Thinker · TH-0251
John Searle
John Searle was an American philosopher who taught at the University of California, Berkeley, for most of his career. He developed speech act theory,…
Also known as John Rogers Searle
1932 – 2025 · Denver; Madison, Wisconsin; Oxford; Berkeley, California
Traditions: Analytic
John Searle was an American philosopher who taught at the University of California, Berkeley, for most of his career. He developed speech act theory, including a taxonomy of illocutionary acts, and his Chinese room argument held that running a program cannot by itself produce understanding. In social ontology he explained institutional facts like money through collective intentionality, arguing that primitive we-intentions are irreducible to I-intentions while still residing in individual minds, with no group mind required.
Key ideas
- Illocutionary acts fall into five basic kinds: assertives, directives, commissives, expressives and declarations.
- The Chinese room: syntax is not sufficient for semantics, so a program alone cannot understand.
- Institutional facts take the form 'X counts as Y in context C', as when paper counts as money.
- Collective intentions ('we intend') are primitive, though they exist only in individual minds.
Major works
- Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (1969)
- "Minds, Brains, and Programs" (1980, Behavioral and Brain Sciences)
- Intentionality (1983)
- The Construction of Social Reality (1995)
In the conversation
- Debate The institutional theory of art is circular, and it’s the vicious kind
- Question Why is a banknote money when a perfect copy of it is not?
- Reading group Reading group: J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words
- Debate Dreyfus’s critique of AI has aged better than Searle’s Chinese Room
- Discussion Does a language model mean anything by what it writes?
- Reading group Reading group: Searle’s “Minds, Brains, and Programs” with the replies, over three weeks
- Question What does Derrida’s différance actually claim about meaning?
- Debate Searle’s “X counts as Y in C” leaves out the power that makes people accept it
- Question Austin says a vow on stage is void. The jurists said some words bind even in jest. Who is right?