Switch to: References

Citations of:

Searle, Derrida, and the ends of phenomenology

In Barry Smith (ed.), John Searle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 261--86 (2003)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Brentano School and the History of Analytic Philosophy: Reply to Röck.Andreas Vrahimis - 2018 - Axiomathes 28 (3):363-374.
    In ‘Brentano’s Methodology as a Path through the Divide’, Röck makes two related claims. Röck argues that there exists a philosophical dilemma between description and logical analysis, and that the current divide between continental phenomenology and analytic philosophy may be seen as a consequence of the dilemma. Röck further argues that Brentano’s work integrates description and logical analysis in a way which ‘can provide a suitable starting point for an equally successful integration of these methods in contemporary philosophy’. Without disputing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The Intentionality of Speech Acts: A Confrontation Between Ordinary Language Philosophy, Phenomenology, and Deconstruction?Andreas Vrahimis - 2015 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 23 (4):584-594.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • How to Do Things with Documents.Barry Smith - 2012 - Rivista di Estetica 50:179-198.
    This essay is a contribution to social ontology, drawing on the work of John Searle and of Hernando de Soto. At the center of the argument is the proposition advanced by de Soto in his Mystery of Capital to the effect that many of the entities which structure our contemporary social reality are entities which exist in virtue of the fact that there are (paper or digital) documents which support their existence. I here develop de Soto’s argument further, focusing specifically (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Deconstructive Vs Pragmatic: A Critique of the Derrida–Searle Debate.Peter Bornedal - 2019 - The European Legacy 25 (1):62-81.
    ABSTRACTThis article presents a critical account of the debate between Derrida and Searle in which I defend Austin’s and Searle’s pragmatic analysis of speech against Derrida’s complex deconstructionist approach. I first formalize Derrida’s argument, reducing it to its main tenets that can be positively identified and critically reviewed. On the basis of this formalization I argue that the apparent incompatibility between Derrida’s and Searle’s approach to language becomes clear once we formalize, according to their type and content, the three concepts (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark