How to Do Philosophy with Words

Reflections on the Searle-Derrida debate

| Universidad de Sevilla
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027218964 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027266040 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
 
Nowadays philosophy is characterized by such heterogeneous intellectual practices that its very unity and coherence seem endangered. What is especially disconcerting is that most authors manage to largely ignore the very existence of methodological positions radically different from their own. Fortunately, there have been exceptions, and the present volume focuses on one of them: the failed debate that took place between John Searle and Jacques Derrida.

This book thoroughly analyses that exchange, contextualizing it within the respective philosophical traditions of the two thinkers, with the general aim of turning their dispute into what it was not: a respectful, sensible and fruitful controversy. This episode is thus taken as an opportunity to reflect on the peculiar nature of philosophy as an intellectual practice, and to discuss some of its main themes: language as an instrument for communication, the intentionality of consciousness, and difference as a constitutive element of every text.
[Controversies, 12]  2017.  xviii, 225 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Foreword
xi–xiv
Preface
xv–xviii
Introduction
1–16
Chapter 1. Austin: Language, truth and force
17–36
Chapter 2. Searle: The intentionality of the mental
37–58
Chapter 3. Derrida: Suspicion and deconstruction
59–78
Chapter 4. Deconstructing Austin
79–98
Chapter 5. The indignation of the rightful heir
99–116
Chapter 6. Deconstructing S.A.R.L.
117–138
Chapter 7. A flawed debate
139–164
Chapter 8. When philosophizing is doing
165–188
Conclusion
189–212
References
213–220
Author index
221–222
Subject index
221–225
“Jesús Navarro’s fine book stages the non-encounter of Searle and Derrida. With impartiality, care, and precision he explains the misunderstandings and ill will that made this a missed opportunity and reinforced the “analytic/continental divide” that has plagued the professional philosophical scene for decades.

The book proceeds on two levels, a first order recapitulation of theses, and then a second order reflection on the speech acts of the encounter itself, where Navarro, wonderfully, applies speech act theory to see how and why the encounter failed, as each side failed – or refused – to see the philosophical aims for which each side marshaled their theses and arguments.

In so doing it asks whether an encounter on the terrain of “philosophy” in the singular (i.e., without regard to “analytic” and “continental” varieties) would be possible. That is, is there “philosophy” or only “philosophies”? A difficult question which we can thank Navarro for posing.”
“Exploring a small dossier of texts on the legacy and significance of J.L. Austin's philosophy of language, Jesús Navarro navigates one of the most heated and sometimes over-heated debates in recent philosophical literature. Skilfully pursuing discussions which engage with both the fine details of philosophical claims and arguments and the ramifying meta-philosophical implications about what philosophical claims and arguments can and should look like in the first place, Navarro guides the reader through the extraordinary debate between Jacques Derrida and John Searle, a debate that both represents and ultimately challenges preconceived ideas about the analytic/continental division within European philosophy.”
“In revisiting a much publicised disputation between John Searle and Jacques Derrida, Jesús Navarro also examines a methodological blindspot at the heart of philosophy regarding the contested nature of what philosophy is, and/or ought to be, and the methods appropriate to those varied aims. He does so in new and interesting ways, looking at both of their work through the lens of “know-how” and its contamination with “knowledge-that”. His book is a must read for those of us interested in philosophy of philosophy, or metaphilosophy; and there is a case, I think, that that should be all of us.”
References

References

Acero Fernández, J.
1989 “Derrida vs. Austin-Searle: ¿dos tradiciones en pugna?Anthropos, Suplementos, 13, 123–126.Google Scholar
1991 “Después del análisis: significado, comprensión e intencionalidad”. In M. Torrevejano (ed), Filosofía analítica hoy. Encuentro de tradiciones. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
1994Filosofía y análisis del lenguaje. Madrid: Ediciones Pedagógicas.Google Scholar
2006 “Searle y el significado literal”. Revista de Filosofía, 31:2, 9–30.Google Scholar
Alfino, M.
1991 “Another Look at the Derrida-Searle Debate”. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 24:2, 143–152.Google Scholar
Amselek, P. and Bankowski, Z.
