John Searle - Language and The Making Of Social Reality

00:47:33
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEUD5yxCvqc

概要

TLDRThis lecture examines the relationship between human society, language, and the nature of institutional facts. The lecturer presents a paradox regarding the existence of objective realities based on collective human agreement, exploring how status functions are created through collective intentionality and declarations. He distinguishes between epistemic objectivity and ontological subjectivity while emphasizing the importance of language in shaping social structures. The discussion includes the implications of these concepts for power dynamics, the nature of human rights, and historical events that illustrate the fragility and creation of institutional realities.

収穫

  • 🧐 Philosophy often begins with paradoxes that question our understanding of reality.
  • 💵 Money is deemed valuable only due to collective belief, illustrating ontological subjectivity.
  • 📚 Distinction between epistemic objectivity (knowledge) and ontological subjectivity (existence).
  • 🔗 Status functions only exist through collective intentionality and shared agreements.
  • 💬 Language is crucial in forming and maintaining institutional facts in society.
  • ✨ Declarations can create realities by representing status functions as existing.
  • 🤝 Human institutional reality relies on collective belief systems and social norms.
  • 🗳️ Political power is derived from accepted status functions supported by societal structures.
  • 🕰️ Institutional facts must be continuously declared to be sustained over time.
  • 🌍 Social changes can arise from shifts in collective belief, demonstrated by historical events.

タイムライン

  • 00:00:00 - 00:05:00

    The lecture begins with a paradox concerning the nature of facts, particularly how some are objectively real yet subjectively agreed upon by humans. The speaker uses money as an example, highlighting how its value relies on collective belief, setting up a key distinction between objective and subjective realms.

  • 00:05:00 - 00:10:00

    The speaker introduces the epistemic and ontological distinctions in understanding subjectivity and objectivity. They explain that some facts can be objectively true (epistemic) while others depend on subjective agreement (ontological), clarifying the complexities involved in discussing consciousness as a subjective yet scientifically analyzable phenomenon.

  • 00:10:00 - 00:15:00

    The discussion shifts to the ontology of status functions, which require collective intentionality for their existence. The speaker posits that human cooperation is essential for establishing things like money or property as they only exist relative to observers, despite their ontological subjectivity.

  • 00:15:00 - 00:20:00

    Delving deeper into the concept of status functions, the speaker discusses how humans uniquely assign functions to objects, enabling the existence of such structural social concepts as currency and property through collective agreement rather than solely intrinsic properties.

  • 00:20:00 - 00:25:00

    Status functions are explained as pervasive throughout human society, existing invisibly around us as various roles and statuses that significantly influence our interactions and structure societal functioning.

  • 00:25:00 - 00:30:00

    A theoretical framework is introduced, identifying rules that either regulate existing behaviors or create new social possibilities (constitutive rules). The speaker emphasizes the formation of societal norms through repeated applications of the phrase 'X counts as Y in context C.'

  • 00:30:00 - 00:35:00

    The lecture further elaborates on the upward and lateral expansion of social norms, illustrating how certain utterances or declarations iteratively build complex social structures by designating objects or entities within a socio-legal framework.

  • 00:35:00 - 00:40:00

    The speaker critiques previous definitions of social structures and proposes an enhanced understanding relating to language and its function in creating institutional facts that may not rest on any physical basis but are powerful nonetheless, such as money and corporations.

  • 00:40:00 - 00:47:33

    Concluding the lecture, the speaker outlines the importance of declarations in shaping institutional reality and emphasizes the power relations underpinning statuses in society. They urge the audience to reflect on how these conceptual frameworks can explain current sociopolitical phenomena, including revolutions and changes in societal norms.

もっと見る

マインドマップ

ビデオQ&A

  • What is the main paradox discussed in the lecture?

    The main paradox is that certain objective facts exist only because of human collective agreement, such as the concept of money.

  • What is the distinction made between epistemic and ontological perspectives?

    Epistemic objectivity relates to knowledge that is true regardless of subjective feelings, while ontological subjectivity pertains to things that exist only in relation to human experience.

  • How are status functions created according to the lecturer?

    Status functions are created through collective intentionality and shared acceptance of certain norms and roles within society.

  • What role does language play in institutional facts?

    Language allows humans to create and clarify institutional facts through declarations that embody social agreements.

  • What is an example of an ontologically subjective yet epistemically objective domain?

    Economics is an example, as it is based on subjective human agreements but can be studied objectively.

  • How does the lecturer define a declaration?

    A declaration is a type of speech act that creates reality by representing that reality as already being the case.

  • What implications does the lecturer suggest about power dynamics in society?

    The creation of status functions enables power dynamics, where rights and obligations arise from collective beliefs, impacting social behavior.

  • Why does the lecturer believe institutional facts require ongoing declarations?

    Ongoing declarations maintain institutional facts by continuously reinforcing the collective understanding of their existence.

  • What recent social events does the lecturer reference to illustrate his points?

    The collapse of the Soviet Empire and the Arab Spring, where changes in collective belief led to significant social transformations.

  • How does the concept of human rights relate to status functions?

    Human rights are seen as collective agreements that establish individuals as bearers of rights based on their status as human beings.

