Banno

There's the alternative response of laughing at them and walking away. The sad thing is that there would be an excellent thread in the topic. The SEP ...

Oh, yes I have. The point is that if this is what you think, then you can conjure anything from your arguments. They cease to be reasonable; they ceas...

No, it's true because from a contradiction anything follows. But you have not grasped this core piece of logic.

This one: Assume (p & ~p); anything follows. Logic, and rationality, are rendered null, further discussion is void. But still, the posts continue.

Now you are talking to yourself...?

One who accepts a contradiction has forfeited reason.

...no, you don't; you merely assert. To accept a contradiction is to forfeit rationality and hence to cease to argue.

I think this the wrong way around, but the point is moot. Elsewhere you made the point that It may be that what must be added to the conversation are ...

And hence belief in god requires accepting incoherence. Faith is believing despite the belief being incoherent. And since the faithful have stoped bei...

An excellent post. So here is the interesting bit: There's quite a lot in there that needs unpacking, but it again gives me the opportunity to use a f...

Solomon Islands PM Manasseh Sogavare blasts Australia over criticism of China security deal Well worth a read. How our relationship with the Pacific h...

Probably. We might for now consider just those that are not created in virtue of grammar - like the ones in the examples.

Going by Searle's definition, if gender is deontic then it is an institution. That would be in line with feminist thinking.

Institutions So now we have the groundwork for creating institutions. We have a language that can create declarations, we can use these declarations t...

Sure. Whatever.

...which lead me to puzzle over your understanding of realism. But I'll leave that to folk who are interested.

Actually, it was Searle. This is a thread about Searle. Oh, and you raised the issue here: ; but did not seem to recognise it.

Realism is assumed here. So brute facts are true regardless of our representations of them - treat this as a definition of brute fact. They are true r...

Yep. "He who would follow me, let him forsake his internet connection and his philosophy forum" -Mathew 16:24

Many, but not all. Brute facts remain. See 's quote from Searle.

2. Everybody else is wrong.

Well, at least now one can get good coffee. @"Eskander" might decide to be a shepherd. In the good old days, he would have had no such choice but to d...

Yes, the analysis becomes ubiquitous. So pity poor @"Harry Hindu", who sees all language as mere assertion, and hence can't begin along the path.

Thanks for your contribution, Dawnstorm. Well, we can have institutional facts without language, but language allows us to compound and iterate instit...

I don't see anything here that is not in keeping with (what I understand as) Searle's analysis. There are ambiguities to be sorted out here, but I'm n...

Pretty much.

And what, if anything, do you think is here in contrast to what Searle has said, or to my view? This by way of trying to see how you view both.

How do the major parties rate on an independent anti-corruption commission?

Isn't that part of what was left in need of more work, and which brought him back for another go? See PI §324-5. What people accept as a justification...

Of course it does. You put four apples in the bag, then two more, you can predict that there will be at least six apples in the bag. You describe grav...

I think you are right. I'm pretty sure that the problem is to do with direction of fit; that the status function of "gold" is dependent on the bi-dire...

@"Michael", it seems to me that @"StreetlightX" has misunderstood Searle's notion of basic facts. Notice that "dogs have four legs" and "That dogs hav...

Yes! The implications of the performative utterance are manyfold. More so status functions and social facts. It's a shame the discussion here has been...

SO you are not making any salient point? Try this: language uses logic. Logic is a formalisation of grammar, setting out structures and implications i...

Notice that what you describe here is not logical necessity. If you are insisting that the laws of physics are logically necessary you must maintain t...

Thank you for that summary, which goes to the point of assuming realism as a background upon which this discussion sits. You have presented a pretty c...

That seems fine to me. That shared intent explains the usefulness of a dog as a hunting and farming tool. But you and your dog can't collectively inte...

Yep.

\ Well no, a electron microscope is not how it is done; but the protons could not care less. That's the point.

But what you have done there just to decide that the word "gold" now refers to what was previously called lead. The number of protons in a given sampl...

Consider a group of Harvard Business School students on graduation day. In one possible world, they each individually decide to go out into the world ...

SO... putting it all together, the plan is to declare war on the Solomon Islands?

It's a key point, and given time I will see if I can present a more extensive example Searle uses.

The words are a human institution, the wood isn't. That's realism. I can't see why that is confusing. And as I said, I am not interested here in this ...

A realist would say that the bishop is made of wood, regardless of how we might present that using our social institutions. But frankly, the last thin...

My plan was to show that there are institutional facts. Searle has argued extensively that language consists in institutional facts - in which he outl...

Neither I nor Searle, as I understand him, would suggest otherwise.

Well, presuming realism, no, since at the base the bishop is a piece of wood; that's what realism holds, that there are things that are the case even ...

In the article cited above, he uses only a general argument, that we-intentions depend on cooperation, but mere I-intentions are insufficient for coop...

It's not clear what you are claiming here. A piece of wood will be a piece of wood regardless of what we say about it. That is counts as "a piece of w...