

2) and did not try to understand him and even that, perhaps, he was not able to understand, and how certain practices of academic politeness or impoliteness could result in a form of brutality that he disapproved of and would like to disarm, in his fashion.[45]

3) Derrida than criticized Searle's work for intending to talk about "intention" without being aware of traditional texts about the subject and without even understanding Husserl's work when talking about it.[46]

4)Because he ignored the tradition he rested blindly imprisoned in it, repeating its most problematic gestures, falling short of the most elementary critical questions.[47]

5) Derrida would even argue that in a certain way he was more close to Austin than Searle that, in fact, was more close to continental philosophers that he himself tried to criticize.[48]

6) He would also argue about the problem he found in the constant appeal to "normality" in the analytical tradition from which Austin and Searle were only paradigmatic examples.[49]

7) He continued arguing how problematic was establishing the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, “for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were”.[50]

8)He would finally argue that the indispensable question is:[51]

9) what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc.)? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules, and even the statements of the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites," are not things found in nature, but laws, symbolic inventions, or conventions, institutions that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.

You can edit the form if you respect the content (or give arguments me and other editors can accept) Thanks Best regards --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS. You cannot dictate article content, nor do other editors have to give arguments you can accept, if a consensus supports a position you disagree with. We go by Wikipedia policy here, not your dictates. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You and Manus are two (and Manus disapproves your behavior from what I can understand). ofia and Sonduarte don't agree with you. Please, lets wait for a moderator... try to review your behavior. You are not the owner of wikipedia... can you understand how other people interpret your behavior? Please, give arguments. I don't want to get into personal discussions with you.

Can you act "rationally" and respect difference? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, kindly review WP:CIVIL. I have given arguments. You have ignored them. Try being a little more concerned with your own behavior, especially the edit warring, which isn't doing you any favors. Regarding "ofia" and "Sonduarte", there appears to be a suspicion that these accounts are sockpuppets of yours, or editors you have recruited to Wikipedia because they agree with you. I apologize if the suspicion is incorrect, but it needs to be investigated. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You have given arguments? Sorry, I don't remember (was it about no one talked about it?). Can you give them again, please?

Regarding "sockpuppets"... I don't need it, thanks. I believe it is easy to check it. I don't need to recruite. But believe me, this page is being watched by other people that are curious to see how this is going to end (there is facebook now for us to share things and it is easy to funny things to become viral, I believe. There is people laughing a lot to (for some people that "agrees" with me, this is really funny, believe me). I didn't ask explicitly for Sonia or Sonduarte's help (but I can imagine who they are). I'm glad they felt stimulated to give their opinion (if they are who I think they are, wikipedia got some good new editors.. if they understand it is easy and it can make a difference). But my contribution here is 100% personal. I want to see if my contribution can be assimilated (and it doesn't matter who I'm). I'm giving valid content. Can it get a proper form?

Please, give your arguments and stop personal attacks. Lets try to keep it rational (is this possible?)

Thanks

I gave my arguments above, in the section called "Revert to previous version that we could agree." It might have been easier for you to find them if you hadn't clogged this talk page with so many long-winded comments of your own. Fundamentally, the problem is that you want to include much more detail here about Searle's dispute with Derrida than is appropriate for this article. I've asked you to review WP:DUE, but you seem to have ignored it. The material you want to add is more suitable to Limited Inc, and since most of it is already there, there's no need to include it here too. Instead of responding to this point, you have engaged in ranting and complaints about me, and it's getting increasingly tedious to deal with. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean here? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC) - Sorry, there were many other editors talking after that section (but before your contribution). My possible answers to your comments below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs)

"Reaching consensus through discussion"

When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerned. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view. --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Manus, your "contribution" to this section is now 4.500 characters. Mine is 2.000: 9 sentences. To each "sentence" (a paraphrase of Derrida) you have a full quotation I offer to the community so we can try to build a final text. Are we able to do it together?