(eds) 1986Théorie des actes de langage, éthique et droit. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Austin, J.L.
1962aHow to Do Things with Words. J.O. Urmson (ed). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
1962b “Performatif/Constatif”. In J. Béra (ed), La Philosophie analytique. Paris: Minuit, 271–304.Google Scholar
1970Philosophical Papers. J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Avramides, A.
2005 “Intention and Convention”. In B. Hale and C. Wright (eds), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Malden (MA): Blackwell, 60–86.Google Scholar
Bach, K. and Harnish, R.M.
1984Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge (Mass): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barnett, C.
1999 “Deconstructing Context: Exposing Derrida”. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 24:3, 277–293. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barrios Casares, M.
1999 “Retórica y crítica de la gramática teológica de la historia en Nietzsche”. Reflexión, Revista de Filosofía, 3, 115–141.Google Scholar
Barthes, R.
1987The Rustle of Language. R. Howard (trans.). Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bearn, G.C.F.
1995 “Derrida Dry: Iterating Iterability Analitically”. Diacritics, 25:3, 3–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, É.
1971 “Analytic Philosophy and Language”. In Problems in General Linguistics. M.E. Meek (trans). Coral Gables (FL): University of Miami Press [Original work published 1963].Google Scholar
Bilbow, G.T.
2002 “Commissive Speech Act use in Intercultural Business Meetings”. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40:4, 287–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blanchot, M.
1982The Space of Literature. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, H., de Man, P., Hartman, G., Miller, J.H. and Derrida, J.
1979Deconstruction and Criticism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Boly, J.R.
1985 “Nihilism Aside: Derrida’s Debate over Intentional Models”. Philosophy and Literature, 9:2, 152–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bouveresse, J.
1999Prodiges et vertiges de l’analogie. Paris: Raisons d’Agir.Google Scholar
2004 “Une différence sans distinction?” In Essais IV. Pourquoi pas des philosophes? Marseille: Agone, 163–203.Google Scholar
Brentano, F.
1973Psychologie Vom Empirischen Standpunkt. Hamburg: Felix Meiner [Original work published 1874].Google Scholar
Burkhardt, A.
(ed) 1990Speech Acts, Meanings and Intentions. Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John R. Searle. Berlin/Nueva York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R.
1959 “The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language”. In A. Ayer (ed), Logical Positivism. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 60–81 [Original work published 1931].Google Scholar
Cavell, S.
1976Must we Mean what we Say? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1994A Pitch of Philosophy: Autobiographical Excercises. Cambridge (Mass): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D.
(ed) 2002Philosophy of Mind. Classical and Contemporary Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chamizo-Domínguez, P.
2007Semantics and Pragmatics of False Friends. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Collins, R.
1998The Sociology of Philosophies. A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge (Mass): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Culler, J.
1981 “Convention and Meaning: Derrida and Austin”. New Literary History, 13:1, 15–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1982On Deconstruction. Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Cusset, F.
2008French Theory: How Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, & Co. Transformed the Intellectual Life of the United States. J. Fort (trans). Minneapolis (MN): University of Minessota Press [Original work published 2003].Google Scholar
Critchley, S.
1998 “Introduction”. In S. Critchley and W. Schroeder (eds), A Companion to Continental Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
D’Agostini, F.
1997Analitici e continentali. Guida alla filosofia degli ultimi trent’anni. Milan: Raffaello Cortina.Google Scholar
Damasio, A.
1994Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason and The Human Brain. Londres: Picador.Google Scholar
Dascal, M.
(ed) 1999Filosofía del lenguaje II. Pragmática. Madrid: Trotta.Google Scholar
1998 “La controverse en philosophie”. In J.F. Mattéi (ed), Encyclopédie Philosophique Universelle, vol. IV: Le Discours Philosophique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1583–1604.Google Scholar
2001 “How Rational Can a Polemic Across the Analitic-Continental «divide» be?International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 9:3, 313–139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Interpretation and Understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Tipos de polémicas y tipos de movimientos polémicos”. In R. Marafioti (ed), Parlamentos. Teoría de la argumentación y debate parlamentario. Buenos Aires: Biblos, 69–92.Google Scholar
Dennett, D.
