Searle: Philosophy of Language, lecture 1
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- John Searle
Philosophy of Language, lecture 1
UC-Berkeley Philosophy 133, Fall 2010
MP3s of the entire course:
skydrive.live....
The current year's course can be found at: webcast.berkele...
![DDG & G Herbo - Nosey [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I9Ra0Zc2NlQ/mqdefault.jpg)
lecture 1 Philosophy of Language - Distinctions and Overview
lecture 2 Use & Mention, J.L. Austin’s Speech Act Theory
lecture 3 Speech Acts - Twelve Features, Five Classifications
lecture 4 Classifications, cont., Grice’s Theory of Meaning
lecture 5 Grice, cont., Some Counterexamples, Intentionality
lecture 6 Expressibility, Rules, Representation, Intentional Acts
lecture 7 Theory of Human Action, Freedom of Will
lecture 8 Performatives, Assertives, Directives, Commisives
lecture 9 Review of Speech Act Taxonomy, Frege
lecture 10 Russell’s Paradox, Frege’s ‘Sense and Reference’
lecture 11 Frege, cont., Extensionality vs Intensionality, Russell
lecture 12 Russell’s ‘On Denoting’, Strawson’s ‘On Referring’
lecture 13 Review of Frege, Russell & Strawson, Twin-Earth
lecture 14 Russell vs Strawson, Indirect Speech Acts, Indexicals
lecture 15 Cluster theory & Kripke, Externalism vs Internalism
lecture 16 Externalism vs Internalism, cont., Indexicality, Truth
lecture 17 Theories of Truth, Objections to Correspondence
lecture 18 Answers to Objections to Correspondence Theory
lecture 19 Relativism, Solipsism, Background Capacities & Rules
lecture 20 Anthropology, Fiction, Non-explicitness, Commitments
lecture 21 Fiction cont., Grice’s Maxims, Indirect Speech Acts
lecture 22 Indirect Speech Acts, cont., Metaphor
lecture 23 Radical Contextualism, Metaphor, Quine’s Two Dogmas
lecture 24 Naturalism, Quine on Indeterminacy, Chomsky
lecture 25 Chomsky cont., Pictorial Representation
lecture 26 Picturing, cont., Performatives, Human Institutions
lecture 27 Social Construction, Externalism, Proper Names
lecture 28 Philosophy of Language in Wider Context, Metaphor
Love John Searle. Ever since I read his book "Speech Acts" I've been hooked on his clarity.
It was an audio lecture series for me. I came across him on mp3 in the Napster years lol
I know right! John Searle is the king of clarity and as a result he's made the entire subject of Philosophy more accessible to me.
The first 10 minutes could be summed up as models vs truth (analytics cs synthetics). Language and mathematics are models, while empirical data are truths. Then he moves on to fact vs opinion. Then implicit meaning vs literal or precise meaning. Recursion, any Noun + verb phrase can be applied to any other sentence, which could itself be a noun + verb phrase applied to any other sentence with the help of a relative clause; who, whom, whose, that, which (e.x. (Jamie thinks that (Dorothy wants to live in a house (which is by the beach))). Compositionality just seems like syntax+semantics (2+2=4). Performative utterance, command/perform [felicitous vs infelicitous] vs constative utterance, description [true or false]. Performing the statement vs the statement is a performance (constative vs performative). Speaker meaning vs sentence meaning.
Thanks for posting this great course. John Searle is the man.
Excellent resource here on RUclips! Thanks to whoever made this possible.
I have completely translated into my native language his lecture's transcripts on mind phil. now starting this course.
Completed his "Mind" , it's great .
Did it ever cross your mind that the person posting wrote like that on purpose on a video concerning language in which Searle made a joke about a guy who couldn't form grammatically correct sentences?
To say: „Can you pass the salt?“ conventionally counts as an attempt to get the listener to pass the salt. The term „speaker’s meaning“ is misleading because it is a highly conventional way to ask someone to pass the salt. It may not be the „literal meaning“ but it is not just the speaker's meaning that has to be decoded by a number of inferences as Searle suggests elsewhere.
Philosophy is the real Knowledge about Language!
Does anyone have the assigned readings for the whole course? Thanks in advance!
Yes. Have a marvellous day.
Generative grammar is wrong. You cannot divide a language into syntax and lexis. From a valency standpoint (dictionary-amd-grammar modell) you cannot say so. E.g. 'He resembles his sister.' -> '*her sister is resembled by him.'??? from a constructivist standpoint you have to say that even highly abstract 'syntactic' patterns carry meaning, like the DITRANSITIVE or the SAI CxN.
