John Searle on the Philosophy of Language: Section 1

[ReX342]

"like yourselves...like yourself!" Funny moment :)

[BlackSabotage100]

What are words?

[TheDavid2222]

What's funny is that Bryan Magee DESTROYED the entire idea of the "philosophy of language" in only a few pages in his book "Confessions of a Philosopher". I highly recommend the book. He dismantles the logical positivists and the linguistic philosophers with ease. I actually laughed aloud at how quickly they were dispatched!

[scruethedemiurge]

@TheDavid2222 I disagree with you. Magee dismantled the idea that our catagories of experience are entirely or even mainly linguistic. Are catagories of experience are however to a large part linguistic and I don't think even Magee would argue against that.

And yes it is a damn good book.

[TheDavid2222]

@scruethedemiurge I guess your right. He was mainly criticizing the overemphasis on language.

[skunkeet]

What year was this?

[suddenlyitsobvious]

*creatively visualize something that's not there or reinterpret something that is.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

...besides linguistic commands to achieve this feat, and animals can do the same, after all a dog will drool at the thought of a bone that's not there.

Deaf and dumb people have as far as I know not been shown to be less prone to creative imagining and conceptualizing; if anything their interior lives appear to be more developed...

[suddenlyitsobvious]

I think Searle's example at 5:25 is contrived, and though no one disputes the convenience of language for transmitting conceptual notions, his example doesn't capture the essential necessity of language for conceptualizations as he is trying to argue.

The change in perception of the triangle resulting from an interchange of the denominations 'apex' and 'base' merely shows language is used to transmit a command to creatively visualize something that's not there. There are other means...

[fr0zenactivist]

The audio is out of sync :(

[doombybbr]

1:15..... we cannot tell if "the animals" have a language - or multiple... we do so i do not see why we do not believe that animals do.... we just cannot speak or interprate it.

[arrbn]

Never have I found such quality material uploaded to YouTube. I applaud you, sir.

[MsHima25]

thank u soo much for uploading such videos.

[craigpsimpson]

When the dryness that lingers in certain braches of philosophy starts getting tiresome, philosophy of language comes to the rescue.

[AEFic]

Damn, NEW FAVORITE CHANNEL!

[lightandbeautiful]

The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate than the word "gay".

A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.

Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.

[KeeperOfProphecies]

I do not see how any of that banal rhetoric is relevant to Searle, or the philosophy of language.

[GaeilgeSpraoi]

@lightandbeautiful The word "gay" is a more familiar and less scientific word for "homosexual". Many gay people like myself, prefer this word. Yes there are differences but regardless, people should have the right to equal treatment and protection from discrimination. So you're saying that gays aren't discriminated against but rather paint an image of a victim of themselves? Please, I've heard this bullshit before! You really ought to get out more!

[palealeable]

I mean it's our daily experience to create maybe a neologism that express our inner feeling; first comes the feeling then the word or idea, which in many ways are the same thing.

[palealeable]

The words Love and Hate surely influence our experience of the world but I completely disagree that it's a demonstration of the foundation of our experience on language, I mean, how the first man who said Love is supposed to have picked that word up? Is it because of a sort of innatism of words?

[niriop]

Searle as social philosopher and philosopher of language is marvelous; as philosopher of mind and political commentator, erm, not so much...

[darklord220]

@niriop shutup. John Searle pwns the philosophy of mind.

[niriop]

@darklord220 Wow, adpt rebuttal for a fucking idiot.

[darklord220]

@niriop adpt? You performatively pwned yourself.

[niriop]

@darklord220 Your fucking idiocy still speaks for itself. What am I doing; they say don't feed the trolls, especially the mestizo white supremacist trolls...

[darklord220]

@niriop adpt is a word you can find in the dictionary.

[niriop]

@darklord220 Do you have any constructive arguments in favour of John Searle's biological naturalist theory of mind or are you just going to be a winging little bitch? Have you come out of the closet yet by the way?

[darklord220]

@niriop Um...I think John Searle lays out his arguments for bio. naturalism quite well enough already, though it is very probable that you do not understand them. I'm not the one who said "...as a philosopher of mind and political commenter, erm, not so much...", looks like you have a magnificent counterargument that John Searle has never heard of.