These are the sentences. Can you explain me why you want to delete it? 1) Derrida argued that Searle avoided reading him[31]

2) and did not try to understand him and even that, perhaps, he was not able to understand, and how certain practices of academic politeness or impoliteness could result in a form of brutality that he disapproved of and would like to disarm, in his fashion.[45]

3) Derrida than criticized Searle's work for intending to talk about "intention" without being aware of traditional texts about the subject and without even understanding Husserl's work when talking about it.[46]

4)Because he ignored the tradition he rested blindly imprisoned in it, repeating its most problematic gestures, falling short of the most elementary critical questions.[47]

5) Derrida would even argue that in a certain way he was more close to Austin than Searle that, in fact, was more close to continental philosophers that he himself tried to criticize.[48]

6) He would also argue about the problem he found in the constant appeal to "normality" in the analytical tradition from which Austin and Searle were only paradigmatic examples.[49]

7) He continued arguing how problematic was establishing the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, “for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were”.[50]

8)He would finally argue that the indispensable question is:[51]

9) what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc.)? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules, and even the statements of the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites," are not things found in nature, but laws, symbolic inventions, or conventions, institutions that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.

You can edit the form if you respect the content (or give arguments me and other editors can accept)

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC):

A) What traditional texts are being referred to,

B) what problematic gestures,

C) and which elementary critical questions?

D) What was the "certain way" in which Derrida was closer to Austin?

(no comments about: 4;6;7;8-I assume they are ok).

I accept to remove B, C, D

About

A=3

"Derrida than criticized Searle's work for intending to talk about "intention" without being aware of traditional texts about the subject and without even understanding Husserl's work when talking about it.[46]

Quotation supporting this are:

Derrida:

i) "My frequenting of philosophies and phenomenologies of intentionality, beginning with that of Husserl, has only caused my uncertainty to increase, as well as my distrust of this word or of this figure, I hardly dare to say "concept." And since that time, Searle's book on intentionality (1983) has not helped me, not in the slightest, to dispel these concerns. I did not read it without interest, far from it."

Please, note this is not an "opinion" from Derrida, but facts. It is Searle that says that (Intentionality; 1983 p.ix):

"I am even ready to admire how the author of a book bearing this title, Intentionality, could choose, as he declares at the very outset, in the Introduction, to "pass over in silence" "whole philosophical movements" which "have been built around theories of intentionality," avowing, as one of his reasons, " ignorance of most of the traditional writings on Intentionality" (p. ix) . Something that is indeed evident in reading the seven lines devoted to Husserl in this book of three hundred pages."

How can we make it more clear to the readers that comes here that Derrida doesn't approve authors that give "as one of his reasons, " ignorance of most of the traditional writings on Intentionality" (p. ix) .

I also call your attention to this: "I put quotation marks around "Searle" and "I" to mark that beyond these indexes, I am aiming at tendencies, types, styles, or situations rather than at persons."

These are my arguments. I accept suggestions from other editors to make B-3 less vague. I'm going to delete the other sentences you are not comfortable with.

I believe in the end, we can delete most of the "quotations" from the footnotes (I accepted it in the past I will accept it in the future). But for now, lets keep it so we can all have access to it.

Thanks --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've also removed this: Derrida argued that Searle avoided reading him

"...I have read some of his [Searle's] work (more, in any case, than he seems to have read of mine)"[10]</ref> and did not try to understand him and even that, perhaps, he was not able to understand, and how certain practices of academic politeness or impoliteness could result in a form of brutality that he disapproved of and would like to disarm, in his fashion.

Jacques Derrida, "Afterwords" in 'Limited, Inc.' (Northwestern University Press, 1988) p.158,

beneath an often quite manifest exterior, Searle had read me, or rather avoided reading me and trying to understand. And why, perhaps, he was not able to read me, why this inability was exemplary and symptomatic. And for him lasting, doubtless irreversible, as I have since learned through the press. In a more general way, I wanted to show how certain practices of academic politeness or impoliteness could result in a form of brutality that I disapprove of and would like to disarm, in my fashion. To put it even more generally, and perhaps more essentially, I would have wished to make legible the (philosophical, ethical, political) axiomatics hidden beneath the code of academic discussion.

--95.92.145.46 (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)