Talk:John Searle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Critism section: Lots of Derrida, little Searle

It seems that the critism section contains tons of references and explainations for Derrida's arguments but very little in terms of what Searle actually said. Perhaps Searle ought to be quoted more or much of the information about Derrida's arguments ought to be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.168.163.26 (talk) 01:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I quoted Searle but it was deleted. But please, if you can do it it will help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 20:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Limited Inc

User:Hibrido Mutante appears to be insistent on including a large section on Searle's dispute with Derrida. I am strongly opposed to this material, and in the absence of any consensus to include it in the article will continue to remove it. I would ask Hibrido Mutante to please review WP:UNDUE - we don't include everything in an article that could possibly be sourced, only the main points. In my judgement, the section you favor contains a grossly excessive level of detail; it would be better dealt with in an article dedicated to the subject, such as Limited Inc. Furthermore, your addition is poorly written, opinionated, and violates WP:NPOV, eg in sentences such as "Much more important in terms of theoretical consequences, Derrida criticized Searle's work for intending to talk about 'intention' without being aware of traditional texts about the subject and without even understanding Husserl's work when talking about it." That's essay-like writing that does not belong in an encyclopedia. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state facts, not to make assertions about what is "important". Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If the issue is really WP:UNDUE, shouldn't we just edit this down to a smaller section? It seems to me that simply axing an entire section is a bit drastic. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The material on Searle's dispute with Derrida is currently rather minimal. I agree that the information could be expanded, indeed, it probably should be. Unfortunately, Hibrido Mutante's addition is both far too detailed, violating WP:DUE, and inappropriately written, violating WP:NPOV, and probably WP:NOTESSAY as well. Instead of simply restoring the material I removed, it would be better if Hibrido Mutante could come up with a shortened and rewritten version of it that would be more appropriate to a biographical article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hope it's better now. Polisher of Cobwebs and CharlesGillingham, can you help to improve it? I try to support each assertion with quotes so it's not "my opinion". I think you agree it is important to add criticism and also references to the polemic in the media.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The amount of material you are trying to add continues to be excessive. The material on Searle's dispute with Derrida could be expanded, but I don't believe it deserves much more than one or two sentences, especially since the issue is already covered in some detail in Limited Inc. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir, if you think it's "excessive" please, fell free to edit it. Not to delete it. Acting like that it starts to look you are censoring. It starts to look "intellectual terrorism". I'm sure you can do better than that. It looks to me that there are 2 subjects that are important a) Searle's behavior that justifies Derrida's answer b) Derrida's critic not only to Searle, as he explains. I will make this more clear.

It looks you are not comfortable with it and I understand. But to censor is never a solution when it comes to philosophy (time is the only policy). Please, try to act differentlly. Hibrido Mutante— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.145.46 (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL, and other Wikipedia policies. Do not accuse me or other editors of "terrorism" (it is not welcome) or make assumptions about what I am or am not "comfortable" with. I am not "censoring" anything by removing material that is undue for this article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Toward An Ethic of Discussion": I didn't "accuse". I just said it was "starting to look". I know it is a term we shouldn't use (I just did it to paraphrase Searle's behavior that is here in question) ;)I'll not do it again.

I didn't say you were or you were not "comfortable. Just that it looks (it does). But I'll not say it again. Please. Feel free to edit it (not just delete it as you are doing!) and we will try to come to a better section that is important to people coming here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Reread WP:CIVIL. It makes no difference to say that I am guilty of "intellectual terrorism" and that it just looks like I am guilty of "intellectual terrorism". It comes to the same thing, and it's a grotesque and unwelcome insult. You could, and in fact probably should, be blocked for it. It is impossible for me to engage in any discussion of any kind with you under these circumstances. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think that if we really care about philosophy we would describe the philosophical implications of the discussion between Searle and Derrida, and not simply give a "he said - she said" tabloid style summary of the public kerfuffle. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for cutting back some of that material; it's a step forward. I continue to have problems with the section even its reduced form. It is very strange to see a section called "Discussion with Derrida" that includes only Derrida's criticisms of Searle and nothing that Searle said in reply, so we have an WP:NPOV violation here, I think. And while it's less important, the section contains a number of spelling and formatting errors, and is quite badly written. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Searle only replied in the media (now deleted). I tried to make a resume of Searle's “arguments” quoting him. You can find the article in the internet (in many sites). You can find Seale's article in "Scribd". To my knowledge it was never reprinted (the name "limited Inc" is connected with this use of "intellectual property". But, please, improve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If Searle didn't give any serious reply to Derrida then it should perhaps just be named "criticism from Derrida" - or perhaps it should be in the Derrida article and be called "Criticism of Searle and Austin" or "Criticism of Analytical philosophy"?. Also the section as is now is not very clearly written - sentences are much too long and meandering. I think its should be rewritten to focus on the substance of the argument and not on the childish bickering. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's much better now Manus. It is great to confirm that collective work works :) I want to reiterate my excuses to Polisher of Cobwebs. Using Searle's terms was in fact excessive and unpolite. I will never do it again. (User talk:hibrido mutante) 13:18, 4 March 2012

Hibrido Mutante

It's a shame Manus, it's a shame... what can I say? Have a good night if you can... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.145.46 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You reinserted the block quotes that are fully unnecessary, and you reintroduced a lot of text that is about Derrida describing his own philosophy with only vague and oblique references to Searle. This article is about Searle and Searle's philosophy - not about Derrida. All material in the article has to be directly relevant to the topic. I am going to revert, and ask you to kindly get consensus for including the material through discussion before inserting it again. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No. I reinserted block quotes not about "descontructivism" but about Searle and analytic approach. That is what "critics" is about. It is 100% critic to the subject. If you want you should try to resume it better. Not to delete it. I'm really impressed. I will revert it and ask you to kindly get consensus before deleting it again. You can also add a "criticism section". You shouldn't act as the owner of what is and what isn't relevant, normal, or whatever.

Please, check here how you should behave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

“ As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage" ”

I am not removing it because it is biased, but because it isn't sufficiently relevant to the topic and because it is incorrectly formatted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You are inserting information that several other editors have expressed is unsuitable for the article. Specifically the block quotes in the footnotes that are completely unnecessary and destroy the page layout and which are discouraged by the Manual of Style. What gets included is not a question of ownership but of consensus - there is no consensus for inserting the material in the form you want, and if you try to impose it by force you will only get yourself blocked. You will have to compromise or convince us that your point is the best. Thats how wikipedia works I am afraid.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir - I see block quotes in the footnotes in many many pages around and they must be used everytime a) the subject is relevant and must be presented b) Controversial subjects must be supported by reliable quotes. I try to just quote the most important and pertinent arguments from Derrida. (why do you think I must stick with arguments like "unnecessary" (who says so?) and "destroy the page layout". I belive there is more reasons to block people that just deletes others editors contributions (well documented) based on "esthetic arguments"... please, check here how you should behave: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

“ Remove material ONLY where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage ”

I don't think quoting Derrida "misinforms or misleads readers" about Derrida's critics to Searle when the subject is "Derrida's critics to Searle"...

Manus said I "reintroduced a lot of text (...) ith only vague and oblique references to Searle". I edit it to make more clear that quotes ARE about Searle and ARE about Derrida CENTRAL critics to Searle, HAVE "theoretical consequence or implication" and "its effects on Searle's entire discourse are, he believes, non delimitable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 23:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Look, you really need to pause and think. This article is about John Searle, it currently only gives a very cursory introduction to his philosophy. Currently half the article is dedicated to a quite intricate critique by Derrida, which the reader has no way of understanding because there is no description of the parts of Searle's thought that Derrida is critiqueing. There are many proboems with the text you are editwarring to insert: It is not well written, it has grammatical problems and doesn't give adequate context for a reader to understand the substance of the argument. It is badly formatted using large block quotes for simple citations is not standard practice and is not endorsed by the MOS. And most importantluy it gives a huge amount of undue weight to one particular critique by Derrida which has not have any significant influence on Searle's subsequent thinking, and which has largely been unnoticed by followers of Searle. People come here to learn about john Searle, not to read a long winded badly written series of quotes from Derrida.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I Dear Sir - I see block quotes in the footnotes in many many pages around and they must be used everytime a) the subject is relevant and must be presented b) Controversial subjects must be supported by reliable quotes. I try to just quote the most important and pertinent arguments from Derrida. (why do you think I must stick with arguments like "unnecessary" (who says so?) and "destroy the page layout".

Toward An Ethic of Discussion": Dear Sir I'll try to address your new critics. Please, do not delete. Please be objective in your arguments a) The critic is not "half the article". b) About your arguments to behave as rules tell you to:

“ Remove material ONLY where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage ”

1)i - "there is no description of the parts of Searle's thought that Derrida is critiqueing" ii- "doesn't give adequate context for a reader" - Before being deleted it you could understand the all context and that Derrida is critiquing Searles distinction between "normal" and "parasite" when talking about a text. You also deleted the critic about this. Please, do not delete. I think that is a problem that can be addressed by rewriting the passage.

2) i- "It is not well written"; ii "it has grammatical problems" - it looks to me you have done a good job editing it until you started to delete it. Basically it paraphrase Derrida (that was quoted, and you delted quotes). You will do us all a favor to edit (without making it "vague" (I think it is one more step before deleting the all criticism section. For each one of the sentences you have a quote. You just have to concentrate yourself on it and try to paraphrase it. It’s not reason to delete. I think that is a problem that can be addressed by rewriting the passage

3) No "influence on Searle's subsequent thinking" - is this an important fact in all the other articles in Wikipedia when bulding "criticism"? No, it isn't (I believe you are not used to have critics in articles about authors you like. Check Derrida's page just to start (And people don't "delete it"... I'm not a Derrida's fan, but I would feel bad if people there acted like that (I would know that it was wrong).In fact, we read the critics, compare with the article (and it's a mess), and we just get more convinced there is something important about the author. It looks it is not the same with Searle.

4)"largely been unnoticed by followers of Searle" - After what I see here.. I just wonder why... could you try to act differently. Does it really upset you so much? You really need to pause and think...

You are quoting a policy (WP:NPOV) that doesn't apply and which obviously do not understand. You are repeating your claims about seeing block quotes in other articles which even if true does not mean that the MOS encourages that or that this article should have them. The problem with the writing was not one that could be solved merely by rewriting - the main problem was that it only included trivial or irrelevant information (such as which published published what and what year) and left out the relevant information and the context necessary for understanding it. It would require me to go and read the entire exchange between Searle and Derrida and any thirdhand descriptions of it in order to rewerite form scratch a new section. I may do that someday but not now. It is a prime criteria for inclusion that the material be relevant to the topic - if Derrida's critique had had an impact on Searle that would be one way of showing that thte critique was rleevant - other ways could be if you could show that anyone cared enough about Derrida's critique to write about it in third hand publications - which you haven't done. You need to produce new arguments now and try to convince us that you are right - by simply reverting and repeating the same arguments over and over you will just get blocked for disruption.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Toward An Ethic of Discussion": Dear Sir - From what you have to say about this (you even admit that you haven't read the book!! Not even Searle's article (20 pages!!!), honestly, who are you to judge what is and what isn't important? From your behavior I want to believe that you are not even really familiar with philosophy. I want to believe that real philosophy make us able to accept critics and promote pluralism, freedom of thought and freedom of expression. You don't argue, you just simply delete and repeat the same arguments over and over. Cambridge, for example, doesn’t agree with you. Is that enough (I know it isn’t… another episode to remember the way some people “argue”)

Can't you read what Derrida has to say? I quoted him? What do you don't understand? Can I help you? Do you really need someone to explain you the importance of what he is saying? Can’t you understand the implications to Searle (and all analytic) project? Do you understand that we ALL would like to know Searle’s answer that never came? Can you explain me why he didn't answer with ARGUMENTS? Why do you think he preferred to go to the media (why did you delete references to this? honestly.. do you feel comfortable to be on his side?) And you want to edit philosophy articles? --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary

I will try do do my best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.145.46 (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this stuff about Derrida seems misplaced, and it's not all comprehensible. The article claims that the dispute was or is famous. Splendid: this means that there will be accounts of it. In the meantime, for example:

Derrida even argued that in a certain way [Which way?] he was closer to Austin than Searle was, who [Searle, I suppose, but I'm not entirely sure] in turn was closer [than Derrida was?] to continental philosophers that he himself tried to criticize.