ビデオをもっと見る

AIを活用したYouTubeの無料動画要約に即アクセス！
字幕
en
オートスクロール:
  • 00:00:00
    but today we're going to do some heavy
  • 00:00:01
    duty philosophy and philosophy often
  • 00:00:04
    starts with a paradox so I want to start
  • 00:00:07
    with a paradox the Paradox is
  • 00:00:10
    this there are class of facts in the
  • 00:00:13
    world that are real honest to John
  • 00:00:16
    objective facts but they're only facts
  • 00:00:19
    by human subjective agreement they're
  • 00:00:22
    only what they are because we think
  • 00:00:25
    that's what they are uh so I you are uh
  • 00:00:30
    citizens of Norway I am a professor in
  • 00:00:33
    the University of California and these
  • 00:00:35
    sorted Bits of Paper that I care around
  • 00:00:38
    in my wallet are only money because we
  • 00:00:43
    think that they're money now here's the
  • 00:00:46
    amazing thing though it's an objective
  • 00:00:48
    fact when I take these things into a
  • 00:00:52
    store and I give them to people they
  • 00:00:55
    don't say maybe you think it's money but
  • 00:00:57
    who cares what they really to accept it
  • 00:01:00
    by the way American tourists are always
  • 00:01:02
    amazed by the fact that people all over
  • 00:01:04
    the world will accept what seems to them
  • 00:01:06
    Monopoly money but in any case it does
  • 00:01:09
    work uh now how can that be well in a
  • 00:01:13
    sense that's part of what this lecture
  • 00:01:14
    is about but I want to begin by making a
  • 00:01:17
    distinction which I think is absolutely
  • 00:01:19
    crucial and that's the distinction
  • 00:01:21
    between two senses of the objective
  • 00:01:24
    subjective distinction I you'd be
  • 00:01:27
    surprised how much bad philosophy rests
  • 00:01:30
    on a failure to see this distinction
  • 00:01:34
    between the epistemic sense of the
  • 00:01:38
    objective subjective distinction and the
  • 00:01:42
    ontological
  • 00:01:44
    sense uh so for example I if I
  • 00:01:49
    say that um uh rembrand was born in
  • 00:01:55
    16006 that is as they say a matter of
  • 00:01:58
    objective fact that's epistemically
  • 00:02:01
    objective if I say rembrand is a better
  • 00:02:03
    painter than ver well that's a matter of
  • 00:02:06
    subjective opinion so this is the
  • 00:02:09
    epistemic sense of the objective
  • 00:02:12
    subjective
  • 00:02:14
    distinction uh we have epistemic
  • 00:02:18
    objectivity when I say rembrand was
  • 00:02:21
    born in 1606 but if I say rembrand is a
  • 00:02:25
    better painter than ver that's a matter
  • 00:02:27
    of subjective opinion
  • 00:02:30
    but this distinction between epistemic
  • 00:02:33
    objectivity and
  • 00:02:35
    subjectivity is based on a more profound
  • 00:02:37
    distinction in modes of existence pains
  • 00:02:41
    and tickles and itches only exist in so
  • 00:02:44
    far as they are experienced by a human
  • 00:02:46
    or animal subject they are in that sense
  • 00:02:49
    ontologically
  • 00:02:51
    subjective but uh mountains molecules
  • 00:02:54
    and tectonic plates exist no matter what
  • 00:02:57
    anybody thinks they're ontologically
  • 00:03:00
    objective now here's the point for this
  • 00:03:03
    discussion you can have an epistemically
  • 00:03:07
    objective Claim about a domain that is
  • 00:03:10
    ontologically subjective and a great
  • 00:03:13
    deal of philosophical confusion rests on
  • 00:03:15
    a failure to see that fact when I first
  • 00:03:17
    got interested in the brain I told all
  • 00:03:19
    these neuroscientists you guys ought to
  • 00:03:21
    get busy and solve the problem of
  • 00:03:23
    Consciousness what am I paying you to do
  • 00:03:25
    if you don't solve the problem of
  • 00:03:26
    Consciousness a standard answer I got
  • 00:03:29
    was look on your own account
  • 00:03:31
    Consciousness is subjective but science
  • 00:03:34
    is objective therefore there can be no
  • 00:03:38
    science of Consciousness oh God but
  • 00:03:41
    anyway anyway you all know the answer to
  • 00:03:43
    that is yes
  • 00:03:45
    indeed Consciousness is ontologically
  • 00:03:48
    subjective but there is no reason that
  • 00:03:51
    you cannot have an epistemically
  • 00:03:53
    objective science of a domain that is
  • 00:03:56
    ontologically subjective I can't tell
  • 00:03:59
    you how long it took me to get that
  • 00:04:00
    message across but anyway I think it now
  • 00:04:02
    is across nobody says we can't study
  • 00:04:05
    Consciousness because it's subjective
  • 00:04:06
    and science is objective science is
  • 00:04:08
    indeed epistemically objective in the
  • 00:04:11
    sense that we're trying to get truths
  • 00:04:13
    that are not dependent on the feelings
  • 00:04:14
    and attitudes of the scientists but
  • 00:04:16
    there's nothing to prevent an objective
  • 00:04:19
    epistemically objective science of a
  • 00:04:22
    domain that's ontologically subjective
  • 00:04:25
    uh economics is a good case in point
  • 00:04:27
    economists tend to forget this but the
  • 00:04:29
    domain they study is created by human
  • 00:04:33
    ontological subjectivity money uh and
  • 00:04:36
    property and exchange and the stock
  • 00:04:38
    market and all the rest of it it's
  • 00:04:40
    created by ontological subjectivity but
  • 00:04:43
    you can have an epistemically objective
  • 00:04:45
    science okay so that's the first step
  • 00:04:48
    but that doesn't answer our question we
  • 00:04:49
    now have to go on and ask well what what
  • 00:04:53
    is it about these facts that make them
  • 00:04:57
    epistemically objective if as in the
  • 00:05:00
    case of money and private property and
  • 00:05:03
    nationality and universities and
  • 00:05:05
    cocktail parties and summer vacations
  • 00:05:08
    they are what they are only because uh
  • 00:05:11
    we we think they are that is if they're
  • 00:05:14
    ontologically subjective all the same we
  • 00:05:16
    can have epistemically objective
  • 00:05:19
    knowledge of these ontologically
  • 00:05:21
    subjective facts how does it work well I
  • 00:05:25
    want to tell you the answer that I
  • 00:05:26
    originally gave to that and then I want
  • 00:05:29
    to tell you how I could how I Tred to
  • 00:05:31
    improve on the answer in a later book
  • 00:05:33
    the book is called making the social
  • 00:05:35
    World by the way we're all at the mercy
  • 00:05:37
    of Publishers I I worked very hard to
  • 00:05:39
    get the goddamn cover right and then
  • 00:05:42
    cover looks great in in Europe but in
  • 00:05:44
    America they produce exactly the same
  • 00:05:45
    book with an ugly cover oh you can't
  • 00:05:49
    help it
  • 00:05:50
    uh okay here it goes I thought was very
  • 00:05:54
    simple to explain how we can get an
  • 00:05:57
    epistemically objective
  • 00:06:00
    uh reality that's ontologically
  • 00:06:02
    subjected it is by the application of
  • 00:06:05
    certain principles now the first
  • 00:06:07
    principle you have to have is the
  • 00:06:10
    principle that we're making a
  • 00:06:12
    distinction between the Observer
  • 00:06:16
    relative and the Observer
  • 00:06:20
    independent
  • 00:06:22
    and this is important for what I just
  • 00:06:26
    said because the phenomenon the phom
  • 00:06:29
    we're going to be studying are all
  • 00:06:30
    Observer relative money and property and
  • 00:06:32
    government and marriage they exist only
  • 00:06:34
    relative to observers but for that very
  • 00:06:37
    reason they contain I can't really draw
  • 00:06:41