1996The Intentional Stance. Cambridge (Mass): The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, J.
1973Speech and Phenomena, and Other Essays on Husserl’s Theory of Signs. D.B. Allison (trans). Evanston: Northwestern University Press [Original work published in 1967. La voix et le phénomène. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France].Google Scholar
1977a “Signature Event Context”. S. Weber and J. Mehlman (trans), Glyph, I, 172–197. Google Scholar
1977b “Limited Inc. a b c”. S. Weber (trans), Glyph, II, 202 and ff. Google Scholar
1979Spurs. Nietzsche’s Styles. B. Harlow (trans). Chicago: University of Chicago Press [Original work published in 1978. Éperons. Les styles de Nietzsche. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
1981aPositions. A. Bass (trans). Chicago: University of Chicago Press [Original work published in 1972. Positions. Paris: Minuit].Google Scholar
1981bDissemination. B. Johnson (trans). Chicago: University of Chicago Press [Original work published in 1972. La Dissémination. Paris: Seuil].Google Scholar
1982Margins of Philosophy. A. Bass (trans). Chicago: University of Chicago Press [Original work published in 1972. Marges de la Philosophie. Paris: Minuit].Google Scholar
1988Limited Inc. G. Graff (ed). S. Weber and J. Mehlman (trans). Evanston (IL): Northwestern University Press [French version published in 1990. Limited Inc. E. Weber (trans). Paris: Galilée].Google Scholar
1989Mémoires: for Paul de Man. Revised Edition. New York: Columbia University Press [Original work published in 1988. Mémoires: pour Paul de Man. Paris: Galilée].Google Scholar
1990“Un penseur dans la cité, Jacques Derrida” (entretien avec Yves Roucaute). L’Evénément du Jeudi, 284, April.Google Scholar
1997Of Grammatology. G.C. Spivak (trans). Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press [Original work published in 1967. De la grammatologie. Paris: Minuit].Google Scholar
1998Monolingualism of the Other; or, the Prothesis of Origin. P. Mensah (trans). Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press [Original work published in 1996. Le monolinguisme de l’autre: ou la prothèse d’origine. Paris: Galilée].Google Scholar
2002aWho’s afraid of philosophy? Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2002bWithout Alibi. Peggy Kamuf (trans). Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Descombes, V.
1979Le même et l’autre. Quarante-cinq ans de philosophie française (1933–1978). Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H.L.
1991Being in the World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time Division I. Cambridge (Mass): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dummett, M.A.E.
1993Origins of Analytical Philosophy. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Engel, P.
1997La dispute. Une introduction à la philosophie analytique. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
1999 “Analytic Philosophy and Cognitive Norms”. The Monist, 82:2, 218–234. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ewald, H.R. and Stine, D.
1983 “Speech Act Theory and Business Communication Conventions”. Journal of Business Communication, 20:3, 13–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Faigenbaum, G.
2005Conversations with John Searle. Buenos Aires: Libros en Red.Google Scholar
Farrell, F.B.
1988 “Iterability and Meaning: The Searle-Derrida Debate”. Metaphilosophy, 19:1, 53–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Felman, S.
1980Le Scandale du corps parlant. Paris: Seuil [English translation: 2002. The Scandal of the Speaking Body. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press].Google Scholar
Fish, S.E.
1976 “How to Do Things with Austin and Searle”. Modern Language Notes, 91:5, 983–1025.Google Scholar
1980Is There a Text in this Class? Cambridge (Mass): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1982 “With the Compliments of the Author: Reflections on Austin and Derrida”. Critical Inquiry, 8:4, 693–721. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, O.
2003The Problem of the Soul. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Frank, M.
1984 “La loi du langage et l’anarchie du sens. A propos du débat Searle-Derrida”. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 151:38, fasc. 4, 396–421.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G.
1989Truth and Method. J. Weinsheimer and D.G. Marshall (trans). New York: Continuum [Original work published in 1960].Google Scholar
Glendinning, S.
1998On Being with Others: Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Derrida. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2001 “Inheriting «Philosophy»: The Case of Austin and Derrida Revisited”. In S. Glendinning (ed), Arguing with Derrida. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 9–33.Google Scholar
2006The Idea of Continental Philosophy. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glock, H.–J.