I'm aware that in philosophy "be close to" [philosopher X] is accepted shorthand for "have a standpoint that is close to that of" [philosopher X]. But even so, the sentence above strikes me as a bog. Derrida even argued that -- ah, good, I expect to see something substantive -- but no, this instead sinks into some remark about relative closeness to the unspecified opinions of unspecified philosophers. And even if it were clear, what would it tell us about Searle? Very little, I suspect.

The only book I happen to have with me on Searle is Joshua Rust, John Searle and "The Construction of Social Reality" (2006). This has an index. In its "D" section appear the personal names Dickinson, Michael; Dowd, Kevin; Dreyfus, Herbert; Dupré, John; Durkheim, Emile. No Derrida. I'm also looking at Devitt and Hanley, eds, The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language (2006). This has plenty of discussions of Searle, and plenty of talk of criticism by other philosophers of his work. But Derrida? Not a mention anywhere, as far as I can see.

I suspect that Derrida is not important to this area. But I could be wrong. If there was a famous dispute, let's see independent references to it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good evening Sir,

Most of your doubts were answered in the quotes. If you take a look, EACH one of the sentences finishes with a quote. Each sentence is just a paraphrase of the original text. They were deleted and the text was edited until you can think it is arbitrary. They were deleted so you have to go and confirm Derrida is saying what is being said in the book. I suggest you go to the article "limited ink", try to get perspective about it (if you don't even know about the subject!) and try to make it less "vague" here. I know that if I try to support the sentences with quotes I will be censored.

I'm sure that is a problem that can be addressed by rewriting the passage

I'm sure the community will thank you.

I will try to help giving you material so you can do better than me:

Hoary: "Derrida even argued that in a certain way [Which way?]" Derrida:

“ Searle had written, "It would be a mistake, I think, to regard Derrida's discussion of Austin as a confrontation between two prominent philosophical traditions." I agree with the letter if not with the intention of this declaration, having made it clear that I sometimes felt, paradoxically, closer to Austin than to a certain Continental tradition from which Searle, on the contrary, has inherited numerous gestures and a logic I try to deconstruct." ”

Jacques Derrida, "Afterwords" in Limited, Inc.' (Northwestern University Press, 1988) p.131

Hoary: "Derrida even argued that -- ah, good, I expect to see something substantive -- but no, this instead sinks into some remark about relative closeness to the unspecified opinions of unspecified philosophers. And even if it were clear, what would it tell us about Searle? Very little, I suspect"

Derrida:

“ "That is one theoretical consequence or implication that I wanted first of all to recall to Searle, and its effects on his entire discourse are, I believe, non delimitable. In the description of the structure called "normal," "normative," "central," "ideal", this possibility must be integrated as an essential possibility.

The possibility cannot be treated as though it were a simple accident-marginal or parasitic. It cannot be, and hence ought not to be, and this passage from can to ought reflects the entire difficulty. In the analysis of so-called normal cases, one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. Not even provisionally, or out of allegedly methodological considerations. It would be a poor method, since this possibility of transgression tells us immediately and indispensably about the structure of the act said to be normal as well as about the structure of law in general.

”

Jacques Derrida, Afterwords" in Limited, Inc. (Northwestern University Press, 1988) p. 133)

(deleted)

“ I will not repeat my objection to the order of "logical dependency" invoked by Searle concerning the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite." But I recall this example here apropos of your question. One cannot subordinate or leave in abeyance the analysis of fiction in order to proceed firstly and " logically" to that of "nonfiction or standard discourse. " For part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were. ”

Jacques Derrida, Afterwords" in Limited, Inc. (Northwestern University Press, 1988) p. 133

He would also argument about the problem he found in the constant appeal to "normality" in the analytical tradition from which Austin and Searle were only paradigmatic examples.

“ In the description of the structure called "normal," "normative," "central," "ideal,"this possibility must be integrated as an essential possibility. The possibility cannot be treated as though it were a simple accident-marginal or parasitic. It cannot be, and hence ought not to be, and this passage from can to ought reflects the entire difficulty. In the analysis of so-called normal cases, one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. Not even provisionally, or out of allegedly methodological considerations. It would be a poor method, since this possibility of transgression tells us immediately and indispensably about the structure of the act said to be normal as well as about the structure of law in general. ”

“ I will not repeat my objection to the order of "logical dependency" invoked by Searle concerning the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite." But I recall this example here apropos of your question. One cannot subordinate or leave in abeyance the analysis of fiction in order to proceed firstly and " logically" to that of "nonfiction or standard discourse. " For part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were. ”

The polemic was in fact famous, specially because Searle's behaviour... taking a subject that should stay in the academy to the media... I wonder how you are not aware of it.. but I can give some clues (all mentions to it here were deleted)... in fact it will be difficult to talk English and hear about it.. I can now understand why it is so ;)

“ In the first essay, "Signature Event Context," Derrida engages with J. L. Austin's theory of the illocutionary act outlined in his How To Do Things With Words.[1] The second essay, "Limited Inc a b c...", is Derrida's response to John Searle's "Reply to Derrida: Reiterating the Differences," which criticizes Derrida's interpretation of Austin. The book concludes with a letter by Derrida, written in response to questions posed by Gerald Graff in 1988: "Afterword: Toward an Ethic of Discussion". Searle's essay is not itself included: he denied Northwestern University Press permission to reprint it. A summary is included between the two Derrida essays, and Derrida quotes the essay extensively.[2] ”

Derrida (1988) Editor's Foreword, in Limited Inc. page VII - Editor's Foreword

In 1972, Derrida wrote "Signature Event Context," an essay on J. L. Austin's speech act theory; following a critique of this text by John Searle in his 1977 essay Reiterating the Differences, Derrida wrote the same year Limited Inc abc ..., a long defense of his earlier argument. The only answered that I'm aware of was Searle interview in The New York Review of Books, February 2, 1984;[5]where he talked about Deconstruction like this (I don't have any problems to quote it....):

“ ...anyone who reads deconstructive texts with an open mind is likely to be struck by the same phenomena that initially surprised me: the low level of philosophical argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by making claims that seem paradoxical, but under analysis often turn out to be silly or trivial. ”

This episode become quite famouse specially beacause Searle told to The New York Review of Books a remark on Derrida allegedly made by Michel Foucault in a private conversation with Searle himself; Derrida later despised Searle's gesture as gossip, and also condemned as violent the use of a mass circulation magazine to fight an academic debate.[6] According to Searle's account, Foucault called Derrida's prose style "terrorist obscurantism"; Searle's quote was:

“ Michel Foucault once characterized Derrida's prose style to me as "obscurantisme terroriste." The text is written so obscurely that you can't figure out exactly what the thesis is (hence "obscurantisme") and when one criticizes it, the author says, "Vous m'avez mal compris; vous êtes idiot' (hence "terroriste") ”

Louis Mackey and Searle (1984) In 1988, Derrida wrote "Afterword: Toward An Ethic of Discussion", to be published with the previous essays in the collection Limited Inc. Commenting this critics in a footnote he questioned:

“ I just want to raise the question of what precisely a philosopher is doing when, in a newspaper with a large circulation, he finds himself compelled to cite private and unverifiable insults of another philosopher in order to authorize himself to insult in turn and to practice what in French is called ajugement d'autorite, that is, the method and preferred practice of all dogmatism. I do not know whether the fact of citing in French suffices to guarantee the authenticity of a citation when it concerns a private opinion. I do not exclude the possibility that Foucault may have said such things, alas! That is a different question, which would have to be treated separately. But as he is dead, I will not in my turn cite the judgment which, as I have been told by those who were close to him, Foucault is supposed to have made concerning the practice of Searle in this case and on the act that consisted in making this use of an alleged citation.” ”

I would say that, at least, Cambridge considers Derrida important in this area... but there are other opinions.. and methods... no doubt.. That is what we call "different opinions and values". We should respect them all... and when we feel the temptation to censorship critics, we should know we are in the wrong side of the fence. Critics are just that: critics. Let people that come here judge with their own criteria .. not mine, not yours...(give extra info if you can. I'll be pleased

“ Remove material ONLY where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage ”

Sleep well --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What would you think about having the last part of the Derrida article be about how he had been criticized as being obscure, pompous, self-serving, and suspiciously evasive? --JimWae (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You say:

The polemic was in fact famous, specially because Searle's behaviour... taking a subject that should stay in the academy to the media... I wonder how you are not aware of it.. but I can give some clues [...]

You repeat that this affair was famous. So (i) provide clear evidence (and not merely "some clues") for this claim, and (ii) show that the affair is of importance for Searle. After all, this article is about Searle, not about Derrida.

Actually, yes, I have found mention of a substantive argument since I last wrote. But it's an argument over work by Austin. It might belong in an argument on Austin. What you quote above by Searle is an argument over (i) the prose style of Derrida (which might belong in an argument on Derrida), and (ii) the etiquette of Searle's public utterance of a critical comment on Derrida's prose style made to him (S) by Foucault. This last matter seems to me to turn philosophy into mere soap opera. Maybe Derrida was entirely justified in being offended by it: I don't know or (at this point) much care. Does any disinterested philosopher comment on the matter? If not, I'd dismiss it as trivial (even if unfortunate). -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Searle/Derrida debate

Having done a small literature search it seems that the debate is indeed something that should be covered. It should however be baased on tertiary literature and not on clumsy summary of the he-said/she-said of the debate. Here are some sources that should be used if we are to expand this section.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• FARRELL, F. B. (1988), ITERABILITY AND MEANING: THE SEARLE-DERRIDA DEBATE. Metaphilosophy, 19: 53–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9973.1988.tb00701[1]
• With the Compliments of the Author: Reflections on Austin and Derrida

Stanley E. Fish. Critical Inquiry , Vol. 8, No. 4 (Summer, 1982), pp. 693-721[2]

• Derrida, Searle, Contexts, Games, Riddles. Edmond Wright. New Literary History , Vol. 13, No. 3, Theory: Parodies, Puzzles, Paradigms (Spring, 1982), pp. 463-477[3]
• Convention and Meaning: Derrida and Austin. Jonathan Culler. New Literary History , Vol. 13, No. 1, On Convention: I (Autumn, 1981), pp. 15-30[4]
• Another Look at the Derrida-Searle Debate. Mark Alfino. Philosophy & Rhetoric , Vol. 24, No. 2 (1991), pp. 143-152[5]
• Language, philosophy and the risk of failure: rereading the debate between Searle and Derrida. Hagi Kenaan. CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY REVIEW. Volume 35, Number 2, 117-133, DOI: 10.1023/A:1016583115826[6]
• Understanding Each Other: The Case of the Derrida-Searle Debate. Stanley RaffelHUMAN STUDIES

Volume 34, Number 3, 277-292, DOI: 10.1007/s10746-011-9189-6 THEORETICAL / PHILOSOPHICAL PAPER[7]

Yes, this is the right way to go. I'm sorry, I'm not volunteering to do the work. The reason: Wondering what philosophical arguments might have to do with new literary history, I clicked on the link for the article by Wright. Its first sentence:

Charles Altieri has argued in these pages that even if one allows that contextual constraints have a part to play in the deliverance of meaning, the human action in the text upon which they are based will still have that necessary objectivity that is the anchor against relativism.

