John Searle on the Philosophy of Language (1977) زیرنویس فارسی

[@medievalmusiclover]

Searl is such prolific and sensitive thinker and speaker. Wonderful 👄. Thank you for posting.

[@drkmwinters]

Thanks, I love this conversation so much

[@riazuddin4817]

A must watch for students of linguistics

[@johnny5cents281]

A great question for Searle would be how our speech act is supposed to represent anything if there is nothing that is communictaed to us from the world. That is to say, if our speech acts' property of being 'about something' is their own unique mark, one might wonder how we have this speech act or how our speech acs communicate anything public if the public realm of Searle's mere 'objects' do not represent in turn whatever is being represented in the speech act.

[@sadhanaidu5918]

Glad I heard him.. Saluting nobility

[@Armando7654]

I respect Searle bc he's a realist. Anti-realists: language refers not to reality but to more language. sight sees not reality but more sight - sight refers to itself! (clearly anti realists mistake mind-set for sight)

[@paololuckyluke2854]

6:50 - 7:37 Dear Prof. Searle, A gnu has a perfectly functional concept of what a river of water is, without any linguistic apparatus, and, what’s more, retains the concept even at great distance, well beyond the field of perception.

[@mehranshargh]

Yes, animals possess some general concepts, but can you describe a bottle of sparkling water with strawberry taste to a gnu? I could do it for you since we both possess language apparatus.

[@paololuckyluke2854]

@@mehranshargh Petitio principii. Listen more carefully to the extract.

[@michaelamprako7035]

One can have the experience of seeing something. But immediately that thing is described as " a glass of water" then, for me, it isn't just an optical experience, rather, it is a conceptual experience. Simply put, one now knows what he/ she sees, and so has identified it by means of language, description, name.

[@naimulhaq9626]

Speech like consciousness extends from worldly objects to abstract concepts as distant as the multiverse, or outside of the universe, a gift that relates us with ID so that the fine tuning of the parameter space not only deliver life, but divine qualities without which we would not have been anything better than animals.

[@TlogicoP]

What the fuck are you even saying.

[@andrewmendonca1571]

He is saying that ability of speech is almost a miraculous gift that allows us to speak the intangible, the abstract, that seemingly differentiate us from the animals. More simply, there is a connection between speech and thinking. Abstract thinking is hard. It is unique. We are different from monkeys.

[@naimulhaq9626]

danieljliversLXXXIX Speech, intelligence, intuition, meme, etc. are the product of consciousness, that is developed way beyond animals or plants, enabling us to discover the laws, rules, algorithm of timeless and a priory, mathematics, showing how fine tuning delivered life and consciousness, implies intelligent design, universal consciousness and divine purpose.

[@naimulhaq9626]

danieljliversLXXXIX No mysticism. Science of the standard model shows how fine tuning the parameter space delivered life and consciousness. How do you figure FT occurred if not due to the universal consciousness, acting in some mysterious, and as yet unknown way, like an 'intelligent designer', implying divine purpose.

[@adrianzondervan6521]

at 5:41 "La Rochefoucauld said, ...I forgot where" - such an exaggerated mannerism, to "excuse" so to speak not to be able to give the locus citatis; about Searle: "He talks too much, everything comes out a bit glib"

[@장경석-t4u]

Every intention whether it is in the field of language, science, mathematics, history, and so on has something to do with the truth, value. The only difference is the way each field makes statement and chooses illustrations.

[@maciejkempa1058]

Magnificent!

[@zayaricon]

thanks

[@장경석-t4u]

How a certain picture represents something or many things is a matter of experience and exposure. I think there is no question about it. Without any intention human beings pick up and develop language ability. The level of ability practically differs according to individual intention to learn and use the language plus the external factors. It is a matter of mind over matter like in almost all cases as far as I know since linguistc competence whether verbal or not just like any others is based on the brain activity/capacity considering that after all a brain dead person is neither capable of saying nor implying anything.

[@sinisamajetic]

Bryan was never young lol

[@michaelamprako7035]

Again, language does not seem to create reality, as it seemed to suggest. Rather, for me, it helps to identify the real world now divided up into categories in order to give meaning.

[@stanislavstoimenov1729]

Exactly right. Our power in this world comes with our ability to measure and then -- to categorise. Once something -- an event, an object, etc. -- is transformed from a mental notion that exists solely in one's mind into a linguistic category that can be shared with other minds, it becomes known; it isn't scary any longer, and now we "possess" it semiotically.

[@totaali1648]

Thank you for sharing this video! I would to contact you in private about ownership rights if I want to translate it into Arabic for non-profit purposes. Could you provide me with your E-mail? Best regards.

[@mehranshargh]

You can even do the translation here on KZbin and add it to the video. Just go to the setting above, subtitles/cc and "add subtitles/cc".

[@AjitisnotamanHeislongdeadBir]

Correct thing is language of Philosophy and not Philosophy of Language. Language is the Guru and Master, not Philosophy, which is the master of all others except language and literature. Think.Top is top not bottom.

[@stoyanfurdzhev]

It's a shave of reason with a kitchen knife.

[@tomfreemanorourke1519]

Language is innate, a physical memory of function and experience...the single-cell...Brain........Death before conception ...we have always been here....

[@stanislavstoimenov1729]

Hmmm, what?

[@science212]

Searle is wrong. Brain is a computer.