David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The Harvard Review of Philosophy 13 (2):4-24 (2005)
phenomenology and logical analysis. John Searle and Bert Dreyfus are for me two of the paradigm figures of contemporary philosophy, so I am extremely proud to have been offered the opportunity to engage with their work. The editors of The Harvard Review of Philosophy, it seems to me, have shown a keen sense of what is deep and important in our discipline by publishing extended interviews with these two influential thinkers. At the same time, writing this article meant entering into a debate between Searle and Dreyfus about the priority of their respective philosophical methodologies, and this, I am afraid, is at best a no-win situation. My strategy, therefore, has been to try to engage as sympathetically as possible with the programs of each philosopher, and to draw from their work lessons that seem to me important for any philosophical account of intentionality and social reality. I have not shied away from criticism; indeed the whole paper is an extended series of criticisms of the work of both philosophers. But I hope they will recognize this for what it is: an engagement with the work of each that is based on the deepest respect and admiration. Before I jump into the fray, I should mention that I owe a personal debt of gratitude to Searle and Dreyfus as well. They were not only my two advisors in graduate school, but were the two main reasons I entered philosophy. Having become dissatisfied with the formal worlds of mathematics and computer science, their respective critiques of artificial intelligence and cognitivism showed me the rich possibilities of philosophy and struck me as a reason to become a philosopher. It is a difficult discipline, sometimes unforgiving; but I am glad I followed them into it.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Rasmus Thybo Jensen (2009). Motor Intentionality and the Case of Schneider. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 8 (3):371-388.
Donnchadh O'Conaill (2013). On Being Motivated. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 12 (4):579-595.
Similar books and articles
Evan Selinger (2008). Collins's Incorrect Depiction of Dreyfus's Critique of Artificial Intelligence. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 7 (2):301-308.
Dale Jacquette (1990). Fear and Loathing (and Other Intentional States) in Searle's Chinese Room. Philosophical Psychology 3 (2 & 3):287-304.
Mark Wrathall & Sean Kelly (1996). Existential Phenomenology and Cognitive Science. Electronic Journal of Analytic Philosophy (4).
N. Fotion (2000). John Searle. Princeton University Press.
Christian Lotz (2007). Cognitivism and Practical Intentionality: A Critique of Dreyfus's Critique of Husserl. International Philosophical Quarterly 47 (2):153-166.
Tomis Kapitan (2007). The Phenomenology of Freedom. Journal of Mind and Behavior 28 (3/4):189.
Barry Smith (2003). John Searle: From Speech Acts to Social Reality. In , John Searle. Cambridge University Press. 1--33.
Sean Dorrance Kelly (2005). Closing the Gap. The Harvard Review of Philosophy 13 (2):4-24.
Hubert L. Dreyfus (1999). The Primacy of Phenomenology Over Logical Analysis. Philosophical Topics 27 (2):3-24.
Hubert L. Dreyfus (1999). The Primacy of Phenomenology Over Logical Analysis: A Critique of Searle. Philosophical Topics 27 (2):3-24.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads125 ( #9,641 of 1,410,267 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #22,719 of 1,410,267 )
How can I increase my downloads?