I don't know what that means. I don't even know what various constituents of it mean. Oh, I can make guesses, but that's not good enough. Perhaps I could put effort into understanding it; but unlike what I've seen of Searle's work, it's powerfully soporific so I'm not going to. Sorry. It seems that Altieri is a professor of literature (as in novels and poetry); frankly I don't see how literature is important to Searle's career. How much of this Searle/Derrida dispute is a mere sideshow, irrelevant to Searle's main concerns? -- Hoary (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(deleted comment) --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello 89.152.84.65. You raise all sorts of points, such as that of my mental incompetence, my lack of manners, and my banworthiness. I don't at all mind your bringing them up, but a page to discuss the article on Searle is probably not the right place to do so. One of your concerns is very straightforward, so let's deal with it first. It seems that you strongly object to my deletions. This surprises me. As far as I am aware, I only (here) deleted (Northwestern University Press, 1988), so that what was previously (Northwestern University Press, 1988) (Northwestern University Press, 1988) is now simply (Northwestern University Press, 1988). Was I wrong to do this? What else have I deleted? Please present the diff of the most egregious example. (If you're unfamiliar with "diff", this is an example.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Good morning. I'm sorry. English is an ambiguous language when making the distinction between singular and plural "you". I will delete it from here, create a section and change it to make it more clear that I'm talking to people that are deleting the text without trying to edit or to make an effort to add contra-arguments, and look for some sources that could be used if they are to expand this section.

Best regards --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Remove material ONLY where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers"

See alsoNPOV noticeboard

• Dear Sirs, It is clear that those that are deleting my contributions are not competent to decide what is or what is not important on this subject. Those editor(s) were not even aware of this until today and so they ignore the most basic issues about criticism to Searle (but this doesn't change their sad behavior!). They should be humble and assume their ignorance on the subject. If they want to add contra-arguments, please do. If they are not able to do it, than should step aside.Ignorance is not, never was, and never will be an argument

I added the only "critics" I know from Searle in an important magazine, but they were deleted.

If an editor ignores the subject, if an editor don't have the competence, if he is "not volunteering to do the work", than he should stop deleting others contributions, only because they don't like criticism.If they think it doesn't matter, than let it be. Maybe others do. It's not up to them to decide (and it is not up to them to decide others can't even decide).

They are clearly DELETING critical arguments from Derrida to Searle:

"He continued arguing how problematic was establishing the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, “for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were”.[37] He would finally argue that the indispensable question would then become "what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc."? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites, "are not things found in nature, but symbolic inventions, institutions that,in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.[38]"

Here is the quotation. I leave here my appeal: Please, try to resume it (it looks my paraphrase is "to clumsy" ). Deleting it is pure censorship and no one that loves philosophy can support this kind of attitude:

That is one theoretical consequence or implication that I wanted first of all to recall to Searle, and its effects on his entire discourse are, I believe, non delimitable. In the description of the structure called "normal," "normative," "central," "ideal,"this possibility must be integrated as an essential possibility. The possibility cannot be treated as though it were a simple accident-marginal or parasitic. It cannot be, and hence ought not to be, and this passage from can to ought reflects the entire difficulty. In the analysis of so-called normal cases, one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. Not even provisionally, or out of allegedly methodological considerations. It would be a poor method, since this possibility of transgression tells us immediately and indispensably about the structure of the act said to be normal as well as about the structure of law in general.

what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc.)? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules, and even the statements of the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites," are not things found in nature, but laws, symbolic inventions, or conventions, institutions that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.

Jacques Derrida, Afterwords" in Limited, Inc. (Northwestern University Press, 1988) p. 133

Is it difficult to understand what Derrida is saying?

That is one theoretical consequence (...) The possibility cannot be treated as though it were a simple accident-marginal or parasitic. It cannot be, and hence ought not to be, and this passage from can to ought reflects the entire difficulty. In the analysis of so-called normal cases, one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. Not even provisionally, or out of allegedly methodological considerations. It would be a poor method, since this possibility of transgression tells us immediately and indispensably about the structure of the act said to be normal as well as about the structure of law in general.(...) This question is all the more indispensable since the rules, and even the statements of the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites," are not things found in nature, but laws, symbolic inventions, or conventions, institutions that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.

What exactly they don't understand? What exactly are their arguments? They "don't like it"? I don't know.

I already appealed for moderation on this conflict. Until someone competent decide what to do, please, respect different opinions, respect Wikipedia NPOV norms: "Remove material ONLY where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage"

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Derrida is obscure. Example: In the analysis of so-called normal cases, one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. "So-called normal cases" of what? "Transgression" by whom and of what?

But luckily there's no need to attempt to work out what Derrida means (admirable or even necessary though this would be for other purposes): there are published papers that do it. (Wikipedia, you'll remember, encourages the use of secondary sources.) Another kind editor has specified these above. -- Hoary (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

See alsoNPOV noticeboard, you say. You mean here. -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL Dear Sir, It's Austin and Searle (and you?) that must explain us all "what the hell" do they mean with "So-called normal cases" (speech acts) and "transgression". I see you agree with Derrida when he says Austin and Searle are "obscure" and lack rigor on this core matter LOL It looks to me you agree the critics are fair.

one neither can nor ought, in all theoretical rigor, to exclude the possibility of transgression. Not even provisionally, or out of allegedly methodological considerations. It would be a poor method...

Sir, it really looks you don't know what you are talking about. Please, do some homework. If you are lazy, you just need to read Searle's article and the Afterword from Derrida. It's only around 60 pages long. I'm sure you can handle it. If you want to do some serious introduction to the subject, you should try to read the book, Searle's article and Austin "How to do things with words" (it's a very small book). It will take you around 250 pages.. to much? If you want to quote secondary sources, it is up to you how deep you want to go. We would all be grateful.

Please, if you want to give positive contributions, do us a favor: make some homework first. This is philosophy, not sports. It's not "YOUR club" against the world in the tabloid YOU choose to read.I will stay here and wait for POSITIVE contributions (delete is a negative one... I hope you know that)

"Remove material ONLY where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers"

Have a nice day --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My day is very nice, thank you. Concision is a virtue. -- Hoary (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with this article. The thread is "Derrida criticism to Searle". Thank you.

This is the paragraph I beleive should be the last section, so Derrida's arguments are presented to readers coming here (not only concerned with philosophy, or Searle, but also, for example, social sciences, once this is an author that made contributions considered "relevant" when talking about "speecha cts", "institutions", etc):

"He continued arguing how problematic was establishing, as Searle did, the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, “for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were”.[37] He would finally argue that the indispensable question would then become "what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc."? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites, "are not things found in nature, but symbolic inventions, institutions that,in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.[38]"

If not, in alternative (and I propose alternatives...), and once there is no real answer from Searle after Derrida's reply, I suggest to revert the section's title to "Criticism" (as is normal practice in Wikipedia and making the section more focused in what is clearly missing from this article - criticism)) and present only the critics from Derrida based on explicit quotes (normally criticism doesn't includes authors reply from what I can confirm in most articles in Wikipedia - I wonder, if that was a criterion, if we coulf find a "valid one" in Derrida's page... Sometimes the author was even dead when they occurred...I imagine that we couldn't have Einstein's critics to Newton if that was a criterion):

"Derrida criticized directly Searle's work in his book "Limited Inc" (1988) for intending to talk about "intention" without being aware of standard texts on the subject, such as the seminal work of Husserl.[34] Because Searle ignored the tradition, as he himself admited in his book book on intentionality (1983), he rested blindly imprisoned in it, repeating its most problematic gestures and logic, falling short of the most elementary critical questions.[35] Derrida even argued that in a certain way he was closer to Austin than Searle was, who in turn was closer to the continental philosophers that he himself tried to criticize He continued arguing how problematic was establishing, as Searle did, the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, “for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were”.[37] He would finally argue that the indispensable question would then become "what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc."? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites, "are not things found in nature, but symbolic inventions, institutions that,in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.[38]"

-Hibrido Mutante (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Of course we can include information about Derrida's critique. But it will be in accordance with WP:WEIGHT (the amount of material to be included will be proportional to the importance and to the rest of the article).

2. Criticism from Derrida should be based on secondary sources, not on the writings of Searle and Derrida themselves.

3. It will have to be a succinct and well written summary of the actual TOPIC of the dispute, not just a summary of publications.

4 In order for it to make sense to have the critique the rtaicle must first describe the actual viewpoints of Searl that Derrida is critiqueing. The article currently does not give a very good summary of Searle's own ideas - this means that including many of Derrida's ideas will be disporportionate to the coverage of Searle's ideas which is the actual topic of this article. Ergo - the article need to expand the description of Searle's thinking before going into details about Derrida's critique.

5. The section is not about criticism, but about a specific critique (criticism and critique is not the same thing).

6. There is no "criticism" section in the article on Isaac Newton, nor any mention of Einstein's critique.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The article now has a top-level section titled "Searle-Derrida debate", which implies that such a debate was important to Searle. In the current state of the article every source to this section cites Derrida.

If this "debate" is so significant, why are third-party accounts of it not cited?

Having looked for books about Searle, finding only one (although mentions of at least one more), and looking within this book for references to Derrida and finding none whatever (search within this page for the string "rust"), I thought I'd try surveys in reference books. I found four:

• Fontenot, Karen Anding. "John R. Searle." World Philosophers and Their Works (Salem, 3 vols, 2000). 3:1756-1762.
• Gochet, Paul. "Searle, John Roger, 1932-". Dictionnaire des Philosophes, 2nd ed (PUF, 2 vols, 1993). 2:2603-2607.
• Harnish, Robert M. "Searle, John (1932-)". Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd ed (Macmillan Reference USA, 10 vols, 2006). 8:705-707.
• Lepore, Ernie. "Searle, John (1932-)". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (10 vols, 1998). 8:589-591.

Possibly I overlooked something, but as far as I am aware these four bring a grand total of zero (0) mentions of Derrida.

I tentatively infer that neither Derrida nor the debate with him is of much lasting importance to the work of Searle (the subject of this article).

(Whether Searle or the debate with him is of lasting importance to the work of Derrida is something of which I have no opinion.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Let see how this ends.. I'm really curious ;) Could you please try to improve the article? ;) "Agora" lesson. Have a nice day --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless you start trying to see other points of view than you own this has already ended. Yes the article should be improved - Derrida's critique is not the first priority on my list in that regards.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, do it :) It will be a pleasure to see what you can do ;) It's not, "my point of view" that is important here, only "criticism from Derrida to Searle" (?'m sure you know what "criticism" is and you understand the critics from Derrida)

a) Could you agree between you if the debate is important and the title must be maintain (and you should try to add Searle's position and Derrida's answer) or if it is not and we should concentrate with Derrida's critic and give an honest resume of it (Searle answered, once in a text, the other in the media... is it enought? Can I add what he said without you delete it?).

b)Could you try to give the different views about the subject and not only "yours"? (I tried but you deleted). I'm only able to quote people, not censure or make it "vague"

Resume: Can you confirm positions with authors that are not on "Searle's side" (Can you add some real criticism)? Can you deal with Derrida's critics (they are in the paragraphs)? Can you add positions from authors that are not "abnalitical, for example, from the social sciences? (or Searle is not important for scientists?)

(do you think we should delete all critics from "analitical philosophers" in Derrida's article, once he never talked about it (except about Austin and Searle) and all philosophers and social scientists interested in him are not much interested in "analitical normality"?

Thanks

Best regards

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't have the time to do the research that would be required to understand and explain the scope and importance of Derrida's critique relative to Searle's other work. Hoary and I have already told you what would be the basic requirements for something about this to be included - first and foremost you must show that the critique was important to other people than Derrida (i.e. you must use secondary sources about the debate as a basis for a summary of the arguments and for assessing the overall relevance to Searle and Derrida's respective works - sinc e this article is about Searle your best bet would be to find a book about Searle and see what amount of space and verbiage they devote to the debate - wikipedia's coverage should weight the relative importance of different facts in acordance with the weight given in secondary and tertiary literature). This is all stuff you will have to do in order to include this material, the burden of justifying inclusion is on the shoulders on the person who wants to include, not on those who want to exclude something. If you include material without trying to understand or respond to our objections yes then we will have to remove it again. Alternatively you could begin to rpoduce actual arguments based in sources why the material you want to include should be included - that might convince us that what you are doing makes sense. Up untill this point you have not provided arguments but simply taken it for granted that the material should be included, and you have not listened to the many arguments by us explaining to you why it does not seem to deserve nearly as much weight as you are wanting to give it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh! It is a pity :( I was so interested in seeing you doing something positive. But ok. I do the work.Once you are not able to just read and try to paraphrase critics, I will try to do it better (and it was me that created the section). It looks I'm the only one that has read Derrida and Searle (we talk as Searle never answered to Derrida and if we needed anything more it shows how you are not being honest with yourself).