[niriop]

@darklord220 Searle is inconsistent and vague for the most part, and Dennett in "Consciousness Explained" and Chris Hill in "Sensations" fuck him over pretty well. "though it is very probable that you do not understand them" Arrogant little twat; you've probably never even read the original essay

"I'm not the one who said" What an anal little shit you are; I fucking know that you dim fuck, everybody knows that, why are employing such a rhetorical style that makes look so cunt-ish?

[acernera]

Every video is a video of a younger person. Thanks for sharing this... What a great mind!

[jimbopumbapigsticks]

Can you be a linguistic philosopher of language?

[ChessJew]

@jimbopumbapigsticks Sure. In fact, philosophy of language is necessarily becoming more linguistic by becoming more scientific, i.e. focusing on neurology, genetics, and the real scientific nuts and bolts of language.

[MikkalaTube]

@jimbopumbapigsticks

Uhhh...Don't look now, but I think you answered your own question.

~Cheers!

[corc7614]

@jimbopumbapigsticks Noam Chomsky

[scottvska]

This sounds Kantian.

[breathlessloveless]

Thank you! This beats trawling through mounds and mounds of irrelevant articles on the internet and books.

[LShiznit]

lol road scholar indeed

[kaloleng]

Goodness. Just imagine the goods things these bright men could do if they directed all their genius, time, and energy to solving man's suffering, instead of trying to smell their coffee using their index fingers.

[Rainbowvanguard]

Philosophy on TV? Wuuuuuuuuuut??

[glassboy]

A comment on this series of videos: it's a total trip to see what Searle and Singer looked like when they were young.

Also, thank you flame very, very much for uploading this series, I've gained quite a bit watching them. Your work is perhaps the best contribution to youtube in its history.

[miguelmouta]

@glassboy Indeed. The trip to ageing and death. What nature deserves for man, but not for nature itself.

[gokahnslm]

subhanallah kardeş ibretlik bir paylaşım...

[alanrich1000]

Language is not transparent, many experiences would be impossible without language and the linguistic categories we create, the words are part of the experience, very few people would fall in love if they had never read about it, what counts as reality is a function of the system of representation we bring to bear on experience - very thought provoking.

[deutscharsch]

@alanrich1000quotating la rochefoucald wont help you here. how do you want to conceptualize something without a language. its the same mistake Augustinus did in his confesiones..you cannot experience something without having a language to think in.

[intodustanddeath]

Where are these shows today. Much missed.

[natedaug1]

Damn look how young Searle is here.

[lindmusik]

How come they never make these kinds of programs anymore? Because people are getting more alienated and most TV channels prefers making easy money out of simple crap? Could be. It's a question worth discussing.

Thanks for posting this anyway!

[rucha58]

Great interview; the interviewer and interviewee are both clear, concise, logical, and incredibly intelligent.

[1980Jonno]

Fantastic, a real joy to watch, thank you

[marcotenshi]

It's also a bit odd to think that we had to wait until language before we could have abstract concepts of things. And just because linguistic concepts marry with concepts doesn't prove we need language to perceive a glass of water as such... Unless the argument is a pure word game... In that the experience of a "glass of water" requires "glass of water" in our lexicon.

[marcotenshi]

The glass example is fuzzy. Having language just means you have a label. A dog might not have a concept of water (questionable) but having a concept of water isn't made possible by language. And having experiences only possible by language is banal: experience of language requires language...so what?

[1noen1]

Look at those WIDE 70's ties!

[benvtucker15]

Is this almost a "neo-rationalist" idea?

[CTY801CTY]

Hey I was reading about Searle in some book by an Australian Philosopher. I think it was called the Blake-Feyerabend Hypothesis. T. Hoswell I think. - He used Searle to disprove Dennett or something.

[rchlboyd]

thanks for posting these ... the whole series is a gem

[LittleMrSong]

Interesting, although at 8:30 he's clearly talking crap. Plenty of people created art that reflected upon art prior to the 20th century. Shakespeare wrote numerous plays which included characters who were practising and performing plays themselves, to give but one example.

