John Searle on the Philosophy of Language: Section 5

[dustykeller924]

This vid went viral on Naypyidaw

[CytotoxicTrev]

Wow, very cool to see video of Searle. I had only seen his name mentioned in one of Derrida's books in response to criticism. He seems like a really cool guy.

[ThePhilosorpheus]

Well that "iron curtain" is pragmatism in my opinion. In america they´re only worried about what kind of computers they can build from a philosophic concept, in europe we´re still concerned with knowing for the sake of knowing.

[IzabelParis]

An excellent, concise & accurate explanation of Chomsky's generative grammar. Thanks for posting.

[Smaruku]

This is a brilliant section of a very good overview. Thanks flame0430.

[fede2]

it's funny that searle expresses skepticism towards cartesianism and praises chomsky's conception of acquisition of language as a-priori knowlledge.

it occurs to me that philosophy of language has dethrowned metaphysics as the most fundamental area of inquirey in philosophy and would go as far as to suggest that it has made metaphysics obsolete.

[porkpy]

When was this program originally created?

[mellowtribe]

this is rubbish

[Suey9o]

most helpful! thank you for posting this :)

[NeoConvert]

Let me just jump in and say it too. Thank you SO much for posting this (and the others).  This is wonderful. I love Searle. And these programs are so great as a supplement to one's studies.

Thanks again.

[elijahsraven]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Wittgenstein have some theories on language. I think Chomsky is politically insane; don't know about his views on language.

[NeoConvert]

Wittgenstein have some theories on language?

Well yes, I might have had one or two.

lol.

Did you watch the program? He's mentioned frequently throughout.

Chomsky is indeed insane politically, but is nonetheless hugely important philosophically. His stuff on depth grammer should, I think, be of great interest to the Christian philosopher.

[elijahsraven]

No, this is the first time I have seen this.

Thanks for the help.

[elijahsraven]

NeoConvert, I always wanted to get into this subject. I have just watched part 1. Fascinating stuff alright !

[fjfjvmvm]

You call Chomsky "insane" politically but offer you offer nothing to back up your opinion. Contrary to what you say he is quite sensible politically - I disagree with him on a variety of topics but he's anything but "insane." You're either ignorant of his writings, stupid or dishonest (in that you want to advance a fundamentally hypocritical, self-interested ethical theory but you don't want to admit that's what your doing.) I'm pretty sure the last option is correct.

[mellowtribe]

I have seen him talk politics and comes off as a william ayers. The guy is a lunitic stay away from him. better yet go to a ball game with your father.

[spawk1993]

@fjfjvmvm I would not call chomsky insane ... but he really doesnt know what he is talking about when it comes to several key aspect of political discourse. He is largely influenced by the mutualist and anarcho syndicalists of the 1800's , which is fine if one knows enough about economics to filter half of what they say out. Chomsky does not. It is all pre marginalist revolution garbage to be frank. And Böhm-Bawerk 's capital theory solves most of the issues they raised.

[fathead8489]

@NeoConvert

I love how conservatives can't help them selves but use ad-hominems. Chomsky is no "insane"? Well if the most quoted intellectual alive today is insane then we are all in trouble. 

[elijahsraven]

Forget my comment, NeoConvert. I just noticed the Wittgenstein tag on the right of this video. It links to a lot of Wittgenstein stuff.

[kaiserofcanada]

wtf where is saussure

[Guaguanco11]

Searle and Magee decided there was no point presenting the views of the standard wipping boys (Locke is one as well) and then flogging them. A wise choice I think.

[nerdfiles]

Chomsky is post-Chomsky.

[frewswork]

Thanks for posting, really enjoyed watching this.

[kantimmanuel05]

Saussure was completely ignored!

[mrjazzman22]

well i guess that's because he doesn't have a whole lot to do with the philosophical tradition that searle himself stands in. But Searle of course was not the topic - it was philosophy of language.

But I think we have to accept Searle focussing on "his stuff". Otherwise he'd have had to cram a lot of "poststructuralist" theories in there too.(Alhough that might have not been a topic yet at that point - how old is this interview anyway?)

[rootberg]

Sound works fine for me as well. This was a really nice discussion.

[shukefxy]

is the sound missing in this clip?

[flame0430]

It's working fine for me, what part isn't working for you? Or is it the whole thing for you?