You: "first and foremost you must show that the critique was important to other people than Derrida"

Someone as done some positive search and presented here:

ARRELL, F. B. (1988), ITERABILITY AND MEANING: THE SEARLE-DERRIDA DEBATE. Metaphilosophy, 19: 53–64. doi:

Stanley E. Fish. Critical Inquiry , Vol. 8, No. 4 (Summer, 1982), pp. 693-721[4]

Derrida, Searle, Contexts, Games, Riddles. Edmond Wright. New Literary History , Vol. 13, No. 3, Theory: Parodies, Puzzles, Paradigms (Spring, 1982), pp. 463-477[5]

Convention and Meaning: Derrida and Austin. Jonathan Culler. New Literary History , Vol. 13, No. 1, On Convention: I (Autumn, 1981), pp. 15-30[6]

Another Look at the Derrida-Searle Debate. Mark Alfino. Philosophy & Rhetoric , Vol. 24, No. 2 (1991), pp. 143-152[7]

Language, philosophy and the risk of failure: rereading the debate between Searle and Derrida. Hagi Kenaan. CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY REVIEW. Volume 35, Number 2, 117-133, DOI: 10.1023/A:1016583115826[8]

Understanding Each Other: The Case of the Derrida-Searle Debate. Stanley Raffel

HUMAN STUDIES Volume 34, Number 3, 277-292, DOI: 10.1007/s10746-011-9189-6 THEORETICAL / PHILOSOPHICAL PAPER[9]

This is mine ;)

"Derrida" 2010 - Les Belles Lettres - Jean-Michel Salanskis (author of "Philosophie Des Mathématiques" Vrin, 2008 (no, not "literary critic"), "professeur de philosophies des sciences, logique et épistémologie à l'úniversité Paris-Ouest Nanterre-La-défense". Is it ok or will I have to wait to be translated to English so you can confirm? ;)

All this contributions are "normal" and "valid", I believe (can they talk about what Derrida is saying without respecting the meaning of what Derrida said in the paragraphs I quoted? Should we assume they are saying Derrida said something different from what Derrida said? I quoted the answers Searle gave in a famous magazine... you deleted. I believe I can add this quotations and, once we only need to know what Derrida's critics are, we can paraphrase him (to be 100% honest and we don't loose nothing in "translation"

Once you are not "doing the work", I will try to do it myself. I will concentrate in adding a "criticism" area, that is normal in wikipedia's article and try to keep with the number of characters you propose ;) All quotations added (because you don't think we need people can confirm Derrida's said what it's said Derrida said)

Could you please tell me what do you consider "arguments" (and about what should I argue about)?

What are exactly your arguments against what Derrida is saying? Please, could you concentrate yourself in the content of what Derrida is saying? What is that you don't understand? Can I help you?

(meanwhile I will use some quotations from you here to clean up some articles around Wikipedia if you don’t mind. I will respect your “intellectual property” about it, I promise ;)

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 18:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

While you were writing this I actually did do the work and rewrote the section to focus on the content of the debate. Thanks for finally producing some secondary sources. Please correct any misunderstandings I may have of Alfino's description of the debate. Oh and the "someone" who has done some positive research by tracking down secondary sources was me. Thanks for noticing now, even though it would have saved us sometime if you had noticed when I actually presented them. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes.. I can see that. You have done it without respecting rules from wikipedia. You didn't argue about it. You didn't try to reach consensus. It is very hard to "argue" with you sir...

Once you act as you were the owner of the article (and of truth). Could you please, try to resume this critic from Derrida (I believe there is also one about trying to talk about "Intentionality" without reading Husserl", there is one about "normality", about "normativity" and about "nonfiction or standard discourse “and its fictional "parasites, "are not things found in nature, but symbolic inventions, institutions that, once in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.[38]"

A) Derrida criticized directly Searle's work in his book "Limited Inc" (1988) for intending to talk about "intention" without being aware of standard texts on the subject, such as the seminal work of Husserl.[34] Because Searle ignored the tradition, as he himself admited in his book book on intentionality (1983), he rested blindly imprisoned in it, repeating its most problematic gestures and logic, falling short of the most elementary critical questions.[35]

B) Derrida even argued that in a certain way he was closer to Austin than Searle was, who in turn was closer to the continental philosophers that he himself tried to criticize He continued arguing how problematic was establishing, as Searle did, the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, “for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were”.[37]

C) He would finally argue that the indispensable question would then become "what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc."? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional "parasites, "are not things found in nature, but symbolic inventions, institutions that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.[38]"

(I will also ask for some quotation since you explicitly make your own "interpretations" about what Derrida was wrong or right... This is incredible... I'm really curious to know what "wikipedia" can do when things start to go this way ... so... there is no criticism section now, and you give us your interpretation ... this is great!!! Can I go to the authors I prefer and act the same way? I will just quote you and give your example, Sir... no I'm not able to do it...

(rearding the fact you were the one that gave the quotations... I'm glad you have some sense of humor ;)

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I had already argued what I believed to be the correct solution to our debate and since you did not contradict that but in fact encouraged me to "do the work" I went ahead and did it. I am not saying that it is perfect or that it cannot be changed, I welcome any suggestions to improvement. I am not an expert on either Derrida or Searle, I have read a little about both - but I am a bit of an expert on how to write wikipedia articles. That is the expertise through which I am arguing here - I am quite aware that you are an expert on both Searle and Derrida - but you need to translate that expertise into a form that works for wikipedia (we require secondary sources). I don't make interpretations of whether Derrida was wrong or right - they come from Alfino's summary of the debate which is in fact mostly sympathetic to Derrida. Also in fact it is preferred not to have a separate section on criticism, but to integrate the criticism into the relevant sections of the article as I have done (see WP:CRITICISM) - the critique by Derrida was specifically about Speech Act theory, not about Searle's person or other work so it belongs in the section on Speech act theory where it is now. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

show that the critique was important to other people than Derrida

I see that now you accept the debate is worth 3.282 characters, 5 paragraphs and 36 lines and even so it is still "vague"

From what I understand, it is polite to first propose here what we would like to edit, try to get consensus and then do it... you not only edit "the section".. You deleted, changed its place and gave what, for me, is an interpretation (I will read what you suggested, but it looks to me we get to much stucked in interpretation of “authors intentions”… but ok, I will read it…)

I will think for a while how to proceed (and read what you have suggested. But, if you could review your contribution so it could include the 3 main ideas I'm proposing here, I believe it could help us to get a final consensus.

Best regards

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Just making sure I understand you: Your three points are 1. Derrida argued that Searle was not conversant with the phenomenological tradition of perspectives on intentionality (I am alluding to this in the second paragraph, where I write "Derrida argued that the focus on intentionality in speech act theory was misguided, because intentionality is restricted to be intentional about that which is already established as a possible intention" and "Searle agreed with Derrida's proposal that intentionality presupposes iterability, but Searle did not apply the same concept of intentionality used by Derrida."). 2. Derrida claimed to be more akin to Austin than Searle "in a certain way" - it would be useful to know in which certain way he meant. 3. I have tried (using Alfino's summary) to rephrase Derrida's critique regarding fiction into language that is more accesible for the layreader. If I misrepresent his ideas I do not do so out of bad faith but in an attempt to make intelligible something that I do not fully understand myself (hence my reluctance to "do the work").·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Manus, I will accept your good faith, even if I'm not comfortable with the final result (I will explain later why I don't think it gives a good picture of what happened and my 3 points are not covered. But I have to review your sources and, I reinforce, I accept your good faith). As I said before, I will think for a while how to proceed.

Sorry if sometimes I look more aggressive, but there were things in the way you preceded that disturbs me (and sometimes I also committed the fault of judging all editors as a group identity. I’m also sorry about that).

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I accept the apology and offer my own as well. I also realize that part of this was exacerbated by my brusque dismissal of your critique, before having fully understood it. If you can explain to me why you don't feel the current version is adequate I am sure we can find a way to improve it cooperatively.

Dear Manus. I can't tell you how glad I'm for us to have arrived to this tone (if not yet to the content). I can see you are doing a real effort to understand both positions and give them voice.

I believe the best way for us to go forward is to try to arrive to common ground, using authors that make an effort to build a bridge between both "traditions" and to go step by step and not try to discuss everything at once. I will select one point and suggest a paragraph from another author that I consider pertinent to the subject, and that can highlight the pertinence to the specific critique from Derrida that I think should be more explicit (and less "vague").

"rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional "parasites" are not things found in nature"

Lets concentrate our selves in this paragraph from Derrida for now (and please, remember that not only “speech acts” as well as “institutions” are important here:

c)what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc.)? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules, and even the statements of the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional "parasites" are not things found in nature, but laws, symbolic inventions, or conventions, INSTITUTIONS that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.

Please consider this paragraph from Umberto Eco (one of the main "fathers" of contemporary semiotics and the author of "Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language"). This paragraph is from the article "Sign", in Encyclopedia Einaudi (one of the most important encyclopedias in "continental Europe”, to which some of the most prominent intellectuals and scientist from the XX century contributed, vol. 43, “Systematic” p. 108, after exposing the example of divergences about the concept of "Denotation" in Stuart Mill and Hjelmslev, concluded that:

“the reason for the confusions is not accidental, nor Esperanto full of goodwill will be able to solve it. It is that the semiotic thought presents itself, from the beginning, as always divided by a dilemma and marked by a choice, more or less implicit, that guides the thinker:

is it his task when studying languages

to know when and how to refer to things properly (problem of truth)

or to ask how and when they are used to produce beliefs?

Or, downstream of any terminological choice, there is a deeper choice between

transparent systems of signification about things

or systems of signification as producers of reality.

Pathetic confidentiality of this division, the two sides of the fence, when the division is manifested, rates the opponent as idealist (at least in more recent times).

I hope this can help you to figure out what I think is important to highlight here. I’m not expecting you to change anything "now". Please, think for a while about these paragraphs. Lets both return here in a week. Read again your contributions and see if we should change anything.

Have a nice week

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Revert to previous version that we could agree

Once you: a) agree this is an important subject b) you are not familiar with the subect c) I don't have to accept your authority and I don't give the legitimacy to delete my contributions, I will revert to the moment you made your first changes and that I could agree with. We start the editing from there.

If you want to do any changes, please, publish it here first and lets do it together.

Thanks Best regards --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is not how it works. Nobody needs any particular authority to revert your work - when you click "save" you agree to give anyone in the world legitimacy to delete or change your contributions. because I respect you as a scholar and a philosopher I will not make any changes to the article form now on, or engage in more discussion. But I will note that I do not consider your additions an overall improvement to the article - not because they are not good scholarship, because they are, but because they do not fit the formal criteria for how an encyclopedia presents its material. I am supposed you probably don't care much for such formal criteria - but consider if you were asked to contribute an article on the scholarship of Searle to the Cambridge Handbook of Philosophy - whether you would write it in the way you did here? I find it hard to believe that the handbook would accept it without very heavy editing. The principle here is the same - there is a standard for how articles are supposed to be. Part of that standard is that they are supposed to describe the topic in general without going into undue details about particular minor issues. Happy editing. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please reconsider. You don't have to accept anyone's "authority", but you do have to accept consensus, because that's how Wikipedia operates. See WP:CONSENSUS. Many of your changes here have not found acceptance in the past, and have been rejected by multiple editors, so if you insist on making them again it's likely that they will simply be reverted again. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please, be more explicit and give arguments. I believe the ones you gave before were considered not valid (lack of information about the subject)

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

To whom is that comment addressed, myself or Maunus? I don't believe any arguments I made were "considered not valid", except perhaps by you. The problem here has always been the same: you want to add too much detail, the kind that isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. See WP:DUE. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

My comment was addressed to both of you. You can't come to me and think you are the owner of truth and you establish the criterion (even when you are not able to do so). Please, be polite. You are not the owner and you are not familair with the subject. You should spend your time with articles you know something about it. If you were honnest (and you just need to go back and read, you will remember that your "arguments" changed during the discussion (and in the end Manus published a much larger paragraph than the one I proposed).