    the line from ontological subjectivity
  • 00:06:43
    to obser a relativity but imagine it
  • 00:06:46
    that we're discussing a class of
  • 00:06:48
    Observer relative facts now these facts
  • 00:06:52
    require the existence of human
  • 00:06:55
    cooperation they require the existence
  • 00:06:58
    of what I call Collective
  • 00:07:01
    intentionality it's only because we
  • 00:07:04
    collectively agree or accept that this
  • 00:07:08
    is
  • 00:07:09
    money or that this such and such is
  • 00:07:11
    private property or that we're in the
  • 00:07:13
    country of Norway or that this is the
  • 00:07:14
    University of Oslo it's only because we
  • 00:07:17
    accept those with Collective
  • 00:07:19
    intentionality that this that these
  • 00:07:21
    Observer relative facts can exist the
  • 00:07:25
    collective
  • 00:07:27
    intentionality is used what for let's we
  • 00:07:31
    now we get into more
  • 00:07:32
    detail human beings and some animals
  • 00:07:35
    have the capacity to assign functions uh
  • 00:07:38
    to objects where the function is always
  • 00:07:41
    Observer relative so I carry around in
  • 00:07:44
    my pocket various objects like this one
  • 00:07:47
    uh and this one and these objects
  • 00:07:50
    perform functions where we have assign
  • 00:07:53
    the function to the object but typic and
  • 00:07:57
    functions are always Observer Rel
  • 00:08:00
    typically we assign the function in
  • 00:08:03
    virtue of physical structure so this
  • 00:08:07
    thing that I'm waving in my hand
  • 00:08:09
    performs the function of a piece of
  • 00:08:12
    chalk only because it has a certain
  • 00:08:15
    physical structure but now comes the
  • 00:08:19
    genius of that human Serpent and it's
  • 00:08:23
    this human beings unlike as far as I
  • 00:08:26
    know any other animal have the capacity
  • 00:08:29
    to assign functions to objects where the
  • 00:08:34
    function is not performed in virtue of
  • 00:08:37
    the physical structure or not solely in
  • 00:08:39
    virtue of the physical structure but in
  • 00:08:42
    virtue of of the fact that there is a
  • 00:08:45
    collective assignment to the object or
  • 00:08:48
    the person as having a certain status
  • 00:08:52
    and with that status of function that
  • 00:08:55
    can only be performed in virtue of that
  • 00:08:58
    col itic acceptance and I call
  • 00:09:02
    those status functions and that's where
  • 00:09:06
    we get to the piece of paper that I have
  • 00:09:08
    in my pocket piece of paper can perform
  • 00:09:10
    a function not in virtue of its physical
  • 00:09:13
    structure but in virtue of the fact that
  • 00:09:16
    we have assigned a certain status to it
  • 00:09:18
    it has the status of money and with that
  • 00:09:21
    status a function that can be performed
  • 00:09:24
    in virtue of that Collective assignment
  • 00:09:27
    if we stop making that assignment to it
  • 00:09:30
    it can't perform that function now the
  • 00:09:32
    first claim I want to make is that
  • 00:09:34
    status functions are pervasive you are
  • 00:09:38
    locked into a more or less invisible
  • 00:09:40
    system of status functions uh the money
  • 00:09:43
    you have in your pocket or in your bank
  • 00:09:45
    account the amount of money uh you owe
  • 00:09:48
    on your student loans your position as a
  • 00:09:51
    property owner or as a licensed car
  • 00:09:53
    driver or as a husband or a wife uh all
  • 00:09:56
    of these are status functions so our
  • 00:10:00
    first major theoretical task now is to
  • 00:10:04
    ask how does the ontology of status
  • 00:10:08
    functions work how is it possible that
  • 00:10:11
    there can be a class of ontologically
  • 00:10:15
    subjective but epistemically objective
  • 00:10:18
    status functions where the per where the
  • 00:10:21
    status function is performed only in
  • 00:10:25
    virtue of the collective assignment and
  • 00:10:28
    recogn
  • 00:10:29
    of the status function okay now I'm
  • 00:10:32
    going pretty fast but how's it doing
  • 00:10:33
    everybody up with me all right I'm going
  • 00:10:35
    to take this thing off getting kind of
  • 00:10:37
    hot all right
  • 00:10:41
    thanks okay now I thought I had a neat
  • 00:10:43
    answer to that and I want to tell you
  • 00:10:45
    what the answer is cuz I think it's
  • 00:10:47
    pretty good but it doesn't quite work
  • 00:10:48
    we'll see
  • 00:10:50
    why it seemed to me all status functions
  • 00:10:54
    were the result of the application of a
  • 00:10:57
    simple principle
  • 00:10:59
    when I was working on language it seemed
  • 00:11:02
    to me there are two different kinds of
  • 00:11:04
    rules there was what I call rules that
  • 00:11:07
    regulate antecedently existing forms of
  • 00:11:11
    behavior and I call those regulative
  • 00:11:13
    rules like drive on the right but there
  • 00:11:15
    are rules that don't just regulate
  • 00:11:18
    antecedently existing forms of behavior
  • 00:11:22
    but they create the very possibility the
  • 00:11:25
    behavior that they regulate the rules of
  • 00:11:28
    games are examples of that so the rule
  • 00:11:31
    drive on the right regulates activity
  • 00:11:33
    that exists independently of the rule
  • 00:11:36
    but the rules of Chess for example do
  • 00:11:39
    not regulate an activity that exists
  • 00:11:41
    independently it was not the case that
  • 00:11:44
    there were a lot of guys pushing bits of
  • 00:11:46
    wood around on boards and somebody
  • 00:11:48
    finally said fellas we got to get some
  • 00:11:50
    rules CU you keep banging into my Bishop
  • 00:11:53
    with your knight and you keep knocking
  • 00:11:55
    over my pawns with your king uh no it's
  • 00:11:58
    not like that
  • 00:11:59
    the Philosopher's favorite example so
  • 00:12:01
    you get a set of rules that are not just
  • 00:12:05
    regulative all rules are regulated but
  • 00:12:08
    you get constitutive rules and it seemed
  • 00:12:12
    to
  • 00:12:14
    me that those rules always had the same
  • 00:12:18
    structure the structure is X counts as a
  • 00:12:22
    y in
  • 00:12:25
    context C so for example
  • 00:12:29
    such and such counts as a legal nights
  • 00:12:33
    move such and such a position counts as
  • 00:12:36
    check such and for such and such a form
  • 00:12:39
    of check counts as check mate you in
  • 00:12:42
    virtue of some X feature that you
  • 00:12:45
    satisfy count as a citizen of Norway or
  • 00:12:49
    you count as a student in the University
  • 00:12:53
    of Oso it's in virtue of satisfying a
  • 00:12:56
    certain X condition that your assigned a
  • 00:12:59
    y status function and it seemed to me
  • 00:13:03
    that was a beautiful structure for
  • 00:13:06
    analyzing the structure of human
  • 00:13:08
    civilization it's almost right I'm to
  • 00:13:10
    tell you some corrections to it in a
  • 00:13:11
    moment but the idea is this we gradually
  • 00:13:15
    build up human complex societies of
  • 00:13:19
    money and government and cocktail
  • 00:13:21
    parties and summer vacations and
  • 00:13:22
    University degrees and lawyers and
  • 00:13:24
    doctors by repeated applications of this
  • 00:13:28
    constitutive role X counts as Y in
  • 00:13:32
    Contex
  • 00:13:33
    C now at First Sight you might say it's
  • 00:13:36
    too feeble an apparatus you can't create
  • 00:13:39
    human civilization with that well it has
  • 00:13:43
    two formal features that are quite
  • 00:13:45
    remarkable uh one is it iterates upward
