The constantive utterance and performative utterance found by Austin are amazing. Locutionary, illocutionary, and the prelocutionary concept are now becoming popular discourses in many universities around the world.

I don't believe someone clipped my favourite segment from Searle's online lectures 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@alimuhdar9702

3 ай бұрын

Hi, do you know where to watch the full version of this clip? I searched it on YT and Google but I haven't found it yet

this is awesome! Thank you!

J.L. Austin. He was interested in philosophy of language. I'd recommend the book How to do Things with Words. It's a collection of some of his lectures and was easy to understand and would give you a great introduction to philosophy of language.

Good evening FaceVampire, thank you for uploading this insightful speech of John Searle. Yours sincerely, PlayerOPS

In 1940 Austin gave a paper in Cambridge, "The Meaning of a Word" which explicitly used ideas from the Blue Book. There's no argument any more.

It depends what you're calling 'influence'. If the intellectual histories Searle is referring to mean something like 'agreement and development' of Wittgenstein, then it seems that in light of this video that would be a misleading way to charaterise Austin's philosophy. You on the other hand seem to be thinking of 'influence' more inclusively, to encompass 'react to, argue against' etc. in which case, clearly there is a case for saying that Wittgenstein 'influenced' Austin in some way.

I think even Dick van Dyke could criticise Searle's attempt at Austin's voice

Looks like he's moving in the beginning.

Any time. I'm sorry that I can't really sum up any of his arguments/views; it would just take too long, lol.

Good upload! In social sciences there's alot of references to performatives (speech acts sometimes as a part of it and sometimes speech acts are exactly what they are refering to.) But I seldom Come across references to John R. Searle when talking about speech acts and performatives, only feministic thinkers and Jaques Derrida. This seems lika a great loss for the social sciences to me since Searle is so brilliant in my opinion. Why do you think it is so? Is he less useful or less trendy? Both?

I know John Searle and Judith Butler have studied performatives and performativity (perhaps in different ways). I know Butler is in the Critical Theory Program, and Searle is in the Philosophy program. They might brush shoulders, they could talk. But about philosophy? It would genuinely surprise me if Searle considered what she was doing philosophy. This idea that society when it declares ambiguous looking genitalia (and really the medical institution) male or female are engaging in a speech act, on the face of it, Searle might agree. This idea that dressing boys in blue (or boys dressing themselves in blue) and dressing girls in pink, or drinking beer if masculine male, and wine if feminine female (or manly or girly cocktails, respectively) is a performative act that defines gender? Perhaps he would agree with that statement. But, the statement that "gender is a thing that we do", I don't know.

Just to the contrary. Wittgenstein has always aid exactly that there is only one way of using language. As a picture of the wolrd, in his first phase (how naive), and as the way we use it, in the second phase (the real one). EXACTLY, there is only one way to use language, namely, the way we use it. There are "infinite" "language games". Don't expect Searle to understand the difference.

@kihondosa4

10 жыл бұрын

poor reflection. Wittgenstein hardly made any judgmental statements as he believed in propositional statements rather than descriptive. Don't get Wittgenstein, then don't argue. EXACTLY

Serle attacks the claim that Wittgenstein influenced Austin because they were exact opposites. Ironically Serle argues against his stated claim because the examples he gives show that Austin was inspired by Wittgenstein to do the exact opposite If anything, Serle proves Wittgenstein inspired Austin on what NOT to do. That proves Wittgenstein did in fact influence Austin. Wittgenstein was a persist referent Austin's work, albeit it negative. For example, some may be inspired by Serle never to wear a tie.

W. said that philosophy can only describe. All propositions of philosophy are misunderstanding of language. Only science can explain. Of course, I am not talking about his first naive and senselles book of his.

W. said that philosophy can only describe. That all propositions of philosophy arise from misunderstanding of language. And only science can explain. Of course, this WAS not his position in that first naive book of his.