If you want to do some positive contributions, please suggest it here so we can get an agreement. I have mixed my contributions with Manus one's. Please, do the same and respect your interlocutor.Try to understand wikipedia spirit (and what is pluralism)

What exactly you don't understand or you think is not useful to explain Derrida's critics? You have the quotes. Try to paraphrase it. --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should reread WP:CIVIL. Ranting, semi-incoherent comments like those you made above don't help you make your case, and they aren't welcome. The objections to the material you want to include have already been stated several times, and I don't see much point in repeating them.

However, let's try. Part of the material you wanted to include was, "Derrida than criticized Searle's work for intending to talk about "intention" without being aware of traditional texts about the subject and without even understanding Husserl's work when talking about it. Because he ignored the tradition he rested blindly imprisoned in it, repeating its most problematic gestures, falling short of the most elementary critical questions. Derrida would even argue that in a certain way he was more close to Austin than Searle that, in fact, was more close to continental philosophers that he himself tried to criticize." That's all terribly vague. What traditional texts are being referred to, what problematic gestures, and which elementary critical questions?What was the "certain way" in which Derrida was closer to Austin? It's all terribly vague and quite unhelpful to readers. It's also probably more appropriate for other articles, eg, Limited Inc. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"Remove material ONLY where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers"2

See alsoNPOV noticeboard --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC) "You have not presented any alternative proposals incorporating the concerns of other editors. Doing so would be the way forward" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not the only applicable policy since nobody is removing the material because of NPOV concerns. It is perfectly acceptable to remove any material if there is consensus to do so, if it judged to not be an improvement to the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Who says so? Who decides about the "applicable policy"? You?

I say you don't have a neutral point of view. That is 100% clear to me and you don't respect my contributions. You act like you were the owner of truth. You use symbolic violence and unilateral deleting and editing. I try to combine your contributions with mine. I made "alternative proposals incorporating the concerns of other editors. Doing so would be the way forward"

Do you really think your "contribution" explains better than my paraphrase of Derrida, what were the critics from Derrida? really? Or simply don't care about it? Please, be honest.. What do you want to delete this time and WHY? I will tell you what I think we could delete instead from your contribution (not an improvement to the article)...

--89.152.84.65 (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Professor, I have not removed your additions and I will not, because I respect you as a scholar. I do however encourage you to try to be a little more aware of the situation - there are several editors who do not feel that your additions are an improvement to the article. The removal is therefore not unilateral. Your new version did not incorporate the main concern of other editors - namely that the topic received too much attention relative to the larger work of Searle and that the particular text you proposed was not well written. It just combined the text written by me and by you into a large mishmash. You are free to remove anything from my version that you find erroneous or misleading. What is not acceptable to others is that you insist on including a disproportionate block of poorly written text into the article. No editor would accept this either if you were publishing a professional article about Searle. You need to work with other editors not against them. I do not claim expertise on Searle and never have, but I do claim expertise on how to write this particular encyclopedia - that is expertise that you clearly do not have. Therefore we need to work together and not just stubbornly stick to our own versions. As for neutral points of view - it is clear i don't have a neutral poin of view, neither do you (by definitions points of view are not neutral). That is not what the policy you cite is about - it is about maintaining a neutral point of view in the article. The reason your text was removed was not that it was non-neutral (although actually it wasn't), but that it was poorly written and gave exaggerated importance to a minor part of the topic of the article. And now please listen: I have not now and will not remove your additions from the article. Don't hold me responsible for others' actions. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

“ tenho estado a acompanhar esta disputa” e realmente não compreendo porque querem apagar a contribuição do Hibrido que é pertinente e bem fundamentada. Ele permitiu a edição dos outros, parece-me que é de respeitar a dele, que parece bem informada (pelo menos mais bem informada do que a dos demais editores que já demonstraram e admitiram não dominar o tema” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofia Almeida (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Dominando o tema não é suficiente. É preciso também ser capaz de escrever Inglês acadêmico coerente. E deve-se considerar a coerência geral do artigo, que é de cerca de John Searle e os seus pensamentos, dos quais o debate Derrida-Searle é apenas um capítulo muito pequeno.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but one thing is to correct grammar, another one is to delete content. I’m not the most competent person to correct English (it looks ok for me, especially after reading Derrida’s quotes). And I from what I can read Hibrido will thank you for that. But you are doing much more than that… aren’t you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofia Almeida (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am actually not doing anything at all - apart from encouraging Hibrido to cooperate instead of just stubbornly insisting on his version that doesn't conform to the styleguide for the wikipedia in the way it is written and formatted and in the way it devotes a large amount of space to a minor subtopic within a larger article. I think the best solution would be to have a separate article on the Searle-Derrida debate and summarise it very briefly here with a link to the larger article. Then Hibrido could write at length about the topic that interests him without high-jacking the article on Searle to describe an issue that was obviously much more important to Derrida than it was to Searle. Searle never himself considered that exchange to be of any significance for his thinking.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I just finished reading this "dispute".

Well, saying that Derrida criticized Searle for not "being aware of traditional texts about the subject" is NOT being "opinionated" - is being precise. Derrida himself said it:

«I sometimes felt, paradoxically, closer to Austin than to a certain Continental tradition from which Searle, on the contrary, has inherited numer­ous gestures and a logic I try to deconstruct. I now have to add this: it is often because "Searle" ignores this tradition or pretends to take no account of it that he rests blindly imprisoned in it, repeating its most problematic gestures, falling short of the most elementary critical questions, not to mention the deconstruc­tive ones. It is because in appearance at least "I" am more of a historian that am a less passive, more attentive and more "deconstructive" heir of that so-called tradition. And hence, perhaps again paradoxically, more foreign to that tradition.» ("Limited Inc.", p. 130)

If Wikipedia is not about "misinforming" or "misleading" people, it's better to keep up with the source, as close as possible.

"Criticism from Derrida should be based on secondary sources, not on the writings of Searle and Derrida themselves"?!

How can someone seriously defend that an encyclopedia should not take into account the original sources? From an academic point of view, that's an weird thing to say... If we are supposed to build an encyclopedia based on "word-of-mouth", we should call ourselves "gossip tellers".

Someone allegedly said that Searle-Derrida debate is "a minor part of the topic of the article". Though, if the Searle-Derrida debate is "minor", then the role that intentionality plays in Searle's work is "minor", too. Why mention it at all? You see that there are consequences...

We cannot consider "minor" a fundamental critique to someone's major work without consider that major work "minor", too. Are you willing to remove "Intentionality" topic from this article?

In fact, presenting Derrida's arguments turns Searle's theory more interesting.

It's a pity if someone decide to truncate it.

Sonduarte (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well come to wikipedia Sonduarte. The policy that dictates that wikipedia should use secondary sources is WP:RS which stipulates that we must only include viewpoints that have already been advanced by others because our primary role is to summarise, not to interpret primary sources. Therefore our interpretations and summaries of primary sources must have been advanced previously by other scholars. This way we strive to keep wikipedia from publishing Original Research. You are very welcome to participate in writing wikipedia, but it is a good strategy to start by familiarizing oneself with out policies and practices. Also as I have said, Searle did not consider Derrida's critique to be substantial or to have any bearings on his general philosophy. No one is arguing that the debate should be nexluded - but it should not be the largest part of the article. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

That policy "dictates" this too:

«To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. If this is not possible, then the text may be taken from a reliable secondary source (ideally one that includes a citation to the original). No matter where you take the quoted text from, it is important to make clear the actual source of the text, as it appears in the article. Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context. In such cases, look for neutral corroboration from another source.»

Are those 2 policies supposed to enter in contradiction?

Of course, Searle would dismiss forever Derrida's critique (if he could...). Searle, as a theorist, is usually not the type that "flirts" with the enemy.

Sun Tzu is. "Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer".

Sonduarte (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No and they don't enter into contradiction - it is because you you are quoting a phrase in the policy out of context - the policy says that whe you quote someone you must cite the source of the quote. It does not say that we must quote primary sources for every claim, indeed that would contradict the policy that clearly says that primary sources should be used sparingly and with extreme care. Very few articles incorporate large quotes and when they do they only do so when there is explicit agreement that the quotes should be included. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"Explicit agreement"? Does it mean "consensus" by certain "legislators"? Sonduarte (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No it does not - it means a consensus based on policy among the group of editors participating in the discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sofia and Sonduarte.

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What happens if that "consensus" doesn't arise? Do we vote democratically? Or it is decided by any hierarchichal role within Wikipedia (which means that some would impose their personal preferences and views on others)? I really would like to know that, just in case I decide to edit more than I previously did, depending on how it works.

Ahahah - I'm certainly not a "sockpuppet" of Hibrido, but that's a funny idea. Similarly, I could think of you as a "sockpuppet" of Searle legion of fans... ;-)) Sonduarte (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It occurred to me how relevant was this excerpt for the debate about "consensus" proceedings:

«Develop action, thought, and desires by proliferation, juxtaposition, and disjunction, and not by subdivision and pyramidal hierarchization.

Withdraw allegiance from the old categories of the Negative (law limit, castration, lack, lacuna), which Western thought has so long held sacred as a form of power and an access to reality. Prefer what is positive and multiple: difference over uniformity, flows over unities, mobile arrangements over systems. Believe that what is productive is not sedentary but nomadic. (...)

Do not use thought to ground a political practice in Truth (...)

Do not become enamoured of power.»

- Michel Foucault, "Introduction to the Non-Fascist Life", http://weblearn.ox.ac.uk/site/human/orient/sa/orin0077/dep/george/other/art/Foucault.pdf

Sonduarte (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL I'm now sure about who you are ;)

I'm sure the debate will become much more interesting (and informed) now. Welcome.

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Toward An Ethic of Discussion

Dear Manus, your "contribution" to this section is now 4.500 characters. Mine is 2.000: 9 sentences. To each "sentence" (a paraphrase of Derrida) you have a full quotation I offer to the community so we can try to build a final text. Are we able to do it together?

These are the sentences. Can you explain me why you want to delete it? 1) Derrida argued that Searle avoided reading him[31]

2) and did not try to understand him and even that, perhaps, he was not able to understand, and how certain practices of academic politeness or impoliteness could result in a form of brutality that he disapproved of and would like to disarm, in his fashion.[45]

3) Derrida than criticized Searle's work for intending to talk about "intention" without being aware of traditional texts about the subject and without even understanding Husserl's work when talking about it.[46]

4)Because he ignored the tradition he rested blindly imprisoned in it, repeating its most problematic gestures, falling short of the most elementary critical questions.[47]

5) Derrida would even argue that in a certain way he was more close to Austin than Searle that, in fact, was more close to continental philosophers that he himself tried to criticize.[48]

6) He would also argue about the problem he found in the constant appeal to "normality" in the analytical tradition from which Austin and Searle were only paradigmatic examples.[49]

7) He continued arguing how problematic was establishing the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, “for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were”.[50]

8)He would finally argue that the indispensable question is:[51]

9) what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc.)? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules, and even the statements of the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites," are not things found in nature, but laws, symbolic inventions, or conventions, institutions that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.

You can edit the form if you respect the content (or give arguments me and other editors can accept) Thanks Best regards --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS. You cannot dictate article content, nor do other editors have to give arguments you can accept, if a consensus supports a position you disagree with. We go by Wikipedia policy here, not your dictates. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You and Manus are two (and Manus disapproves your behavior from what I can understand). ofia and Sonduarte don't agree with you. Please, lets wait for a moderator... try to review your behavior. You are not the owner of wikipedia... can you understand how other people interpret your behavior? Please, give arguments. I don't want to get into personal discussions with you.