2008What is Analytic Philosophy? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Graff, G. Levine, G. and Smith, B.H.
1991 “The Storm Over the University’: An Exchange.” The New York Review of Books, 38:4, February 2nd.Google Scholar
Graff, G.
1991 “The Storm Over the University’: A Further Exchange.” The New York Review of Books, 38:9, May 16th.Google Scholar
Grice, H.P.
1957 “Meaning”. Philosophical Review, 66, 377–388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gueroult, M.
1979Philosophie de l’histoire de la philosophie. Paris: Aubier.Google Scholar
Habermas, J.
1984The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. I: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon [Original work published 1981].Google Scholar
1987The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. F. Lawrence (trans). Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press [Original work published 1985].Google Scholar
Hadreas, P.
1996 “Searle versus Derrida?Philosophiques, XXIII, 2, 317–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halion, K.
1989Deconstruction and Speech Act Theory: A Defence of the Distinction between Normal and Parasitic Speech Acts (Ph.D. Dissertation). McMaster University (Canada).Google Scholar
Heidegger, M.
1969 “The Onto-Theo-Logical Constitution of Metaphysics”. In Identity and Difference. J. Stambaugh (trans). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1996Being and Time. J. Stambaugh (trans). Albany (NY): State University of New York Press [Original work published 1985].Google Scholar
1993.Letter on Humanism”. In Basic Writings, D.F. Krell (ed) and F.A. Capuzzi (trans). New York: Harper Collins [Original work published 1946].Google Scholar
Husserl, E.
1962L’Origine de la Géometrie. J. Derrida (trans. & intro.). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France [Original work published 1954].Google Scholar
2001Logical Investigations. J.R. Findlay (trans). London: Routledge [Original work published 1900/1].Google Scholar
1977Cartesian Meditations: Introduction to Phenomenology. Dorion Cairns (trans). Dordrecht: Kluwer [Original work published 1931]. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1982Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy: First Book: General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology. F. Kersten (trans). New York: Springer [Original work published 1913]. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
International Service Marketing Institute (ISMI)
2005 “Las cartas de compromiso como estrategia de marketing”. MK: Marketing + Ventas, 198, 18–27.Google Scholar
Jackson, F.
1982 “Epiphenomenal Qualia”. Philosophical Quarterly, 32, 127–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1986 “What Mary Didn’t Know”. Journal of Philosophy, 83, 291–295. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keller, H.
1967The Story of My Life. Nueva York: Scholastic Inc.Google Scholar
Kenaan, H.
2002 “Language, Philosophy and the Risk of Failure: Rereading the Debate Between Searle and Derrida”. Continental Philosophy Review, 35, 117–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, A.
1989The Metaphysics of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knapp, S. and Michaels, W.B.
1981 “Against Theory”. Critical Inquiry, 8, 723–742. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 “Reply to John Searle”. New Literary History, 25:3, 669–675. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kundera, M.
1985The Unbearable Lightness of Being. M.H. Heim (trans). London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Lamont, M.
1987 “How to Become a Dominant French Philosopher: The Case of Jacques Derrida”. The American Journal of Sociology, 93:3, 584–622. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lepore, E. and Van Gulick, R.
(eds) 1991John Searle and His Critics. Cambridge (Mass): Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lévinas, E.
1979Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. A. Lingus (trad). New York: Springer [Original work published 1961]. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, N. and McHoul, A.
1996 “The Logical Status of Searlean Discourse”. Boundary 2, Fall, 219–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macelay, R.
2001 “An Apology for Parasitism: Revisiting an Old Debate in the Theory of Narrative Art”. Minerva – An Internet Journal of Philosophy, 5. http://​www​.minerva​.mic​.ul​.ie/​/vol5/Google Scholar
Mackey, L.H. and Searle, J.R.
1984 “An Exchange on Deconstruction”. The New York Review of Books, 31:1, Feb 2.Google Scholar
Maclean, I.
2004 “ Un dialogue de sourds? Some implications of the Austin-Searle-Derrida debate”. In I. Maclachlan (ed), Jacques Derrida. Critical Thought. Hampshire: Ashgate, 49–66.Google Scholar
Medina, J.