  • 00:13:50
    indefinitely and the second is it
  • 00:13:52
    spreads out laterally so let's go
  • 00:13:54
    through those I make noises through my
  • 00:13:58
    mouth
  • 00:13:59
    it's always amazing to me the University
  • 00:14:01
    of California pays me a lot of money to
  • 00:14:04
    do that but I do it and whenever I get
  • 00:14:07
    dism how much money they pay me I
  • 00:14:09
    realize how much money they're paying my
  • 00:14:10
    colleagues and then I get less
  • 00:14:13
    depressed by the absurdity of the
  • 00:14:16
    situation but now here's the interesting
  • 00:14:17
    thing I make noises through my mouth
  • 00:14:20
    those noises count as the utterance of
  • 00:14:24
    English sentences right but the
  • 00:14:27
    utterance of certain English sentences
  • 00:14:30
    in certain contexts counts as making a
  • 00:14:35
    promise but now the making of a promise
  • 00:14:38
    of a certain kind counts as getting
  • 00:14:42
    married uh it counts as a legal contract
  • 00:14:46
    right so you go sentence speech act a
  • 00:14:49
    promising uh promising is a contract and
  • 00:14:51
    the contract is marriage and you see
  • 00:14:54
    what's happening in all of these cases
  • 00:14:56
    it iterates upward because X1 counts as
  • 00:15:00
    y1 but y1 equal
  • 00:15:04
    X2 and that
  • 00:15:07
    counts as
  • 00:15:09
    Y2 everybody got that and then you can
  • 00:15:11
    keep going up indefinitely so I said
  • 00:15:14
    well the noises count as sentences the
  • 00:15:16
    sentences count as speech acts the
  • 00:15:18
    speech act counts as a promise the
  • 00:15:19
    promise counts as a contract the
  • 00:15:21
    contract counts as getting married and
  • 00:15:24
    in the state of California when you get
  • 00:15:25
    married all hell breaks loose
  • 00:15:28
    institutionally because you're entitled
  • 00:15:31
    to income tax deduction spousal benefits
  • 00:15:33
    you got get all sorts of Rights from the
  • 00:15:37
    University males even get pregnancy
  • 00:15:40
    leave and all that kind of stuff because
  • 00:15:43
    they are legally married so you have
  • 00:15:45
    this this iterated upward structure
  • 00:15:48
    furthermore it spreads out laterally in
  • 00:15:51
    ways that are amazing you never just
  • 00:15:52
    have a single institutional fact uh the
  • 00:15:56
    fact that I'm a citizen or the fact that
  • 00:15:57
    I have money in my pocket it's always
  • 00:16:00
    within an extremely complex interlocking
  • 00:16:03
    structure so I don't just have money but
  • 00:16:07
    I have money in my bank account at the
  • 00:16:09
    Bank of America in the city of Berkeley
  • 00:16:11
    on Telegraph Avenue it's put there by my
  • 00:16:14
    employers the regions of the university
  • 00:16:16
    and I use it to pay my credit card bills
  • 00:16:18
    and my income state and local income tax
  • 00:16:21
    and all kinds of other boring things
  • 00:16:22
    that I have to pay now notice every noun
  • 00:16:25
    phrase I mentioned there with a possible
  • 00:16:28
    exception
  • 00:16:29
    of of Telegraph Avenue mentions an
  • 00:16:32
    Institutional fact so you have this
  • 00:16:35
    extremely widespread network of status
  • 00:16:39
    functions it's amazing that Society is
  • 00:16:42
    so powerful when it's so invisible but
  • 00:16:45
    if you start looking around for stateus
  • 00:16:48
    functions you will find they are
  • 00:16:50
    everywhere okay anyway I like that
  • 00:16:52
    theory it seem to be a pretty nice
  • 00:16:53
    Theory and also had a feature that I
  • 00:16:55
    like
  • 00:16:56
    namely humans aren't all that smart
  • 00:16:59
    and we're not going to use some
  • 00:17:00
    elaborate apparatus uh to create human
  • 00:17:03
    civilization it's a single device
  • 00:17:06
    repeated over and over and over in all
  • 00:17:08
    kinds of areas however there are some
  • 00:17:11
    difficulties with it and when I
  • 00:17:12
    published this a whole lot of
  • 00:17:14
    interesting objections came out I want
  • 00:17:16
    to mention them one I thought of
  • 00:17:18
    myself sometimes you don't need a
  • 00:17:20
    constitutive rule you just haul off and
  • 00:17:23
    create an Institutional effect you just
  • 00:17:25
    decide uh we're going to let Sally be
  • 00:17:27
    the boss she's going to be uh the
  • 00:17:30
    chairman the chairman of the meeting or
  • 00:17:32
    the or the captain of the softball team
  • 00:17:34
    or whatever you don't need a prior
  • 00:17:36
    constitutive rule that says people like
  • 00:17:39
    Sally always count as having a certain
  • 00:17:41
    stateus functional so that's was the one
  • 00:17:44
    uh one sort of objection another
  • 00:17:46
    objection is that sometimes you can
  • 00:17:50
    create I call these cases the ad hoc
  • 00:17:53
    cases or you just create an
  • 00:17:55
    Institutional effect by getting people
  • 00:17:56
    to agree to it but another interesting
  • 00:17:59
    class of cases are where you create an
  • 00:18:02
    Institutional
  • 00:18:03
    effect without having an X term uh what
  • 00:18:08
    Barry Smith calls the freestanding y
  • 00:18:11
    terms and once you look around those are
  • 00:18:13
    actually quite pervasive my favorite
  • 00:18:16
    example of an Institutional is money the
  • 00:18:18
    fact that this is a a 100 croner note
  • 00:18:22
    but indeed most of the money in the
  • 00:18:24
    world today has no physical existence at
  • 00:18:27
    all there are magnetic traces on
  • 00:18:30
    computer discs in bank that represent
  • 00:18:34
    the amount of money you have in the uh
  • 00:18:36
    in the bank but the magnetic Trace isn't
  • 00:18:38
    money it just represents money now
  • 00:18:41
    that's an amazing fact something can
  • 00:18:43
    exist only in so far as it's represented
  • 00:18:46
    but the representation doesn't represent
  • 00:18:48
    anything independent of itself it
  • 00:18:50
    creates the fact by representing that
  • 00:18:52
    fact as existence that is again in
  • 00:18:55
    philosophy you got to allow yourself to
  • 00:18:57
    be stunned by what any same person takes
  • 00:18:59
    for granted okay and I'm saying we ought
  • 00:19:02
    to allow ourselves to be stunned by the
  • 00:19:04
    fact that there are lots of
  • 00:19:05
    institutional facts there are these wide
  • 00:19:08
    terms that don't rest on any physical
  • 00:19:13
    basis corporations uh humans are
  • 00:19:16
    ingenious and the invention of the
  • 00:19:18
    limited liability Corporation is one of
  • 00:19:21
    the most ingenious inventions again of
  • 00:19:24
    the human serpent it the corporation has
  • 00:19:27
    no physical existence it's true there
  • 00:19:30
    are buildings and uh officers but the
  • 00:19:33
    actual Corporation I looked it up I have
  • 00:19:36
    this wonderful research tool it's called
  • 00:19:38
    Google and what would take me all day
  • 00:19:40
    long I can find in 30 seconds look up
  • 00:19:43
    California law concerning corporations
  • 00:19:45
    takes 30 seconds and comes up anybody
  • 00:19:47
    can create a corporation we could today
  • 00:19:50
    decide to create a corporation of all
  • 00:19:51
    the people uh in this room as the as the
  • 00:19:54
    the shareholders of the corporation and
  • 00:19:56
    you simply have to file you have to
  • 00:19:59
    perform a speech act you have to file
  • 00:20:01
    Articles of Incorporation so that led me
  • 00:20:05
    these facts led me to think the fact
  • 00:20:07