Can you act "rationally" and respect difference? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs) --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, kindly review WP:CIVIL. I have given arguments. You have ignored them. Try being a little more concerned with your own behavior, especially the edit warring, which isn't doing you any favors. Regarding "ofia" and "Sonduarte", there appears to be a suspicion that these accounts are sockpuppets of yours, or editors you have recruited to Wikipedia because they agree with you. I apologize if the suspicion is incorrect, but it needs to be investigated. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You have given arguments? Sorry, I don't remember (was it about no one talked about it?). Can you give them again, please?

Regarding "sockpuppets"... I don't need it, thanks. I believe it is easy to check it. I don't need to recruite. But believe me, this page is being watched by other people that are curious to see how this is going to end (there is facebook now for us to share things and it is easy to funny things to become viral, I believe. There is people laughing a lot to (for some people that "agrees" with me, this is really funny, believe me). I didn't ask explicitly for Sonia or Sonduarte's help (but I can imagine who they are). I'm glad they felt stimulated to give their opinion (if they are who I think they are, wikipedia got some good new editors.. if they understand it is easy and it can make a difference). But my contribution here is 100% personal. I want to see if my contribution can be assimilated (and it doesn't matter who I'm). I'm giving valid content. Can it get a proper form?

Please, give your arguments and stop personal attacks. Lets try to keep it rational (is this possible?)

Thanks

I gave my arguments above, in the section called "Revert to previous version that we could agree." It might have been easier for you to find them if you hadn't clogged this talk page with so many long-winded comments of your own. Fundamentally, the problem is that you want to include much more detail here about Searle's dispute with Derrida than is appropriate for this article. I've asked you to review WP:DUE, but you seem to have ignored it. The material you want to add is more suitable to Limited Inc, and since most of it is already there, there's no need to include it here too. Instead of responding to this point, you have engaged in ranting and complaints about me, and it's getting increasingly tedious to deal with. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You mean here? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC) - Sorry, there were many other editors talking after that section (but before your contribution). My possible answers to your comments below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibrido Mutante (talk • contribs)

"Reaching consensus through discussion"

When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerned. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view. --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Manus, your "contribution" to this section is now 4.500 characters. Mine is 2.000: 9 sentences. To each "sentence" (a paraphrase of Derrida) you have a full quotation I offer to the community so we can try to build a final text. Are we able to do it together?

These are the sentences. Can you explain me why you want to delete it? 1) Derrida argued that Searle avoided reading him[31]

2) and did not try to understand him and even that, perhaps, he was not able to understand, and how certain practices of academic politeness or impoliteness could result in a form of brutality that he disapproved of and would like to disarm, in his fashion.[45]

3) Derrida than criticized Searle's work for intending to talk about "intention" without being aware of traditional texts about the subject and without even understanding Husserl's work when talking about it.[46]

4)Because he ignored the tradition he rested blindly imprisoned in it, repeating its most problematic gestures, falling short of the most elementary critical questions.[47]

5) Derrida would even argue that in a certain way he was more close to Austin than Searle that, in fact, was more close to continental philosophers that he himself tried to criticize.[48]

6) He would also argue about the problem he found in the constant appeal to "normality" in the analytical tradition from which Austin and Searle were only paradigmatic examples.[49]

7) He continued arguing how problematic was establishing the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, “for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were”.[50]

8)He would finally argue that the indispensable question is:[51]

9) what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc.)? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules, and even the statements of the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites," are not things found in nature, but laws, symbolic inventions, or conventions, institutions that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.

You can edit the form if you respect the content (or give arguments me and other editors can accept)

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC):

A) What traditional texts are being referred to,

B) what problematic gestures,

C) and which elementary critical questions?

D) What was the "certain way" in which Derrida was closer to Austin?

(no comments about: 4;6;7;8-I assume they are ok).

I accept to remove B, C, D

About

A=3

"Derrida than criticized Searle's work for intending to talk about "intention" without being aware of traditional texts about the subject and without even understanding Husserl's work when talking about it.[46]

Quotation supporting this are:

Derrida:

i) "My frequenting of philosophies and phenomenologies of intentionality, beginning with that of Husserl, has only caused my uncertainty to increase, as well as my distrust of this word or of this figure, I hardly dare to say "concept." And since that time, Searle's book on intentionality (1983) has not helped me, not in the slightest, to dispel these concerns. I did not read it without interest, far from it."

Please, note this is not an "opinion" from Derrida, but facts. It is Searle that says that (Intentionality; 1983 p.ix):

"I am even ready to admire how the author of a book bearing this title, Intentionality, could choose, as he declares at the very outset, in the Introduction, to "pass over in silence" "whole philosophical movements" which "have been built around theories of intentionality," avowing, as one of his reasons, " ignorance of most of the traditional writings on Intentionality" (p. ix) . Something that is indeed evident in reading the seven lines devoted to Husserl in this book of three hundred pages."

How can we make it more clear to the readers that comes here that Derrida doesn't approve authors that give "as one of his reasons, " ignorance of most of the traditional writings on Intentionality" (p. ix) .

I also call your attention to this: "I put quotation marks around "Searle" and "I" to mark that beyond these indexes, I am aiming at tendencies, types, styles, or situations rather than at persons."

These are my arguments. I accept suggestions from other editors to make B-3 less vague. I'm going to delete the other sentences you are not comfortable with.

I believe in the end, we can delete most of the "quotations" from the footnotes (I accepted it in the past I will accept it in the future). But for now, lets keep it so we can all have access to it.

Thanks --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've also removed this: Derrida argued that Searle avoided reading him

"...I have read some of his [Searle's] work (more, in any case, than he seems to have read of mine)"[8]</ref> and did not try to understand him and even that, perhaps, he was not able to understand, and how certain practices of academic politeness or impoliteness could result in a form of brutality that he disapproved of and would like to disarm, in his fashion.

Jacques Derrida, "Afterwords" in 'Limited, Inc.' (Northwestern University Press, 1988) p.158,

beneath an often quite manifest exterior, Searle had read me, or rather avoided reading me and trying to understand. And why, perhaps, he was not able to read me, why this inability was exemplary and symptomatic. And for him lasting, doubtless irreversible, as I have since learned through the press. In a more general way, I wanted to show how certain practices of academic politeness or impoliteness could result in a form of brutality that I disapprove of and would like to disarm, in my fashion. To put it even more generally, and perhaps more essentially, I would have wished to make legible the (philosophical, ethical, political) axiomatics hidden beneath the code of academic discussion.

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hibrido, I'd like to participate in this talk page discussion, but two things: a. you MUST stop edit-warring, b. please follow regular guidelines for talk page discussions. You write too much, in too many paragraphs, and I can't see the forest for the trees. And then you forget (I suppose) to log in--it's really quite confusing. FWIW, I wrote Glas (book), so I can handle complicated texts, but I don't want to have to decypher texts on talk pages. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Dear Drmies - What a surprise to read you here now. I thought we were "talking" in the "Deconstruction" page. You were the one that came and deleted not only my contributions but the contributions from many other editors during the last 4 years now and gave us your understanding about a "philosophy of literary critic", isn't it? I was expecting your answer there to get consensus but now you are here. I was expecting Polisher of Cobwebs here but now he is there deleting in your name. It's quite confusing.

Well, be welcome but, please, avoid personal comments (ad hominem). Me, Manus, Polisher of Cobwebs were here trying to find a final version.

If you want to collaborate, please concentrate on this 9 sentences (I have deleted 3 based on Polisher of Cobwebs last critics). I'm refuting the arguments to one of them. Lets try to play by the rules, please.

Thanks

Best regards --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Reaching consensus through discussion"

When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit:

editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion.

Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense;

they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerned.

The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view.

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Manus, your "contribution" to this section is now 4.500 characters. Mine is 2.000: 9 sentences. To each "sentence" (a paraphrase of Derrida) you have a full quotation I offer to the community so we can try to build a final text. Are we able to do it together?

These are the sentences. Can you explain me why you want to delete it? 1) Derrida argued that Searle avoided reading him[31]

2) and did not try to understand him and even that, perhaps, he was not able to understand, and how certain practices of academic politeness or impoliteness could result in a form of brutality that he disapproved of and would like to disarm, in his fashion.[45]

3) Derrida than criticized Searle's work for intending to talk about "intention" without being aware of traditional texts about the subject and without even understanding Husserl's work when talking about it.[46]

4)Because he ignored the tradition he rested blindly imprisoned in it, repeating its most problematic gestures, falling short of the most elementary critical questions.[47]

5) Derrida would even argue that in a certain way he was more close to Austin than Searle that, in fact, was more close to continental philosophers that he himself tried to criticize.[48]

6) He would also argue about the problem he found in the constant appeal to "normality" in the analytical tradition from which Austin and Searle were only paradigmatic examples.[49]

7) He continued arguing how problematic was establishing the relation between "nonfiction or standard discourse" and "fiction," defined as its "parasite, “for part of the most originary essence of the latter is to allow fiction, the simulacrum, parasitism, to take place-and in so doing to "de-essentialize" itself as it were”.[50]

8)He would finally argue that the indispensable question is:[51]

9) what is "nonfiction standard discourse," what must it be and what does this name evoke, once its fictionality or its fictionalization, its transgressive "parasitism," is always possible (and moreover by virtue of the very same words, the same phrases, the same grammar, etc.)? This question is all the more indispensable since the rules, and even the statements of the rules governing the relations of "nonfiction standard discourse" and its fictional"parasites," are not things found in nature, but laws, symbolic inventions, or conventions, institutions that, in their very normality as well as in their normativity, entail something of the fictional.

You can edit the form if you respect the content (or give arguments me and other editors can accept)

--Hibrido Mutante (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC):

A) What traditional texts are being referred to,

B) what problematic gestures,

C) and which elementary critical questions?

D) What was the "certain way" in which Derrida was closer to Austin?

(no comments about: 4;6;7;8-I assume they are ok).

I accept to remove B, C, D

About

A=3

"Derrida than criticized Searle's work for intending to talk about "intention" without being aware of traditional texts about the subject and without even understanding Husserl's work when talking about it.[46]

Quotation supporting this are:

Derrida:

i) "My frequenting of philosophies and phenomenologies of intentionality, beginning with that of Husserl, has only caused my uncertainty to increase, as well as my distrust of this word or of this figure, I hardly dare to say "concept." And since that time, Searle's book on intentionality (1983) has not helped me, not in the slightest, to dispel these concerns. I did not read it without interest, far from it."

Please, note this is not an "opinion" from Derrida, but facts. It is Searle that says that (Intentionality; 1983 p.ix):

"I am even ready to admire how the author of a book bearing this title, Intentionality, could choose, as he declares at the very outset, in the Introduction, to "pass over in silence" "whole philosophical movements" which "have been built around theories of intentionality," avowing, as one of his reasons, " ignorance of most of the traditional writings on Intentionality" (p. ix) . Something that is indeed evident in reading the seven lines devoted to Husserl in this book of three hundred pages."

How can we make it more clear to the readers that comes here that Derrida doesn't approve authors that give "as one of his reasons, " ignorance of most of the traditional writings on Intentionality" (p. ix) .

I also call your attention to this: "I put quotation marks around "Searle" and "I" to mark that beyond these indexes, I am aiming at tendencies, types, styles, or situations rather than at persons."

These are my arguments. I accept suggestions from other editors to make B-3 less vague. I'm going to delete the other sentences you are not comfortable with.

I believe in the end, we can delete most of the "quotations" from the footnotes (I accepted it in the past I will accept it in the future). But for now, lets keep it so we can all have access to it.