2006Speaking from Elsewhere: A New Contextualist Perspective on Meaning, Identity, and Discursive Agency. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Moati, R.
2009Derrida/Searle. Déconstruction et langage ordinaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Moore, G.E.
1925“A Defence of Common Sense.” In Contemporary British Philosophy (2nd series). J.H. Muirhead (ed). Reprinted in G.E. Moore, Philosophical Papers (1959).Google Scholar
Mulligan, K.
1991 “How not to Read: Derrida on Husserl”. Topoi, 10:2, 199–208. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “Searle, Derrida and the Ends of Phenomenology”. In B. Smith (ed), John Searle, 261–286. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mulligan, K., Simons, P. and Smith, B.
2006 “What’s Wrong with Contemporary Philosophy?Topoi, 25:1, 63–67. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mundle, C.W.K.
1979A Critique of Linguistic Philosophy with Second Thoughts: An Epilogue After Ten Years. London: Glover & Blair.Google Scholar
Nagel, T.
1974 “What is it Like to be a Bat?Philosophical Review, 83, 435–450. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Navarro, J.
2005 “Cómo salir de la habitación china: consciencia e intencionalidad en las otras mentesThémata, 35, 267–275.Google Scholar
2009 “Can we Say what we Mean? Expressibility and Background”. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17:2, 283–308. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nietzsche, F.
1986 “On Truth and Lying in an Extra-Moral Sense”. In The Portable Nietzsche, W. Kaufmann (trans). London: Viking Press, 42–46.Google Scholar
Norris, C.
1986 “Home Thoughts from Abroad: Derrida, Austin and The Oxford Connection”. Philosophy and Literature, 10:1, 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peñalver Gómez, P.
1979Crítica de la teoría fenomenológica del sentido. Granada: Universidad de Granada.Google Scholar
1993 “Insaturabilidad del contexto y anarquía del sentido”. Fragmentos de filosofía, 3, 157–166.Google Scholar
Polaino Navarrete, M.
2004Cometer delitos con palabras: teoría de los actos de habla y funcionalismo jurídico-penal. Madrid: Dykinson.Google Scholar
Potte-Bonneville, M.
1992 “La violence dans le débat philosophique: le débat Derrida-Searle”. Recherches sur la philosophie et le langage, 14, 219–248.Google Scholar
Prades Celma, J.L. and Sanfelix Vidarte, V.
1992Wittgenstein. Madrid: Cincel.Google Scholar
Preston, J.
. and Bishop, M (eds) 2002Views into the Chinese Room. New Essays on Searle and Artificial Intelligence. Oxford: Calendon Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, H.
1960 “Minds and Machines”. In S. Hook (ed), Dimensions of Mind. New York: New York University Press, 57–80.Google Scholar
1981Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1985 “A Comparison of Something with Something Else”. New Literary History, 17:1, 61–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 “A Half Century of Philosophy, Viewed From Within”. Daedalus, 126, 175–208.Google Scholar
Rabossi, E.
1999 “Actos de habla”. In M. Dascal (ed), Filosofía del lenguaje II. Pragmática, 53–72.Google Scholar
Recanati, F.
1987Meaning and Force. The Pragmatics of Performative Utterances. Cambridge (Mass): Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1993 “Beyond Analytic Philosophy?Stanford French Review, 17:2, 197–206.Google Scholar
2003 “The Limits of Expressibility”. In B. Smith (ed), John Searle, 189–213. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ricoeur, P.
1992Oneself as Another. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, R.
(ed) 1967The Linguistic Turn. Recent Essays in Philosophical Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1977 “Derrida on Language, Being and Abnormal Philosophy”. The Journal of Philosophy, 74:11, 673–681. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1979Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
1984 “Deconstruction and Circumvention.” Critical Inquiry, 11:1, 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991Essays on Heidegger and Others, Philosophical Papers. Volume 2. Cambridge (Mass): Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, D.M.
2002 “Explaining Consciousness”. In Philosophy of Mind. Classical and Contemporary Readings, D.J. Chalmers (ed), 406–421.Google Scholar
Ryle, G.