[lysis28]

@LittleMrSong You're absolutely right; I think he's just accentuating the increased self-reflectivity of the modern subject (as opposed to a nineteenth-century sensibility, for example).

[simplycharly]

Searle is a master at making complex ideas easy to understand.

[ryko26]

My dogs loves bones and hates cats. Does this mean he's been reading about them?

I've never heard such a pile of bullshit.

[soultorment27]

@ryko26:

your dogs love bones. my dogs do too. but the context is in regards to the concept of "falling in love". you merely used the word "love" in a different sense. your dogs desire bones, but they do not have romantic concepts about "falling in love" with bones.

[ryko26]

@soultorment27 Well my point was that just because we have language to describe the feelings of desire that doesn't mean the feeling is necessarily different. Does that make sense?

[soultorment27]

@ryko26:

your example (even if valid) would not show that qualitative 'experiences' or 'sensations' would be identical without language. your example only shows that conscious creatures can have sensations. and with that i agree!

[Burdell22000]

You shall experiment further by presenting a cat-bone to your dog

[dmanister]

If water could not be seen without language, animals would die of thirst. We are animals too, to a greater extent than the theory that experience is shaped by language allows. Heidegger explains how we go through a door without thinking "door." Duh.

[BearsEatBeats914]

Your example about animals dying of thirst is false for two reasons: first, all sorts of non-conscious organisms require water to survive and they acquire it without the ability to have any experience such as seeing at all. Second, even a conscious animal, a dog for instance, doesn't need to "know" that it needs water to go and get some. It forms a connection between the sensation of thirst and the water seeking behavior by operating on the environment when it's a pup.

[dmanister]

Dear Bears,

Aren't you agreeing with me? Water can be perceived without language. You seem to make this point yourself. Unless you think we are categorically different from all other forms of life.

[BearsEatBeats914]

Well, I think that the animals can see the substance we call water as do Searle and Wittgenstein. But what they're saying is, "seeing the substance we call water is not the same as seeing water." The difference being that since non human animals have no concepts of 'substance' and 'water,' they can't see the stuff as water and therefore can't have the same experience. The dog can walk through the door without knowing it has done so; we know we're walking through a door.

[rizlas2]

Language is our most important technology...

[147yearsplustruelove]

Keeping in mind the resourcefulness of words, our conscious and subconscious responsiveness to them, how they make us feel, how they "affect" our thoughts beyond simply "expressing" or "articulating" them raises a lot of questions, if for example, we consider either a karmic perspective, or a technological one, (although they connect) . Regarding technology, we know that we give a computer orders based on "understandings" or "encrypted meanings" i think we could project word thoughts...

[archdeaconj]

I do not think that this example of Wittgenstein's amounts to very much. Yes, we can switch our perception of a triangle so that we see a different apex and base and it is true, we 'see' a different triangle. But a dog can do much the same. Of course, he doesn't have Euclidean concepts of apex and base, yet if it has to sleep in a different corner to the one it has been accustomed to, then it too 'sees' a different room, in much the same way we 'see' a different triangle.

[BearsEatBeats914]

The point you mentioned about the dog not having the concepts of apex and base is precisely the reason why the example is informative. Your example of the dog seeing a different room is mistaken because he doesn't see a "room." He has no concept of "a room." He may in a sense have a different experience of his new corner (due to his sensation and perception of it), but his experience must differ from ours because of his inability to comprehend the idea of being "in a corner" or "in a room."

[archdeaconj]

I agree that the dog doesnt see a room only a human can see a room. Wittgenstein is surely right that without language I would not see a room. What I am saying is that this example doesnt seem to me to demonstrate this. It demonstrates only that we can see different things in the same sense data. You dont have to bring in language to show this to be true (as with the dog). I too see a different triangle or whatever if I have merely a different intentional stance toward it.

[BearsEatBeats914]

I think I see what you are saying now. You said, 'yes we can switch our perception so that we see a different base and appex, and thus a different triangle.' But, the example is supposed to show that without the concepts of apex and base, we couldn't see 1 triangle, 2 triangles, or any triangles at all for that matter. He's just trying to highlight the role of concepts in our visual experience. So, in that sense, our use of concepts allows us to "see" something totally different from the dog.