Thanks --Hibrido Mutante (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've also removed this: Derrida argued that Searle avoided reading him

"...I have read some of his [Searle's] work (more, in any case, than he seems to have read of mine)"[9]</ref> and did not try to understand him and even that, perhaps, he was not able to understand, and how certain practices of academic politeness or impoliteness could result in a form of brutality that he disapproved of and would like to disarm, in his fashion.

Jacques Derrida, "Afterwords" in 'Limited, Inc.' (Northwestern University Press, 1988) p.158,

beneath an often quite manifest exterior, Searle had read me, or rather avoided reading me and trying to understand. And why, perhaps, he was not able to read me, why this inability was exemplary and symptomatic. And for him lasting, doubtless irreversible, as I have since learned through the press. In a more general way, I wanted to show how certain practices of academic politeness or impoliteness could result in a form of brutality that I disapprove of and would like to disarm, in my fashion. To put it even more generally, and perhaps more essentially, I would have wished to make legible the (philosophical, ethical, political) axiomatics hidden beneath the code of academic discussion.

1) Insignificant

2) Insignificant, turning into incomprehensible

3) Insignificant, unless ignorance of "traditional" (established?) texts can be shown to have damaged the argument

4) Incomprehensible

5) Apparently about Derrida; but this article is instead about Searle

6) Vague, and apparently about Derrida

7) Incomprehensible

9) Verbose and incomprehensible

-- Hoary (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

«In every conversation the fate of philosophy is always at stake, and many philosophical discussions do not as such go beyond discussions of cheese, including the insults and the confrontation of worldviews.

The philosophy of communication is exhausted in the search for a universal liberal opinion as consensus, in which we find again the cynical perceptions and affections of the capitalist himself. (...)

Doxa is a type of proposition that arises in the following way: in a given perceptive-affective lived situation (for example, some cheese is brought to the dinner table), someone extracts a pure quality from it (for example, a foul smell); but, at the same time as he abstracts the quality, he identifies himself with a generic subject experiencing a common affection (the society of those who detest cheese-competing as such with those who love it, usually on the basis of another quality). "Discussion," therefore, bears on the choice of the abstract perceptual quality and on the power of the generic subject affected. (...)

Opinion is a thought that is closely molded on the form or recognition: recognition of a quality in perception (contemplation), recognition of a group in affection (reflection), and recognition of a rival in the possibility of other groups and other qualities (communication).

It gives to the recognition of truth an extension and criteria that are naturally those of an "orthodoxy": a true opinion will be the one that coincides with that of the group to which one belongs by expressing it.

This is clear to see in certain competitions: you must express your opinion, but you "win" (you have spoken the truth) if you say the same as the majority of those participating in the competition. The essence of opinion is will to majority and already speaks in the name of a majority.»

- D&G, "What is Philosophy?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.136.91.2 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead

User:ERIDU-DREAMING has been edit warring over the lead, making a large number of changes that I find unhelpful and unconstructive. Unfortunately, this user has refused to explain the rationale for most of his changes, and has used bizarre and vaguely insulting edit summaries, such as here ("The only substantive change is the deletion of the absurd mention of a group he happened to agree with in 1964-5 - and which presumably you helped to set up"). I would ask ERIDU-DREAMING to please read WP:BRD, to stop edit warring, and to properly explain and justify his changes. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Since it is you who reverted, the burden of proof lies with you to justify your reversion, given that I set out the reason why it is absurd to include his support for a group at Berkeley in 1964-5 in his lede. My other changes are very minor, and so your argument that they are "unhelpful" and "unconstructive" moves us not one inch further forward, given that none of them involve any change in substantive content.

I presumed that the reason why you are keen to put his 1964-5 support for a political group at Berkeley into his lede is because it has some personal significance for you; but since you respond that this charge is "bizzare" and "vaguely insulting" we are left none the wiser. Why you want to include this fact (and revert if it is deleted) in the lede is therefore left a mystery. Are we supposed to guess?

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)).

Did you or did you not write the edit summary The only substantive change is the deletion of the absurd mention of a group he happened to agree with in 1964-5 - and which presumably you helped to set up? If you didn't write it, please explain how it has your name attached to it. If you did write it, do you stand by it, or do you retract it? If you retract it (and many of us occasionally write edit summaries that we later realize are unsatisfactory or even silly), then please say which part you retract. If you stand by it, then it appears to be a most remarkable assertion. Please explain how it means something other than what it appears to mean, and present supporting evidence for it. If on the other hand your only evidence for the claim that Polisher of Cobwebs helped set up a group active in 1964-65 is that he/she mentioned it (absurdly or otherwise), then your evidence is laughably weak, and I shall most regretfully class you within an unfortunate group of Wikipedia editors: those with whom attempts at rational discussion are a waste of time. -- Hoary (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The only substantive change [I made] is the deletion of the absurd mention [in the lede] of a group he [that is to say John Searle the subject of the article] happened to support in the years 1964-5 - which presumably you [that is the editor "Polisher of Cobwebs" not the user who calls himself 'Hoary'] helped to set up] [or if he has no personal involvement with the group has some other as yet unstated reason for including it in the lede]? I hope this clarifies this for you.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you've clarified for me the fact that you have a bizarre way of argumentation, viz:

1. You note an action by somebody else with which, rightly or wrongly, you disagree.
2. You presume a bizarre reason for this action.
3. You then immediately say that if this reason is wrong then there must be some other reason.

Oh, it's 22:30 already, and my wife still hasn't returned home. I presume that she has been kidnapped by extraterrestrials; but if she hasn't been, then there must be some other reason why she's been delayed. -- Hoary (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I notice there is still no justification for the inclusion in the lede of the fact that John Searle was sympathetic to a 1964-5 Berkeley student group. Not sure why it is up to me to come up with suggestions. I agree with you that if my suggestion that the poster "Polisher of Cobwebs" had a personal involvement with that group is incorrect, there "must be some other reason". Hugs and kisses.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)).

ERIDU-DREAMING, you wrote, "Since it is you who reverted, the burden of proof lies with you to justify your reversion." I'm sorry, but that is absolutely wrong (see WP:BRD). You want to change the article, so it is you who has to create consensus for your changes. If they are disputed or reverted, the appropriate thing for you to do is to discuss them on the talk page and try to work things out with other editors - not to immediately restore them despite objections. Searle's support for the free speech movement would appear to be a significant element of his career, and unless there are valid objections, it seems perfectly reasonable to mention it in the lead. I don't think that any of your other changes to the lead are improvements either. They may be, as you say, "very minor", but they certainly don't make the lead read any better than it did before, and they should be removed. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I obviously did not explain myself clearly enough. Since it is you [Polisher of Cobwebs] who reverted the change, you should supply a reason for your reversion. Stamping your feet and saying I do not like the change falls some way short of being a justification for a revert.

I supplied a reason for my deletion - that to include John Searle's support for a student group in 1964-5 in the lede is to give it undue importance. I have no objection to it being mentioned in the main body of the article, but it is absurd to include it as one of the defining facts about John Searle.

I am pleased to see that you have now graced us with an argument for your reversion. You claim that his support in 1964-5 for a Berkeley student group (notice he did not found the group he simply gave it his support) is one of the defining moments in his career. That when the name John Searle comes up the key bit of information that ought to be mentioned in the lede is his support for a Berkeley student group in 1964-5.

As I say, I have no objection to this fact being mentioned in the main body of the text, but it is absurd to put it into the lede as one of the defining events of his career. You might equally include his criticism of the student protests. Indeed you would have a much better case.

In short you have selected out a bit of information (which is rightly covered in the main body of the text) and privileged it as one of the defining facts about the philosopher John Searle. No reason is given for this conclusion other than your belief that it is a defining contribution of his career!

A possible clue which may explain your approach is provided by your next claim. That every single change (all of which you admit are very very minor) should be reverted. It suggests does it not that you have ownership issues with the text. Every single minor change must be reverted!

It is evidently enough for you that if you believe that John Searle's support for a student group in 1964-5 is of career defining significance that makes it of career defining significance. If I ring up John Searle and tell him that his support for a student group in 1964-5 is his major contribution to the world, do you think for a moment that he will reply - yes, my contributions to philosophy are equal in importance to the fact that in 1964-5 I approved of a Berkeley student group. You strain credibility if you believe this to be the case.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)).

The Free Speech Movement was a sufficiently important phenomenon that it seems quite relevant to mention that Searle was a supporter. Regarding your other changes to the lead, all you have to say is, "A possible clue which may explain your approach is provided by your next claim. That every single change (all of which you admit are very very minor) should be reverted. It suggests does it not that you have ownership issues with the text. Every single minor change must be reverted." I think your changes should be reverted because they are poor edits and make the lead read worse than it did before. If they were actually improvements, then you should explain how they are improvements, instead of simply complaining that I reverted them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You claim that the Free Speech Movement was a sufficiently important phenomenon to justify a mention that John Searle was a supporter. This is disingenuous. Nobody is suggesting that it should be removed from the body of the text, the issue is whether or not it should be repeated in the lede.

Your assert that every single one of the extremely minor edits I made are "poor edits" and so should therefore be removed. This tells us your feelings (thanks for sharing) but it does not supply a justification. The charge that you see yourself as having ownership of the article is hardly refuted. Looking over my very minor edits I notice I have made a less minor edit - I deleted a quote about Bin Laden. My reason for doing this is the fact that John Searle said it does not in itself justify its inclusion. It is entirely irrelevant to the rest of the article.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)).

Your preferred version of the lead reads, "John Rogers Searle (born July 31, 1932, in Denver, Colorado) is an American philosopher. He is the Slusser Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, and is best known for his contributions to the philosophy of language, philosophy of mind and social philosophy. In the year 2000 he received the Jean Nicod Prize, and in 2004 he was awarded the National Humanities Medal. His most famous contribution is the "Chinese room" argument against "strong" artificial intelligence." It seems obvious to me that that is inferior to the previous version reading, "John Rogers Searle (born July 31, 1932, in Denver, Colorado) is an American philosopher and currently the Slusser Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. Widely noted for his contributions to the philosophy of language, philosophy of mind and social philosophy, he began teaching at Berkeley in 1959, where, among his many distinctions, he was the first tenured professor to join the Free Speech Movement. He received the Jean Nicod Prize in 2000 and the National Humanities Medal in 2004. Among his notable concepts are the "Chinese room" argument against "strong" artificial intelligence." As your changes are unsupported by consensus (in fact no editor has so far said that he or she agrees with you), I intend to revert them. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Everybody can read the changes made to the article for themselves. That is the beauty of Wikipedia. Still waiting for you to address a single point. I am looking around for this consensus you keep on talking about - at the moment it seems to consist of just yourself.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)).

UC-Berkeley thinks it's important enough to have a separate heading & extensive photo coverage.[10] [11] https://www.google.ca/search?q=john+searle&rlz=1I7DACA_en-GB&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&redir_esc=&ei=VYFSUPe7NMGtiQLxvoCgDQ#hl=en&rlz=1I7DACA_en-GB&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22searle%22+%22free+speech%22&oq=%22searle%22+%22free+speech%22&gs_l=serp.3..0i30j0i5i30l2.4862.4862.5.5720.1.1.0.0.0.0.48.48.1.1.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.I7TMtB5-icw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=544edb117a42dc31&biw=1745&bih=860 has 69,800 hits. I see no harm in at least mentioning it somewhere in the lede. --JimWae (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair comment. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 01:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC))

It is a question of balance. If the above information is included in the lede (for the reason you have given) his much more famous (and much more recent) "political" interventions should also be included. Insofar as John Searle is known for his "activism" he is best known for his claim that a victory for multiculturalism would mean the destruction of the Western intellectual heritage. Searle has made it clear that he views the current debate over the curriculum as far more dangerous than past controversies in higher education, because the principles which make knowledge and education possible are under attack. He claims that the concepts of truth, reality, objectivity, and rationality which have been taken for granted in higher education (as well as in our civilization in general) are being challenged by what he calls the “subculture of postmodernism,” a loosely-defined group of multiculturalists, feminists, deconstructionists, and followers of Nietzsche, T.S. Kuhn, and Richard Rorty.

