« Please give us new human beings | Main | Out of Tune »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jon Cogburn

Yeah, the bits about Kant et. al. simply "resting on a mistake" and how his job is to correct false presuppositions of the mighty dead are just jaw droppingly awful.

He also says that no book in the philosophy of mind (presumably excepting his own) are any good.

The depravities of aging can (understandably) make some people way more irascible, but there's a pretty clear narrative arc from Searle point 0 to the Searle point two point five we're seeing in this interview.

Carlo Ierna

Nihil sub sole novum:

"Entire philosophical movements have been built around theories of Intentionality. What is one to do in the face of all this distinguished past? My own approach has been simply to ignore it, partly out of ignorance of most of the traditional writings on Intentionality and partly out of the conviction that my only hope of resolving the worries that led me into this study in the first place lay in the relentless pursuit of my own investigations. ... I follow a long philosophical tradition in calling this feature of directedness or aboutness “Intentionality”, but in many respects the term is misleading and the tradition something of a mess".
Searle, Intentionality (1983).

Ingnoring and dismissing traditions do not look like consequences of his dotage.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Here's a link to my past blogging (and discussions involving me) at: New APPS.


Blog powered by Typepad