[archdeaconj]

I don't want to labour this point about the example not seeming to me to be a good one, which is such a minor point, since I agree with Wittgenstein (and Searle) that if it weren't for language you wouldn't see a triangle, glass of water...or whatever, but something else (something phenomenologically apprehended beyond cognitive / linguistic reality). The glass or whatever is a public not a private thing, moreover, since meaning is shared among individuals speaking a particular language.

[polpoint]

Transforming my non-linguistic thoughts into words that I can use to completely communicate my thoughts with other people is one of my biggest problems! Most of my thinking seems to be non-linguistic and it clashes somewhat when it has contact with my linguistic thought patterns. But then again, I can actually describe my linguistic thoughts. My non-linguistic thoughts can only be loosely translated into words! (and exclamation points)

[ocaramap]

Thanks so much for posting all the John Searle talks---greatly appreciated!

[MorganshipCaptain]

Arrr, shiver me timbers, here be the real John Searle.

[EvodiusTheophile]

I love Searle

[lordkelvin1]

I saw this on swedish television at 22:30 yesterday and got real hooked actually :D.

The episode about Spinoza vs. Leibniz

(im 16 ^^ but dont see that as a hindrance realy).

[kalicandy]

Wow. Listening to Searl is a lot more interesting than reading about his theories.

[amethystex0dus]

I agree completely. Good thing I've got Searle to explain his theories to me before I actually have to read them!

[showboatingbastard]

I'm sorry, philosophy or no philosophy, I just don't want to live in a world without Michael Jackson.

[SpiritmanProductions]

Is this chap claiming that one can't consciously perceive and delineate an object or experience without prior knowledge of some linguistic description of it? If so, then anyone born deaf who has received no training in sign language, anyone born deaf and blind, and all babies, have lives that are completely devoid both of conscious experiences and the ability to identify and use objects. Daft as a box of frogs, if you ask me.

[amethystex0dus]

No, Searle believes that all humans are born with a universal language of sorts with the capability to shape/translate it to fit with the culture they grow up in. If one is born blind or deaf, they would simply not have that initial intuition for language translated into spoken words, so they would still have all the conscious experiences as usual.

[ThinkFilozofio]

No, that's not correct. We can be conscious w/out the concepts, but in this case all we have are a rhapsody of experiences. So babies can't pick out objects, (according to Searle), but they just experience color blobs.

[AirplaneRadio]

Is he saying you can have the experience but not in the same fashion as one who can put it into linguistic terms? I can lie on a bed, but if I am devoid of any training to communicate to others, how can I communicate even to myself? It can't be put to words, can it? Or have I misread you?

[SpiritmanProductions]

Why does it need to be "communicated to yourself"? You simply experience lying on a bed. Language is only required to convey a thought to somebody else.

When you walk down the street do you constantly say in your mind: "I am putting my right foot in front of my left foot ... I am putting my left foot in front of my right foot ... I can feel a breeze on my face ... This bag is quite heavy ... I will carry it in my other hand ... etc. If you do, then you are very unusual! ;)

[Steve2323ZX]

@SpiritmanProductions objects take up space but language is what is needed to put objects in to categories. Have you ever seen the movie, "The Gods Must be Crazy?" No doubt the African bushman saw the coke bottle and was able to pick it up but he had no idea what it was.

[LikeEverythingElse]

To think there was once a time when you could watch something like this on t.v...!

[GrieverDividous]

got your attention though didnt it ? ;)

[chaniwie]

this is very interesting stuff, keeps awake!

[iamivantoo]

Modernism is a project of inward self-criticism. I agree with Magee.

[tadzio999]

True, but it begins with Rousseau, innit.

[firebreathone2]

Extremely inspiring

[riversonthemoon]

I've never heard a young John Searle. The first time I heard his voice was in a TTC lecture on philosophy of mind. He sounds very different in that lecture series.

Another great post.

[olllHashedFetish]

Same here. I like his voice as a disgruntled old man much better.