Searle summarizes the main principles of what he calls the “Western Rationalistic Tradition” as follows:

Knowledge is typically of a mind-independent reality. It is expressed in a public language, it contains true propositions — these propositions are true because they accurately represent that reality — and knowledge is arrived at by applying, and is subject to, constraints of rationality and logic. The merits and demerits of theories are largely a matter of meeting or failing to meet the criteria implicit in this conception. Searle, “Rationality and Realism. . .,” p. 69.

All of the above principles, Searle claims, are being challenged by those seeking to subvert the university in order to advance their own political ends.

The culture of postmodernism debunks the scholarly ideal of the disinterested inquirer in quest of objective and universally valid knowledge and interprets claims to objectivity as disguised forms of power-seeking. Searle claims that the abandonment of traditional standards of truth and objectivity justifies an educational agenda which seeks to treat all cultures as intellectually equal, and thus equally deserving of being represented in the curriculum, and which uses affirmative action rather than academic excellence as the main criterion for faculty hiring.

Searle asserts that rejecting the presuppositions of the Western Rationalistic Tradition is important because its principles function as the conditions of intelligibility of our linguistic, cultural, and scientific institutions. To reject them is to undermine the practices of teaching and research which are the raison d'etre of the university and to threaten the foundations of Western civilization. He writes:

An immediate difficulty with denials of metaphysical realism is that they remove the rational constraints that are supposed to shape discourse, when that discourse aims at something beyond itself. To paraphrase Dostoevsky, without metaphysical realism, anything is permissible. “The Storm over the University,” p. 112.

I do not say that Searle is right or wrong about these issues, but if his "activism" in the "free speech" movement in 1964-5 is to be given such prominence, his much more recent defence of the university against what he sees as its multicultural critics should be given equal, if not greater, prominence. Unless of course the goal is editing by omission in the service of political goals that override accuracy and fairness.

John R. Searle, “Rationality and Realism: What is at Stake?” Daedalus, volume 122, no. 4 (Fall 1992), pp. 55-84.p. 69; John Searle, “The Storm over the University,” in Debating P.C. Paul Berman, ed. (New York: Dell, 1992)

None of that matters. The Free Speech Movement was an important part of the 1960s antiwar and civil rights movements; it marks the beginning of the era of student protests that define the late 1960s. To stop the ongoing protests at U.C. Berkeley, Governor Ronald Reagan sent armed U.S. soldiers; there were riots, destruction and blood on the sidewalks. The fact that a U.C. Professor (ostensibly an employee of the state) joined the movement and faced armed U.S. soldiers along with other protestors is a fairly important example of real courage. Most readers who are familiar with the history of the era would consider this the single most interesting fact about John Searle. Frankly, his position on metaphysics would probably interest almost no one outside of philosophy. Leave it in the lede.

If you want to add the sentence "Searle is an outspoken critic of 'multiculturalism' in education", if you like, but I would argue this is a far less important historical fact; he is only one fairly insignificant critic among many in a debate that (in the U.S.) tends to fall along red/blue party lines. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the Wikipedia article is about John Searle I had a look at what he has to say about the "Free Speech" movement. This is what he said in September 2001:

'We won in December [1964] and in the following semester, by September, there was no question the situation had deteriorated. What happened is very simple and I’m sure it’s a permanent feature of protest movements. Namely, to the extent that they are successful, they are taken over by the extreme elements. The moderate liberal students went back to their studies and the radicals got control…There were periods when it was really bad. If you were in favor of the war in Vietnam, life was very difficult for you. I wasn’t in favor, but I can tell you that there was no free speech. You could not have people come on campus to defend government policy. They’d be shouted down…there was no free speech for people who weren’t “politically correct.”'

So it seems that John Searle began as a supporter of the "Free Speech" movement, but became one of its critics. Rather relevant I would have thought if his support is going to be given such prominence in his Wikipedia entry. I therefore did a little more research into his views about the "Free Speech" movement, and found a site that includes an interview he gave where he discusses his participation.

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people/Searle/searle-con0.html

'I am not basically a very political person...But when I came back from England I was involved in civil liberties activities, and in particular I was involved...against something called the House Un-American Activities Committee. And I had, as an undergraduate at Wisconsin, been active against Senator McCarthy, who was then our senator in Wisconsin. I was secretary of an organization called Students Against McCarthy....And to my total amazement, I was forbidden to speak at our law school in response to a movie put out by the House Un-American Activities Committee....I did not appreciate that. I was extremely indignant that that had happened to me....So a couple of years after this incident a bunch of students came to me and said, "We are protesting the absence of free speech on the campus. We've got something called the Free Speech Movement." And they found in me a sympathetic audience....I became very active, in fact I was the first tenured faculty member who really took the side of the students and I was extremely active on the side of the FSM.

What did you learn from that experience? Obviously the Free Speech Movement became something entirely different over time.

Yes, it did. Yes. Well, there are a number of things that happened, most of which would have been unpredictable. The Free Speech Movement, within its own initial objectives, was successful. We did change the university regulations so the kind of thing that was done to me as an assistant professor couldn't be done after 1964, and I don't believe it could be done today. I may be wrong about that but I don't think so.

However, two other things happened that really we couldn't have predicted and they were not so fortunate. One is, we created a whole lot of radical expectations. This is characteristic of revolutionary movements; people involved get a sense of enormous possibility. "All kinds of exciting things are going to happen, we can create a new kind of a university. We can create a new kind of a society. It's all going to start right here in Berkeley."...The second thing that happened was...the Vietnam War. By the late sixties, from '66 afterwards, it became progressively more difficult to run the university in the face of the amount of protest that went on against the Vietnam War....

I mentioned two things; actually there was a third thing that happened...people had a whole lot of really quite stupid theories about life. They thought, you get immediate gratification through drugs, and indeed if you can't get immediate gratification through drugs then you get it through some other equally instantaneous form of gratification. The idea that satisfactions in life normally take a lot of work, you have to do years of preparation to do anything worthwhile, in the sixties it was very hard to convince people of that.

In your book Campus Wars you look at...generational difference, that these expectations were based in a society where many of the students had come from privilege, unlike your generation.

Yes. They were not Depression babies. I mean, I don't want to oversimplify this, but there was a psychological difference in the attitude of the students in the sixties and the attitude of students in the fifties. Students in the fifties had been brought up in the Depression and had lived through the war. And they understood what it was to be economically insecure. They understood what it was for the country to be threatened. But the students who arrived here in the sixties had grown up in an unparalleled period of prosperity and security in American life....You have to feel pretty secure in your own personal status and existence in order that you can become morally outraged at injustices done to other people....The student protesters of the sixties identified the university itself, as an institution, with the forces of evil that they thought of themselves as fighting against....whereas in a traditional student movement if you had a national issue like foreign policy or the economic system, you didn't think of the university as the institution you should attack.

I have another question for you. I have often heard that the first tier of leaders in the Free Speech Movement was qualitatively better than the later tiers. Do you agree with that, since you mentioned that two of them were your students?

[T]here were a lot of people involved in the FSM, even in the early days, who I thought were opportunists, who were there as a way of seeking power or overcoming personal problems...Many of them weren't students of course, they were just people who came to Berkeley like Jerry Rubin....it attracted all sorts of mediocre people.

How do these events change the university and our understanding of what a good education is about?

...[T]here were forces at work in the larger society that combined with the radicalism of the sixties, that, I think, made serious long-term damage to the university.

And what was that damage?

...Well we're supposedly trying to get the very best professors and the very best students, and that means intellectually the best -- the intellectual elite...Well, we're still committed to that but we're more bashful about saying it in public. And there is a sort of an undercurrent that, well, maybe that's all a really kind of disguised power structure and maybe it's all a sort of disguised oppression and colonialism, and we've got to get out of this idea that some books are really superior to others, and some students are superior to others, and some professors are better than others. And that's bad. I mean, if you don't believe in quality....then you've given up on the ideal of academic life.

You've written that "Traditionally, one of the aims of humanistic education was to get the student to overcome the accidents of his or her background. You are invited to redefine yourself as an individual in light of a universal human civilization and cultural tradition." And then you go on to say, "Emphasis was on the individual within the universal. Now you derive your identity not from individual efforts at self-definition, but rather from the group to which you belong."

Yes, well now this is a particular manifestation of what I was talking about, and I think, in a way, it's the worst single manifestation of this. We have abandoned the idea that the university invites the student to become part of a universal community of scholars, part of a universal community of human civilization, where you achieve individual self-definition through participating in a universal human civilization. Now what we tell you is, what's your ethnicity? What's your race? What's your gender? That's who you are. You don't define yourself. You are defined by race, gender, class, ethnicity, and cultural background. And that isn't just stupid, that's evil. I'm fighting against that....There were something called "the classics," and the idea was that there were a collection of works of human civilization that, because of their intellectual quality or their historical importance, or both their intellectual quality and importance, were regarded as an essential part of education...now that's challenged. Now the idea is, oh well, one book is as good as another. I debated a guy once at another university who said, "Well, you know, Bugs Bunny is as good as Shakespeare. I mean these are all just texts. One text is as much of a text as another text."...I think that isn't just stupid, it's self-destructive.'

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems we are talking past each other. Your posts are not directed at the issue at hand. The issue is historical significance, and nothing else. We should report facts that have historical significance and we can skip facts that are insignificant.

If I am understanding you correctly, you feel that it is important that the reader be informed that Searle holds many opinions that are considered "conservative" (at least, they would be labeled as "conservative" by the U.S. press and most ordinary people). I agree that this is an interesting fact about the man, and I think it would be appropriate to mention these. However, the fact that Searle holds opinions that may be classified as "conservative" or "liberal" is irrelevant to the historical significance of the action we are discussing. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If John Searle's role in the Berkeley "Free Speech" movement is to be mentioned (and you and others have convinced me that his participation in this debate about American higher education is important enough to be included in the lede - notwithstanding the fact that it is his philosophical writings which are what primarily interests people outside the USA) it is important it should be a balanced rather than a selective account. Whether his views about the "Free Speech" movement make him a "liberal" or a "conservative" I could not give a fuck.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC))

I'm still having difficulty determining if you have followed my argument and I'm also having trouble following yours. Maybe it's cultural, I don't know. The "Free Speech Movement" is, of course, much more than "a debate about higher education". This is a poor characterization on your part. (Or was that a joke? I can't tell.) It was a seminal event which spawned a worldwide movement of student protests, including, for example, the May 1968 uprising in Paris. Forgive me if I am being pedantic -- but your posts suggest that you don't know this.

You say the lede should be "balanced", and I agree. I think we disagree about the fulcrum. You suggested adding several of his opinions which are conservative, such as his opposition to late sixties radicalism and his opposition to multiculturalism (and you could also add the Searle Decision and his opposition to affirmative action). So I assumed that you meant that mentioning the Free Speech movement made him seem more liberal that he really is. Thus I assumed your fulcrum was left/right -- liberal/conservative.

So here is my question. On what fulcrum do you think the lede is "unbalanced"? What misconception will the reader take away if we keep the bit about the Free Speech Movement? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• Question: How much space do major biographies/introductions to Searle (or encyclopedia entries in e.g. the britannica or the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy) dedicate to his brief involvement in the free speech movement? That is the guide that should be used to determine whether including it in the lead is warranted.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I support this suggestion. This is certainly an easy way to establish significance empirically. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Searle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150802061918/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/programmes/p00gq1fk to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00gq1fk

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Rent control debate

I noticed that all mention of landlord and rent control issues had been removed years ago, without much discussion about it here. (Someone suggested removing it and AaronSw argued that it was certainly relevant.) I've added a portion of that text back to the relevant timeline in the politics section, while adding more citations and removing unsupported or non-neutral language.

In reading articles about this, I found interesting additional references to statements Searle made in 1991, but I wasn't sure they should be included in a BLP when the reference is in a Letter to the Editor. Relevant link below:

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2004-12-14/article/20296?headline=Letters-to-the-Editor

-- Npdoty (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)