Amn't is still used in a few places. Scotland for one
2:36
I find it hilarious that the guy below watched a philosophy of language lecture, but doesn't speak proper English (in which the lecture is). xD
You don't know the meaning of those words? How sad. Is it a little hard for you to understand a statement like "philosophy never changed the state of affairs in the world like science does? Sorry about that.
As Professor Searle illustrates philosophy develops cultural sophistication. To state this differently one becomes more cultured by studying philosophy.
+Gary Vardon That statement means nothing.
@@Daft_Sage It is not possible for something to mean nothing
Gary Vardon Whose culture?
It's the first time I get to listen to his lectures, not via text. I am not blaming one for this, but it's kinda funny to hear him calling out a student not to flap the laptop.
does anybody know the syllabus of this lecture?
2:36 to skip the BS
I wish this could be pinned to the top!
Martinez Patricia Smith Charles Lopez Timothy
This dude is great ... love Searle. So clear; so concise. Does what a good philosopher raised in the analytic tradition should do. I was particularly intrigued by his quick allusions to Chomsky's defense for universal grammar and its centrality to our humanity. How is it children so early, quickly and universally acquire, in particular, the complex formal structure of their native language, but are unable to acquire any other (e.g., axiomatic set theory)? I had never thought of it in that way ... mind BLOWN!
Indirect speech act (request )
Beyond semantic meaning
Speaker meaning exceeds semantic meaning(of syntactical form)
Example
1 request
Can you pass me the Salt
Do you know where
metaphor
Sentence meaning & speaker meaning can come apart
Pay attention to intonation
It's traditional rhetorical devices
Understatement & hyperbole
Metaphor metanymy, Annika
8;46
Everything dualism in mind
Functionalism behaviorlism
Ferge 2nd best German after Kant
Logic & philosopher of language
9:00 simple argument
9:10 done in philosophical literature
Placing issues in some historical context
Kant distinction
1. Synthetic statement
T f in virtue to facts world
2. Analytic statement
T f in virtue to meanings of words themselves
Analytic stmts
All bA are unmarried 2+2=4
Synthetic stmt of sth beyond meaning facts in world
This's related to propositions
Known after investigation using experiences
Apriori known beforehand
Bachelors are unmarried
2+2=4
Prior to experience
A Posteriori
Bachelor's wear blue jeans
Alcoholincidents in Berkeley has increased students increased
Needs experiment to experience
That's an epistemic distinction (on the how the way things are made)
How propositions are known
Analytic (simple) propositions known a priori but synthetic known posteriori
Kant deal finding propositions that are synthetic & known apriori
Necessary & contingent propositions
Heyday Analytic phiilosophy these were 3 different ways marking same distinction
As far as necessary because their necessity derives from the meanings
Meaning is truth
16:36 Beethoven is better than average musician
I would like to understand the last humor but it didn’t come clear to me even if I had listened to it a few times. Can someone kindly make it clear to me? It goes “ I never trust dog owners....
The way you approach these subjects is intriguing and resonates with the themes I explore in my videos.
Looking forward to working through these lectures over the coming months
He is so articulate and comprehensible as opposed to other lecturers. 22:35 😂
zhinq!
zhian!
zhina!
@cocotiger..with 500 possible characters one has to go step by step. We can talk about what you liked about it.
The link to the mp3s isn't working for me, have they been removed?
i'm trying to figure out how his views differ from lakoff's. anyone has a clue?
Does Lakoff distinguish between syntax and Lexis, how it is done in generative grammar and also by Searle? I never read Lakoff, but I saw his recommendation on the back of a book that is against the generative framework and against the distinction between lexis and syntax. (constructions at work)
Which region of the US is his accent from? I dont think I'v heard someone with quite that pattern
I'm no native speaker, so I am also interested in that. To me Chomsky sounds quite similar, so I guess they speak the same variety.
Denver but it’s got much East coast flair to it
Just wonderful!
........
Chomsky was incorrect when he postulated that the ability to learn language was a genetic phenomenon. The ability to learn language is a metaphysical phenomena, which is entirely based in what is true, as opposed to what is not true.
sorry, this lecture held promise, yet the delivery failed completely. human beings have been talking and using language for thousands of year, and he credits an obscure modern philosopher as the inventor of this science. How many inaccuracies are professors allowed to speak before they loose credibility?
Shogun-Jimi My God. We've been digesting food for more than thousand years before physiology. Does that make a lecture on the digestive system something invalid?
‘… lose…’
My God. We've been looking at the stars for millions of years before astronomy. Does that make a lecture on astronomy something invalid? Jokes aside, do you really think Searle claims that "an obscure modern philosopher" (Frege, I suppose) invented (!) human language? Your comprehension of the statement is concerning.