[riversonthemoon]

Me, too.

You should hear him now. He sounds even older and more disgruntled. lol He recently had a 50 years at Berkeley celebration/roast which you can find in my favorites if you're interested.

[m1ch1227]

I think THIS is the great thing about youtube that among all this terrible crap online there are these jewels that you most probably would never have stumbled upon...

..5 stars for posting!!

[Paganel75]

@m1ch1227 , you are darn right ! When we see what YouTube allows, delivering slices of knowledge "directly from the horse's mouth", it is clear that this a new way that has its full place amid books and libraries. We have to conceive the schools and universities of the future to tap this powerful energy. (Paganel, from Paris, France)

[roryphelan]

@Paganel75 I also agree that it is a great resource, but I think it brings its dangers, in terms of format. From my experience, 'surfing' the internet in its current form promotes a kind of scanning behaviour, one which discourages deep concentration in a subtle manner. I am a net head, I am addicted to youtube, and I feel my attention span is shot to fuck. The popularity of this mode of scanning/appreciation is hard to snap out of, especially in the current format the internet presents itself.

[Paganel75]

@roryphelan : I totally agree with you, though in my opinion the conception of present computers is more at fault than the Internet itself : when a keyboard takes so much space on the desktop, you cannot have a pad and pencil in front of you in the optimal place at the same time. I hope this will change at least a little with the Android tablets & Co to come. TED conference are great and a lot of them or thousands of books can take place on a commonplace 16Go SD card, which is great ! :-)

[zulfitareen]

@m1ch1227

i totally agree with you.

i have leared a lot from youtube.

[dandiacal]

Is this John Searle back in the 1970s? I love the Mr. Kotter/Gabe Kaplan uniform lol

[Myndir]

It would have been the 1980s. Bryan Magee was a politician in the 1970s; this must be after the 1983 election.

[GodlessPhilosopher]

If you watch the Warnock on Kant videos after this they talk much more about seeing the world through a conceptual scheme (although I don't think they use that phrase) versus seeing the world-in-itself. That said, I think Searle gave a much clearer explanation of the Kantian/Wittgensteinian idea. Not to bash Warnock - Kant's work is very difficult to understand sometimes.

Thanks for the vids, flame.

[theinternetscholar]

6:30 . . . haha, they are having a slight problem with language expressing personal abstract ideas in common clear words . .but they find them to be unrepresentative. The philosophy of language really is hard, trying to explain something with what you are trying to explain

[TheSophist2007]

Bravo for uploading, love these!

If anyone has any philosophy videos, upload 'em!

[entropia34332]

flame0430 for president!

thanks a lot for all your videos!

[homerthompsonman]

The theory/observation distinction is a scale not a clear divide or dichotomy. The rise of modernism is the awareness of the veil of perception problem. We are all trapped within our own conceptual schemes, yet not all of our conceptual schemes are brought about by language. We have many pre-linguistic experiences (so many that we have not even been able to get a robot to autonomously navigate a room without error).

Searle and Wittgenstein lean heavily on language as part of perception.

[idiley]

thank you for all these videos flame!!!

[femenime8star]

thanks veery very much for posting this video!!!

[jarl11]

thanks for posting this - so nice that the program is post kripke - putnam... just makes it so more relevant today..

[AreYouKiddinMelol]

His Taxonomy of Speech Acts put me to sleep. That was the most painful essay I have ever experienced. It was not the most difficult, just the most boringly painful.

[mrmusler]

I'm glad he clarified the categorification of the world. I wasn't sure if he was endorsing a metaphysical antirealism about the external world.

[portoxali]

he looks much younger for his 46:)

[FB1801]

One of the greatest thinkers of our time. Thanks for sharing. How old is Searle on this video?

[flame0430]

Good question! He did this in 1978; without looking online I'd guess he was in his late 40s, maybe early 50s.

[sweenith]

@flame0430 You are right. born in 32, so that's 46 in 1978. (I looked online though; i.e., cheated)

[eatme690808]

@FB1801 He was 46 in this video. According to Wikipedia, he was born in 1932.

[AestheticizeAnalog]

Thanks for posting this!