    that there are these cases where you do
  • 00:20:11
    it on an ad hoc basis and there are
  • 00:20:13
    these cases where you just create an
  • 00:20:16
    Institutional fact out of the clear blue
  • 00:20:19
    sky so to speak a
  • 00:20:21
    freestanding cases where you don't have
  • 00:20:23
    any brute fact on which the
  • 00:20:25
    institutional fact is based that let me
  • 00:20:28
    to rethink the whole analysis and its
  • 00:20:31
    relation to language so that's what I'm
  • 00:20:33
    going to do now I'm going to talk how I
  • 00:20:35
    doing for time how much 20 more minutes
  • 00:20:37
    I have 20 more minutes all right here we
  • 00:20:39
    go 20 minutes heavy duty I better have a
  • 00:20:41
    drink water minutes all
  • 00:20:45
    right to explain how this works I have
  • 00:20:48
    to say a little bit more about language
  • 00:20:51
    now intuitively we we
  • 00:20:53
    feel that you can't have these
  • 00:20:56
    institutional facts without language in
  • 00:20:59
    a way that you can have language without
  • 00:21:01
    the in other institutional facts so we
  • 00:21:03
    feel you could imagine a society that
  • 00:21:05
    had language but didn't have government
  • 00:21:08
    or private property I that didn't even
  • 00:21:12
    have marriage it just has they talk to
  • 00:21:14
    each other but they don't have these
  • 00:21:16
    elaborate institutional structures but
  • 00:21:18
    you can't imagine a Converse you
  • 00:21:19
    couldn't imagine a society with an
  • 00:21:21
    elaborate system of private property
  • 00:21:23
    government and marriage but no language
  • 00:21:25
    they couldn't talk to each other that
  • 00:21:27
    doesn't make sense why not what is it
  • 00:21:29
    about
  • 00:21:32
    language to tell you about how language
  • 00:21:35
    works in the creation of human
  • 00:21:36
    civilization I have to tell you a b a
  • 00:21:38
    bit about how language Works in
  • 00:21:40
    general EV from an evolutionary point of
  • 00:21:43
    view language is built on top of
  • 00:21:46
    pre-linguistic biologically more
  • 00:21:49
    primitive forms of intentionality
  • 00:21:52
    intentionality is that fancy philosopher
  • 00:21:54
    word means the capacity of the mind to
  • 00:21:56
    represent objects and states Affairs in
  • 00:21:58
    the world so beliefs and desires and
  • 00:22:00
    hopes and fears and perceptions I are
  • 00:22:03
    all intentional States it's confusing
  • 00:22:06
    for English speakers because it sounds a
  • 00:22:08
    lot like intending in the sense in which
  • 00:22:10
    I intend to go to the movies but
  • 00:22:12
    intentionality but intending is just one
  • 00:22:14
    kind of intentionality it's probably not
  • 00:22:16
    a problem Norwegian It's s we like most
  • 00:22:19
    confused philosophical terms we owe it
  • 00:22:20
    to the Germans and it's not a confusion
  • 00:22:23
    in German now in German intentionality
  • 00:22:25
    does not sound like opposite that German
  • 00:22:28
    for it doesn't take long to get over
  • 00:22:31
    anyway intentional States typically have
  • 00:22:33
    this structure a type of state and it
  • 00:22:36
    has a propositional context so you
  • 00:22:38
    believe that it's raining you fear that
  • 00:22:40
    it's raining you hope that it's raining
  • 00:22:43
    okay now the speech act has the same
  • 00:22:46
    structure the speech Act of stating that
  • 00:22:49
    it's riging has this structure except
  • 00:22:52
    the speech Act is an intentional act and
  • 00:22:55
    this is just a state now the way you get
  • 00:22:57
    from from this thing the belief that
  • 00:22:59
    it's raining to the statement that it's
  • 00:23:01
    raining is you learn to make noises you
  • 00:23:04
    say things like it's raining
  • 00:23:08
    s and whatever that Norwegian would be
  • 00:23:12
    and in those cases then you create
  • 00:23:16
    meaning by imposing the conditions of
  • 00:23:19
    satisfaction that's the truth conditions
  • 00:23:22
    onto your utterance you represent how
  • 00:23:24
    things are by intentionally producing
  • 00:23:28
    noise that enables you to represent how
  • 00:23:31
    things are there's a convention
  • 00:23:33
    According to which you can represent how
  • 00:23:35
    things are by making that noise I I'm
  • 00:23:39
    going too fast let me slow down and go
  • 00:23:40
    over this a little more
  • 00:23:42
    slowly intentional States beliefs hope
  • 00:23:45
    fears desires perceptions and all the
  • 00:23:47
    rest of it love and hate uh and anger
  • 00:23:50
    and lust and disgust they all represent
  • 00:23:53
    how things are in the world or how we
  • 00:23:56
    would like them to be
  • 00:23:58
    however all that's pre-linguistic what
  • 00:24:00
    happens when you get language is that
  • 00:24:03
    you take this pre-linguistic form of
  • 00:24:06
    representation and you make it
  • 00:24:09
    explicit now these things with this
  • 00:24:12
    structure they the structure that it's
  • 00:24:15
    reigning they have conditions under
  • 00:24:18
    which they are true or false and I call
  • 00:24:22
    those conditions of
  • 00:24:25
    satisfaction so the belief will be
  • 00:24:28
    satisfied only if it's true the desire
  • 00:24:31
    will be satisfied only if it's fulfilled
  • 00:24:33
    the intention will be satisfied only if
  • 00:24:35
    it's carried out now the secret of
  • 00:24:39
    understanding speaker meaning is that we
  • 00:24:42
    have conventions and we have learned to
  • 00:24:45
    make noises through our mouth that have
  • 00:24:49
    conditions of satisfaction the same
  • 00:24:51
    conditions of satisfaction of the
  • 00:24:54
    intentional States so if I believe that
  • 00:24:56
    it's raining my belief is satisfied if
  • 00:24:59
    it's raining but if I make the noises
  • 00:25:02
    it's raining then I impose those
  • 00:25:05
    conditions of satisfaction onto the
  • 00:25:07
    noises and that is a a major human
  • 00:25:11
    achievement because it is the creation
  • 00:25:13
    of meaning speaker meaning okay now then
  • 00:25:19
    next step how many ways do we have of
  • 00:25:21
    doing that well at least two ways are
  • 00:25:24
    these if you make a statement or an
  • 00:25:27
    assertion or a description you present
  • 00:25:31
    me with a noise that's supposed to
  • 00:25:33
    represent how things are in the world
  • 00:25:35
    the conditions of satisfaction go from
  • 00:25:38
    the noise to the word we have the word
  • 00:25:42
    what I call the word to World direction
  • 00:25:46
    of fit this the noises are supposed to
  • 00:25:49
    represent how things are in the world
  • 00:25:52
    and I think in simple metaphor so
  • 00:25:54
    represent that with a downward Arrow is
  • 00:25:57
    the word to World direction of fit this
  • 00:26:03
    is screw of statements descriptions
  • 00:26:05
    explanations characterizations all of
  • 00:26:07
    those things that can be true or false
  • 00:26:11
    true or false have the word to World
  • 00:26:14
    direction of f but now there are lots of
  • 00:26:19
    utterances where we express an
  • 00:26:21
    intentional state which does not have
  • 00:26:24
    that direction of thing there are things
  • 00:26:26
    like order and commands and Promises
  • 00:26:29
    where the aim is not to represent how
  • 00:26:32
    things are but how we would like someone
  • 00:26:35
    to make them be or how we intend to make
  • 00:26:37
    them be and I say of those kinds of
  • 00:26:41
    cases that they have the
  • 00:26:45
    upward they have this direction of