2002The Concept of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press [Original work published 1949].Google Scholar
Sáez Rueda, L.
1996 “Segregación o domesticación de la experiencia prerreflexiva”. Volubilis, 4, 35–53.Google Scholar
2001Movimientos filosóficos actuales. Madrid: Trotta.Google Scholar
2002El conflicto entre continentales y analíticos: dos tradiciones filosóficas. Barcelona: Crítica.Google Scholar
Saussure, F.De
1959Course in General Linguistics. W. Baskin (trans). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J.R.. et al.
1992(On) Searle on Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R.
1969Speech Acts, An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge (Mass): Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1977 “Reiterating the Differences: A Reply to Derrida”. Glyph, I, 198–208 [Published in French in Searle 1991].Google Scholar
1979aExpression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1979b “What is an Intentional State?Mind, 88:349, 74–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1980 “Minds, Brains and Programs”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3:3, 417–457. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1983Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge (Mass): Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1983 “The Word Turned Upside Down”. The New York Review of Books, 30:16, October 27 [Published in French in 1992: Déconstruction – Le langage dans tous ses états. J.-P. Cometti (trans). Combas: Éditions de l’Éclat].Google Scholar
1984Minds, Brains and Science. London: British Broadcasting Corp.Google Scholar
1989 “How Performatives Work”. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12, 535–558. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990 “The Storm Over the University.” The New York Review of Books, 37:19, December 6th.Google Scholar
1991Pour réitérer les différences. Reponse à Derrida. J. Proust (trans). Combas: Éditions de l’Éclat.Google Scholar
1992The Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge (Mass): MIT Press.Google Scholar
1993a “Rationality and Realism: What Is at Stake?Daedalus, 122:4, 55–83.Google Scholar
1993b “Is There a Crisis in American Higher Education?The Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 46:4, 24–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 “Literary Theory and Its Discontents”. New Literary History, 25:3, 637–667 [Extended version of 1993 “La théorie littéraire et ses bévues philosophiques”. Stanford French Review, 17, 2–3, 221–256]. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
1998 “Postmodernism and Truth”. 2B: A Journal of Ideas, 13, 85–87.Google Scholar
2003 “Contemporary Philosophy in the United States”. In The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy. N. Bunnin and E.P. Tsui-James (eds). Oxford: Blackwell, 1–22.Google Scholar
2001Rationality in Action. Cambridge (Mass): MIT Press.Google Scholar
2003 “Contemporary Philosophy in the United States.” In N. Bunnin and E.P. Tsui-James. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell, 1–22.Google Scholar
2004Mind, a Brief Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, B.. et al.
1992 “From Professor Barry Smith and Others”. The Times (London). May 9.Google Scholar
Smith, B.
(ed) 2003John Searle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, A. and Bricmont, J.
1998Intellectual Impostures. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Sokal, A.
1996a “Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”. Social Text, 46/47, 217–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996b “A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies”. Lingua Franca, 6:4, 62–64.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D.
1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spivak, G.C.
1980 “Revolutions that as Yet have no Model: Derrida’s Limited Inc”. Diacritics, 10:4, 29–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P.F.
1964 “Intention and Convention in Speech Acts”. Philosophical Review, 73:4, 439–460. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suckale, R., Weniger, M. and Wundram, M.
2006Gothic. Cologne: Taschen.Google Scholar
Tiersma, P.M.
1987 “The Language of Defamation”. Texas Law Review Archives, 66:2.Google Scholar
Turing, A.M.
1950 “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.” Mind, 59, 433–460. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L.
1990Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. C.K. Ogden (trans). London: Routledge [Original work published 1921].Google Scholar
2009Philosophical Investigations. G.E.M. Anscombe, P.M.S. Hacker and J. Schulte (eds). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell [Original work published 1953].Google Scholar
Yovel, J.
2000 “What is Contract Law «About»? Speech Act Theory and a Critique of «Skeletal Promises»”. Northwestern University Law Review, 94, 937–962.Google Scholar
Subjects

Philosophy

Philosophy
BIC Subject: HPK – Philosophy: epistemology & theory of knowledge
BISAC Subject: PHI004000 – PHILOSOPHY / Epistemology
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2016047950 | Marc record