From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!nuscc!maclane!smoliar Wed Feb  5 11:57:04 EST 1992
Article 3486 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!nuscc!maclane!smoliar
>From: smoliar@maclane.iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar)
Subject: Re: Searle and the Curse of the Mediocre Philosop
Message-ID: <1992Feb5.014803.23491@nuscc.nus.sg>
Summary: the price of neglecting the sources
Sender: usenet@nuscc.nus.sg
Reply-To: smoliar@iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar)
Organization: Institute of Systems Science, NUS, Singapore
References: <1992Feb2.165723.184@lrc.edu> <BVskFB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1992 01:48:03 GMT

In article <BVskFB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard
Carlson) writes:
>  I think the logical skeleton of
>Searle's thought was clear enough by the time I said anything at
>all.

You are, of course, entitled to your own thoughts and opinions.  Another reader
would survey the vast spectrum of opinions, acknowledge that both formal and
informal argument has raged ever since Searle first articulated the problem,
and conclude that "clarity" would be the least appropriate description of the
situation!  For my part, I am as reluctant to accept your assertion that "the
logical skeleton of Searle's thought was clear enough" as I am to accept his
assertion that he does not understand Chinese.  (Note that this does not mean
that I REJECT Searle's assertion.  It just continues to give me pause, which,
I suppose, is one reason why I feel the clarity of the argument is still beyond
my grasp.)

>  In fact if someone argues that it should be necessary to
>read the original (rather than a summary in a secondary source)
>sh/e should ask h/erself just what that says about the underlying
>logical and conceptual skeleton under the rhetorical flesh of the
>author's "own" words.
>
Well there you have a good deal of the problem.  Searle is one great performer,
both on the page and in the flesh.  Whatever I may feel about his understanding
of understanding, I have great admiration for his gift for rhetoric.
Unfortunately, I think this means that he often yields to the temptation
to resort to rhetoric when reasoned argument is what is required.  (I've
seen him in action at UCLA, and I find his performance style both exhilarating
and depressing.)  I think it is important to note that Searle's Reith Lectures
are not a simple play-back of his BBS paper, and the same is true of his
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN article.  Probably, in his heart of hearts, Searle,
too, recognizes just how murky this matter is;  but his rhetoric always
saves him the embarrassment of taking such a position of humility.  Still,
if you REALLY want to get into an argument over what Searle is talking about,
you are fooling yourself if you think you can blithely ignore his source text.
-- 
Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science
National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace
Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511
Internet:  smoliar@iss.nus.sg