  • 00:26:52
    fit they have the
  • 00:26:56
    world to work word direction of F and
  • 00:27:00
    notice we don't say of
  • 00:27:02
    these these orders commands and promises
  • 00:27:06
    that they are true or false but we say
  • 00:27:08
    they are obeyed or disobeyed kept or
  • 00:27:11
    broken so the simplest test for whether
  • 00:27:13
    or not something has this direction of
  • 00:27:15
    is can you say that it's true or false
  • 00:27:18
    statements assertions descriptions
  • 00:27:21
    explanations but and that's
  • 00:27:23
    characteristic of assertions and
  • 00:27:25
    statements but here we have the world to
  • 00:27:27
    word direction of fit that is
  • 00:27:29
    characteristic of orders commands
  • 00:27:32
    promises vows threats and pledges where
  • 00:27:34
    the aim is not to represent how the
  • 00:27:36
    world is but to change the world by
  • 00:27:39
    getting the World to Change and match
  • 00:27:42
    the words okay can everybody's got it we
  • 00:27:44
    make these noises through our mouth and
  • 00:27:47
    they represent how we'd like things to
  • 00:27:49
    be if it's an order uh or a promise how
  • 00:27:53
    we intend to make them be or they
  • 00:27:56
    represent how we think things are are if
  • 00:27:58
    it's a statement this is the statement
  • 00:27:59
    that it's raining or we are now in Osa
  • 00:28:02
    okay now everybody's up with me then
  • 00:28:04
    there comes an amazing development and
  • 00:28:07
    again as far as I know only humans can
  • 00:28:10
    do this I don't know any other animal
  • 00:28:12
    that can do
  • 00:28:13
    that we have a class of
  • 00:28:16
    utterances that make something the case
  • 00:28:20
    and thus they achieve the upward or
  • 00:28:22
    world to word direction of fit but they
  • 00:28:26
    do it by ref representing the thing that
  • 00:28:28
    we're trying to make to be the case as
  • 00:28:31
    already being the case that's an amazing
  • 00:28:35
    phenomen and it turns out they have both
  • 00:28:39
    directions of F that once they create a
  • 00:28:44
    reality by representing that reality as
  • 00:28:47
    existence they create the reality and
  • 00:28:50
    thus achieve the upward or world word
  • 00:28:52
    direction of f but they do it by
  • 00:28:55
    representing that reality as exist
  • 00:28:58
    and just to have a name I call these
  • 00:29:02
    declarations where you make a reality by
  • 00:29:05
    declaring that reality to exist whereas
  • 00:29:08
    these guys are
  • 00:29:10
    assertives where you assert something as
  • 00:29:14
    a case and these guys are either
  • 00:29:16
    directives as in the case of orders and
  • 00:29:20
    commands or their
  • 00:29:22
    commiss as in the case of promises vows
  • 00:29:26
    and pledges
  • 00:29:28
    okay now I want to advance a very strong
  • 00:29:30
    thesis all of human institutional
  • 00:29:34
    reality money cocktail parties summer
  • 00:29:37
    vacations uh driver's licenses all of
  • 00:29:40
    human institutional reality is
  • 00:29:43
    created by repeated representations that
  • 00:29:47
    have the logical form of declarations
  • 00:29:50
    declarations that create status
  • 00:29:53
    functions so just to have a name let's
  • 00:29:56
    call them all
  • 00:29:59
    status
  • 00:30:00
    function
  • 00:30:02
    declarations so institutional reality is
  • 00:30:05
    both created in its initial form and
  • 00:30:08
    maintained in its existence by repeated
  • 00:30:12
    application of
  • 00:30:14
    representations that have this logical
  • 00:30:17
    form they have the logical form of
  • 00:30:19
    creating a reality by representing that
  • 00:30:22
    reality as existing now how can that
  • 00:30:25
    exist I mean isn't it a kind of word
  • 00:30:26
    magic to think you can create reality
  • 00:30:29
    just by saying something well the
  • 00:30:31
    earliest investigations of this were
  • 00:30:33
    done by my old professor in Oxford
  • 00:30:35
    Austin who discovered what he call a
  • 00:30:37
    performative utterance where you make
  • 00:30:39
    something the case by saying that it's
  • 00:30:42
    the case you adjourn the meeting by
  • 00:30:44
    saying the meeting is adjourned uh or
  • 00:30:46
    you promise to come and see somebody by
  • 00:30:48
    saying I promise to come and see you I
  • 00:30:51
    or are you declare war by saying war is
  • 00:30:54
    here by declare now all of those cases
  • 00:30:56
    having explicit verb that names the
  • 00:30:59
    speech act we performing all of those
  • 00:31:01
    performatives are declarations but not
  • 00:31:04
    every declaration contains a
  • 00:31:07
    performative verb contains a verb that
  • 00:31:10
    names the type of speech act that you
  • 00:31:13
    are performing and thus creating uh
  • 00:31:16
    there are lots of declarations that look
  • 00:31:20
    quite innocent on these sorted pieces of
  • 00:31:23
    paper American money there's a
  • 00:31:25
    mysterious utterance
  • 00:31:28
    and again in philosophy you got to be
  • 00:31:30
    astounded by what any saying person
  • 00:31:32
    regards as too obvious to be worth
  • 00:31:34
    mentioning it says here this note is
  • 00:31:38
    legal tender for all debts public and
  • 00:31:42
    private well we're all
  • 00:31:44
    epistemologists and we wonder how do
  • 00:31:46
    they
  • 00:31:47
    know what's the evidence have they
  • 00:31:50
    actually done a study have they done a
  • 00:31:52
    survey that it really is legal tender no
  • 00:31:56
    they didn't discover it they declared it
  • 00:31:58
    they made it the case by declaration and
  • 00:32:01
    so on uh with private property and
  • 00:32:04
    government and marriage and all the rest
  • 00:32:06
    of it Barack Obama is President not in
  • 00:32:10
    virtue of any physical fact that he has
  • 00:32:14
    not in virtue of the fact that his DNA
  • 00:32:16
    has presidential uh chromosomes in it uh
  • 00:32:21
    not at all he is president in virtue of
  • 00:32:23
    the fact that there is a collectively
  • 00:32:26
    accept
  • 00:32:27
    status function declaration that makes
  • 00:32:30
    him president and though this is a
  • 00:32:32
    tougher point to clarify but I will say
  • 00:32:35
    a bit about it not only do we create
  • 00:32:38
    institutional Reality by status function
  • 00:32:41
    declarations but we maintain it in its
  • 00:32:44
    existence by the continued applications
  • 00:32:48
    of representations that have the form
  • 00:32:50
    and need not always be explicit status
  • 00:32:53
    function declarations but they have the
  • 00:32:55
    logical form of the status function
  • 00:32:57
    declaration now that last point is less
  • 00:33:00
    obvious so let me repeat these two
  • 00:33:02
    points the first point is that all of
  • 00:33:04
    human institutional reality is created
  • 00:33:07
    in its in its initial
  • 00:33:10
    existence by
  • 00:33:12
    representations that have the logical
  • 00:33:14
    form of a status function declaration
  • 00:33:17
    that is they have both direction of fit
  • 00:33:19
    they need not be explicit they you need
  • 00:33:21
    not create Sally as the Boss by saying
  • 00:33:25
    Sally's the boss or I hereby create
  • 00:33:28
    Sally's the boss but you can say things
  • 00:33:30
    like well we can't really decide this
  • 00:33:32
    issue until Sally comes my God we could
  • 00:33:35
    we couldn't make any we couldn't do
  • 00:33:36
    anything unless Sally approved that's
  • 00:33:38
