Talk:John Searle

message: The Searle-Derrida section desperately needs editing. It is written with an obviously Derridean Slant. It overly relies on jargon as well. A better section would mention that there's fairly widespread disagreement about what happened in the 'debate' and more importantly, that just about everyone thinks neither of them understood the other. Reading the current section, however, one would think Searle totally misunderstood Derrida and not vice versa.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8000:90F0:C5CD:E1DA:D4E9:543F (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Plea for an Improved Derrida-Searle Section 

message: I don't like deleting stuff, but the verdict of the banner added 18 months ago is unarguable: "This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy."
Accordingly, I would propose to kick it down to the end because it is seriously overbalancing the overall coverage.
I have also identified two further problems with the article. The easier error to correct is mis-attributing "direction of fit" to Anscombe rather than Austin, if Searle himself is to be believed:
  The terminology of "direction of fit" was invented by
  John L Austin but the best example to illustrate the
  distinction was given by G E M [Elizabeth] Anscombe.
    - in John R Searle: "Mind, Language and Society" (1999)
Fixing the other will probably need the attention of a Wikipedian with access to Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour (ISSN 1468-5914, apparently), but this existing sentence about Searle's Construction of Social Reality cannot be right:
  Searle also places language at the foundation of the
  construction of social reality while Lawson believes that
  community formation necessarily precedes the development
  of language and therefore there must be the possibility
  for non-linguistic social structure formation.
Nothing Tony Lawson is represented as saying here contradicts Searle's actual account, which is that "language or at least a language-like capacity for symbolization" is required for the construction of *institutional* reality, ie not merely social reality. For Searle, hyenas hunting a lion share a social reality. Hyenas don't have language so the rest follows and there is no contradiction, which means the article cannot correctly be identifying the second of two points apparently at issue (though the sentence before it, about the first point, does look OK as far as I can tell).
Merely changing "social reality" to "institutional reality" in the offending sentence *might* correct the problem but is at least as likely to be unfair to Lawson, whose account I have not read. -Soap 92.11.145.91 (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I propose to move the debate-with-Derrida coverage to a new section at the end 

message: , hello. I see you disagree with the edits I made. Hopefully, you agree the current page is just garbage. It is poorly written, redundant, and just not clear. Let's work together to fix it. Writing this post is always the first requirement when editors disagree, which I see you already know. Granite07 (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy and clarity 

message: The translation there is nothing outside of texts of (Il n'y a pas de 'hors-texte') is wrong. "there is no outside-text" would be a better translation, but would require some explantation. I don't know of a good source tho
really the whole debate should be spun out. Some2Guy (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nothing outside text" and "no outside text" are completely different propositions. Could this debate be entirely over mistranslations? --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I ment the Searle–Derrida debate section should be spun out. Especially since the Jacques Derrida page has nearly the exact same paragraph, just a little more detailed. Some2Guy (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistranslation of Derrida