    all of those have the logical form of
  • 00:33:40
    the status function declaration because
  • 00:33:42
    they're making something the case by
  • 00:33:45
    representing it as being the case now I
  • 00:33:47
    want to say also in the continuation of
  • 00:33:52
    the institutional fact requires
  • 00:33:54
    continuous status function
  • 00:33:57
    declarations or rather it requires
  • 00:34:00
    representations utterances thoughts that
  • 00:34:03
    have the logical form of the stus
  • 00:34:05
    function declaration that's harder to
  • 00:34:08
    show but I think you'll see it if you
  • 00:34:09
    look at social change what are the
  • 00:34:12
    interesting social changes is the change
  • 00:34:14
    in the position of women that has
  • 00:34:16
    occurred in the United States and in
  • 00:34:18
    Europe over the past 50 years or so now
  • 00:34:20
    one of the things the feminists
  • 00:34:22
    recognized early on was The crucial
  • 00:34:25
    functioning of the vocab ulary uh they
  • 00:34:28
    didn't want one people to continue to
  • 00:34:30
    refer to ladies and gentlemen now I
  • 00:34:33
    think it's become harmless but at the
  • 00:34:35
    time they were threatened by it because
  • 00:34:37
    that marked an existing system of stus
  • 00:34:40
    functions that they wanted to overcome
  • 00:34:43
    similarly when the Bolsheviks took power
  • 00:34:46
    in Russia they wanted to abolish all of
  • 00:34:49
    the traditional forms of address that
  • 00:34:52
    marked people's uh status within an
  • 00:34:55
    aristocratic or
  • 00:34:57
    hierarchy uh they wanted everybody to be
  • 00:34:59
    just known as comrade those are not
  • 00:35:02
    harmless uh those are very important
  • 00:35:05
    shifts because the shift in the
  • 00:35:08
    vocabulary marks the shift in the status
  • 00:35:11
    and if you can get control of the
  • 00:35:13
    vocabulary then you have you have gone a
  • 00:35:16
    long way toward toward controlling the
  • 00:35:18
    state's function so the the the central
  • 00:35:22
    thesis that I'm now advancing which goes
  • 00:35:24
    beyond what I said earlier what I said
  • 00:35:27
    earlier was all of human institutional
  • 00:35:30
    reality is created by speech acts of the
  • 00:35:33
    form X count as Y and context C but I
  • 00:35:36
    now I've gone a next step and I said
  • 00:35:39
    what kind of a speech Act is that anyway
  • 00:35:40
    what's the direction of fit and the
  • 00:35:43
    answer is it's a declaration but unlike
  • 00:35:47
    other sorts of Declaration see it's
  • 00:35:50
    interesting declaration are kind of
  • 00:35:52
    mysterious and I don't think religions
  • 00:35:54
    can exist without some of belief in
  • 00:35:56
    declaration so for example when God said
  • 00:35:59
    let there be light what kind of a speech
  • 00:36:02
    Act was that it didn't mean uh Henry
  • 00:36:04
    over there turn on the lights it wasn't
  • 00:36:06
    an order and it wasn't a promise it
  • 00:36:07
    didn't mean uh when I get around to it
  • 00:36:10
    I'll make light for you guys it made it
  • 00:36:12
    the case by declaration that light
  • 00:36:15
    exists and you might check it out how
  • 00:36:16
    this is translated in to other
  • 00:36:21
    language I don't know figure out what
  • 00:36:23
    the translation is into Norwegian all
  • 00:36:26
    that is a Supernatural declaration now
  • 00:36:29
    we do not have the
  • 00:36:30
    capacity uh to do this Divine thing of
  • 00:36:33
    creating light by declaration but we
  • 00:36:36
    have a similar miraculous power where we
  • 00:36:39
    can create money property government
  • 00:36:42
    marriage summer vacations uh the
  • 00:36:45
    University of Oslo and cocktail parties
  • 00:36:48
    all by declaring them to exist and that
  • 00:36:51
    I am claiming is the essential feature
  • 00:36:54
    of human civilization whereby differ
  • 00:36:57
    from other sorts of animals now the next
  • 00:37:00
    step is how does it work okay so you got
  • 00:37:03
    all these decorations what's supposed to
  • 00:37:04
    happen have I got any time left oh yeah
  • 00:37:07
    take your time okay well I don't want
  • 00:37:10
    people keep going okay why does it work
  • 00:37:13
    what's the big deal so you all right so
  • 00:37:16
    you have these status function
  • 00:37:20
    declarations what's supposed to happen
  • 00:37:23
    now that we've got these status function
  • 00:37:26
    I
  • 00:37:30
    have and the answer
  • 00:37:33
    is that we
  • 00:37:36
    create in creating these status
  • 00:37:39
    functions we have created institutional
  • 00:37:43
    facts uh and indeed I want to say all
  • 00:37:47
    institutional
  • 00:37:48
    facts are status functions institutional
  • 00:37:52
    fact equals
  • 00:37:55
    status fun
  • 00:37:57
    funtions but now what's the point of
  • 00:38:00
    doing that and the answer is power when
  • 00:38:04
    you create status functions you create
  • 00:38:07
    power all human institutional reality
  • 00:38:11
    consists of various forms of power
  • 00:38:14
    positive and negative much of it
  • 00:38:16
    invisible so for example as a professor
  • 00:38:19
    at the University of California I am
  • 00:38:22
    entitled to certain is our positive
  • 00:38:25
    power I am uh authorized which are those
  • 00:38:29
    are positive Powers but I also have
  • 00:38:31
    negative Powers I have obligations an
  • 00:38:35
    obligation is a negative power a right
  • 00:38:39
    is a positive power I and indeed I want
  • 00:38:43
    to say all institutional fact are
  • 00:38:47
    stateus functions and they all create
  • 00:38:50
    what I call deontic
  • 00:38:53
    Powers and deontic Powers are rights
  • 00:38:58
    duties obligations requirements
  • 00:39:01
    authorizations permissions authority of
  • 00:39:04
    various kinds all of those are deontic
  • 00:39:07
    powers and again as far as I know uh no
  • 00:39:09
    animal has this you see animals have
  • 00:39:12
    status hierarchies there's an alpha male
  • 00:39:15
    and an alpha female and then there's a
  • 00:39:17
    beta male and the beta female I don't
  • 00:39:19
    know how far down the ethologist count
  • 00:39:22
    but you do get power
  • 00:39:24
    structures Within animals an within
  • 00:39:28
    animal tribes but you don't get a
  • 00:39:31
    deontology nobody ever says uh we have
  • 00:39:35
    to go along with Bill because he's the
  • 00:39:37
    alpha male it just that's not a problem
  • 00:39:41
    uh because being the alpha male does not
  • 00:39:44
    mark an Institutional effect see think
  • 00:39:47
    of the difference between Barack Obama
  • 00:39:49
    and the alpha male in a group of
  • 00:39:52
    primates now the alpha male has a lot of
  • 00:39:55
    power because the other the others are
  • 00:39:57
    all scared of him uh but that power
  • 00:40:00
    lasts only as long as he's tougher than
  • 00:40:02
    everybody else only as long as he can
  • 00:40:03
    beat up everybody else but Barack Obama
  • 00:40:06
    does not get up in the morning and think
  • 00:40:08
    can I still beat up on everybody else no
  • 00:40:10
    he doesn't have to worry about that
  • 00:40:12
    because he's got this beon power he's
  • 00:40:15
    has all these rights and obligations and
  • 00:40:19
    duties that come with being pres and the
  • 00:40:22
    deontic powers create human civilization
  • 00:40:27
    why because they lock into human
  • 00:40:31
    rationality and when you recognize
  • 00:40:34
    something as a status
  • 00:40:37
    function then by rationality you have to
  • 00:40:41
    recognize that it gives you desire
  • 00:40:45
    independent reasons for
  • 00:40:47
    Action so for
  • 00:40:50
    example uh some nice person invites me
  • 00:40:54
    to give a talk in Oslo and I say yes uh
  • 00:40:58
    now on the day in question I don't have
  • 00:41:01
    to ask myself well what should I do
  • 00:41:03
    today you know what they I what do I
  • 00:41:04
    feel like doing no I have created a
  • 00:41:07
    reason for giving a lecture and in
  • 00:41:09
    ordinary English I have made a promise I
  • 00:41:12
    have promised and in so doing I have
  • 00:41:14
    created a reason for Action which is
  • 00:41:17
    independent of my immediate inclinations
  • 00:41:21
    so the structure of
  • 00:41:23
    deontology that comes out of status
  • 00:41:26
    functions that comes out of
  • 00:41:28
    institutional structures gives us
  • 00:41:31
    reasons for Action which are peculiar as
  • 00:41:33
    far as I know a human things I don't
  • 00:41:35
    some other animals have this but I don't
  • 00:41:36
    see how they could because obligations
  • 00:41:39
    rights duties and responsibilities can
  • 00:41:41
    only exist if they are represented as
  • 00:41:45
    existing they are Observer relative in a
  • 00:41:47
    crucial way but they're language
  • 00:41:49
    relative because without the concept of
  • 00:41:52
    an obligation you can't operate with
  • 00:41:55
    obligations you can't reflect you don't
  • 00:41:56
    need have the word but you got to have
  • 00:41:58
    some concept of an obligation in order
  • 00:42:01
    that you can reflect on your obligations
  • 00:42:02
    conflicting obligations and decide on
  • 00:42:05
    the base of that what you're going to do
  • 00:42:07
    okay so what I maintained now is that
  • 00:42:10
    our original idea that you can explain
  • 00:42:12
    human civilization with the structure X
  • 00:42:15
    counts as Y and context c not a bad
  • 00:42:17
    start but you've got to ask yourself the
  • 00:42:19
    next question what kind of a speech Act
  • 00:42:22
    is that what is what's going on uh when
  • 00:42:25
    uh you uh create a wi status function
  • 00:42:29
    and the answer is it's a very peculiar
  • 00:42:31
    kind of speech act because it's a
  • 00:42:33
    declaration it makes something the case
  • 00:42:36
    by representing it as being the case the
  • 00:42:38
    point of doing that is to create sets of
  • 00:42:42
    power relations positive and negative
  • 00:42:45
    conditional conjunctive all of the usual
  • 00:42:47
    logical operations are performed on on
  • 00:42:51
    institutional powers on on deontic
  • 00:42:53
    Powers and those deontic powers are what
  • 00:42:56
    Ena they're the glue that holds human
  • 00:42:58
    civilization together because they give
  • 00:43:01
    people reasons for acting that are
  • 00:43:03
    independent of their immediate
  • 00:43:05
    inclinations how much time am I I'm out
  • 00:43:07
    of time presumably well you can take
  • 00:43:09
    some okay well let me just take a
  • 00:43:11
    sentence or two and go and then I'll
  • 00:43:12
    shut up then well other people can
  • 00:43:15
    talk I want you to think how you would
  • 00:43:17
    apply this analysis and I have been
  • 00:43:20
    fascinated I I mean the newspapers to me
  • 00:43:23
    are more interesting than I've ever been
  • 00:43:24
    because I read them in the light of the
  • 00:43:26
    uh what happened uh in Tunisia and Egypt
  • 00:43:30
    are absolutely fascinating because the
  • 00:43:35
    system of collective intentionality was
  • 00:43:38
    undermined you see Collective
  • 00:43:41
    intentionality only works in so far as
  • 00:43:44
    it continues to be shared but where you
  • 00:43:47
    give people power over you where the
  • 00:43:50
    collectivity submit themselves to a
  • 00:43:52
    general power legitimation becomes
  • 00:43:56
    crucial you've got to think it's okay
  • 00:43:58
    for these guys to have power over us but
  • 00:44:01
    a single kid single guy set himself on
  • 00:44:05
    fire in uh in Tunisia and that
  • 00:44:09
    undermined the entire system of status
  • 00:44:12
    functions and then by this marvelous
  • 00:44:15
    capacity for imitation it spread like
  • 00:44:19
    wildfire all over the Arab world and we
  • 00:44:22
    still haven't worked out at the extent
  • 00:44:25
    of its spread
  • 00:44:26
    uh my favorite example of the withdrawal
  • 00:44:29
    of stateus functions is that wonderful
  • 00:44:32
    sequence of events in November of
  • 00:44:36
    1989 uh in in 1989 Anis mopis the Soviet
  • 00:44:42
    Empire collapsed now if you're brought
  • 00:44:44
    up in the time when I was brought up uh
  • 00:44:47
    we thought this was a permanent division
  • 00:44:48
    of the world I in into the into them and
  • 00:44:52
    us into the so-called socialist camp and
  • 00:44:54
    the so-called free world we thought it
  • 00:44:56
    would go on forever no expert predicted
  • 00:44:59
    and none of the great experts not even
  • 00:45:01
    the tourists predicted I mean you should
  • 00:45:03
    have been able to predict when you saw
  • 00:45:05
    Soviet toilet paper but but
  • 00:45:08
    even this cannot last we should have
  • 00:45:10
    thought way make anything going if
  • 00:45:12
    everybody you have a secret police
  • 00:45:15
    effective enough it all came tumbling
  • 00:45:18
    down and it came now the exact story
  • 00:45:20
    about how it came tumbling down uh that
  • 00:45:23
    takes uh uh more scholarship than I have
  • 00:45:26
    more than I've seen anybody have but
  • 00:45:28
    basically bishof lost his
  • 00:45:32
    self-confidence that undermined the
  • 00:45:33
    self-confidence of the elites and when
  • 00:45:36
    the elites lost their confidence in the
  • 00:45:38
    institution the whole system unravel
  • 00:45:43
    with stunning rapidity uh okay I
  • 00:45:46
    mentioned these two things there are
  • 00:45:47
    lots of other applications of this I
  • 00:45:49
    think political power is understood
  • 00:45:52
    basically as a system of accepted state
  • 00:45:54
    ofes backed by police and armies but
  • 00:45:57
    they too are systems for stateus
  • 00:46:00
    function the notion of Human Rights is
  • 00:46:03
    the is again a system of State
  • 00:46:06
    dysfunction uh people would like human
  • 00:46:08
    rights to be like thumbs you know you're
  • 00:46:09
    born with a human right is you're born
  • 00:46:11
    with thumbs it's not like that it's a
  • 00:46:13
    collective acceptance It's an ingenious
  • 00:46:16
    idea that being a human being is a y
  • 00:46:21
    term uh and thus the bearer of status
  • 00:46:25
    function the bear of human rights it's a
  • 00:46:26
    wonderfully ingenious idea I don't know
  • 00:46:28
    who thought of it uh sometime in the
  • 00:46:32
    18th century or maybe earlier maybe goes
  • 00:46:34
    back earlier but it's an enlightenment
  • 00:46:37
    idea it's very much an enlightenment
  • 00:46:38
    idea so the the thought I want to leave
  • 00:46:41
    you with is not just that I've given you
  • 00:46:43
    a story about human civilization but I
  • 00:46:46
    hope that it's a useful tool and
  • 00:46:48
    analyzing a very large number of
  • 00:46:49
    problems about human civilization thank
  • 00:46:52
    you very
  • 00:46:54
    much
  • 00:47:32
    I
タグ
  • philosophy
  • institutional facts
  • collective intentionality
  • status functions
  • objective reality
  • subjective agreement
  • language
  • power dynamics
  • human rights
  • social structures