...invisible acts... — NOS4A2
Here you made some marks on the screen - a physical act.Any advice? — NOS4A2
my problem is that speech act theory proposes multiple phenomena where only one is apparent. — NOS4A2
In performing that locution you asked a question - an illocutionary act. — Banno
How many, and which, acts are involved depends on what one is doing with the description... — Banno
In performing that locution you asked a question - an illocutionary act.
By performing that illocution you elicited this response - a perlocution.
We do things with words.
The key insight in speech acts may be that the content and the force of the illocution are distinct.
It is indistinguishable from the locutionary act. — NOS4A2
Your response is no act of mine. — NOS4A2
You spoke them or wrote them. No others acts have occurred or are apparent or can be measured. — NOS4A2
Speech act theory is embedded in social discourse, implicitly and explicitly addressing the place of utterances in social activity. Perlocutions include the acts of the listener....the theory ought to be reworked to include “listening acts”, the acts of a listener. — NOS4A2
For those interested in the topic - and it has many uses, in and outside of philosophy... — Banno
Well, no, it isn't. Making marks and asking a question are very different acts. Here are the same marks: "Any advice?". I am not using them here in order to asking a question. So there is a difference between making the marks and asking the question; which is to distinguish between the locution and the illocution. And neither is "invisible", what ever that might mean in this context.
No, but your eliciting a response is an act of yours. Just as your post elicited this reply. I would not have written this were it not for your post, and hence this post is an act resulting from your act.
You also made statements and asked questions. Are these not acts you performed? Why not?
Speech act theory is embedded in social discourse, implicitly and explicitly addressing the place of utterances in social activity. Perlocutions include the acts of the listener.
From recollection, you maintain a form of hyper-individualism, which it seems makes it difficult for you to see the social aspects inherent in speech acts. I remain unable to see what your objection is.
No, but your eliciting a response is an act of yours. Just as your post elicited this reply. I would not have written this were it not for your post, and hence this post is an act resulting from your act. — Banno
You read and responded all on your own and at your own leisure. — NOS4A2
Asking a question doesn't determine anything as response to it. Invites? Sure. Does not cause any response, I don't think.
If I ask someone "what is the capital of Florida?" and they respond "Tallahassee," would they have uttered the word Tallahassee if I hadn't asked the question? — Count Timothy von Icarus
cause may have actually been their knowledge of the correct answer.
the B&E example, the assault consists in their act
It can't involve both? — Count Timothy von Icarus
I don't think you can have a sexual assault without a sex act. — Count Timothy von Icarus
et if the murder or sex act does occur, it seems perfectly reasonable to find the person engaged in coercion responsible — Count Timothy von Icarus
If asking someone to do something cannot cause them to perform an act, there would be no reason why war criminals who order mass executions should be considered criminals in the first place, so long as they don't pull any triggers — Count Timothy von Icarus
If you're not asking a question when you ask "Any advice?"then what are you doing? Are you quoting a question? Maybe you're pretending to ask a question? Yet, there it is: a question. So where in space and time has this illocutionary act occured? — NOS4A2
Yes, you did, and continue to elicit replies by your responses. I would not have posted this, had you not posted that.I didn't elicit any reply from you... — NOS4A2
Again, I quite agree. But you can do things using word - that's the point.But words can't act. — NOS4A2
...which involves both making marks and asking a question. Again, the issue is that asking a question is different to making a mark, and this difference is well worth marking, and hence the terms locution and illocution.there is one act and one act only, the locution, in this case the writing. — NOS4A2
I agree entirely, and add that the where and when of the illocutionary act is the same as the where and when of the locution: In your having written "Any advice?" you performed both a locution and an illocution; which is to claim no more than that you both wrote a sentence and you asked a question.
Yes, you did, and continue to elicit replies by your responses. I would not have posted this, had you not posted that.
...which involves both making marks and asking a question. Again, the issue is that asking a question is different to making a mark, and this difference is well worth marking, and hence the terms locution and illocution.
I performed one visible act, did one measurable thing, but you saw two visible acts, or me doing two visible things. So did I really perform two acts, or are you describing the same act in two different ways?
If I were to record myself writing I would see one act. I can point to it, witness it again and again. I am unable to see two. — NOS4A2
So did you utter "Any advice?" without intending that other folk might respond?I can’t say I made any such action. — NOS4A2
Simply in that someone might make the very same marks as part of, say, a random scribble - thumping on the keyboard, perhaps - and hence, not intending to elicit a response, not have asked a question.How is it different? — NOS4A2
It sure can - but on my view it’s not caused by the question. The response is caused by something the person responding. I Can’t grok the causal relationship. Putting someone in mind of something shouldn’t considered causal imo.
Might just be a bad example as that doesn’t change the premise of what you’re arguing.
Coercion only has a mitigating effect on sentencing for those types or crime. “Under duress” doesn’t remove the charge and responsibility for the act.
The coercive party did not commit the act. The actus Reus differs.
Tricky but my understanding is they are guilty of genocide which is intention-informed and not act-informed. It isn’t murder, basically.
If you don't want to call is causal it still seems like you'd need to explain the counterfactual. How does B fail to occur without A, and when A occurs, B follows from it through a chain of consequences, but A cannot be said to cause B? — Count Timothy von Icarus
The question would be, when do we hit the sui generis "cause-like-but-not-cause" phenomena and why is it different? — Count Timothy von Icarus
Even if you want to allow for some form of libertarian free will, it seems like it simply cannot be the case that other people's words or other communicative acts never "put things in mind," or motivate action. — Count Timothy von Icarus
It is — Count Timothy von Icarus
More to the point, even if words don't "cause" acts, it seems like their relationship to acts still has to fulfill pretty much all the characteristics of naive conceptions of cause — Count Timothy von Icarus
it seems like their relationship to acts still has to fulfill pretty much all the characteristics of naive conceptions of cause — Count Timothy von Icarus
Likewise, someone who tricks someone into poisoning someone else by telling them cyanide is medicine, etc. is responsible for the murder — Count Timothy von Icarus
It can't be just intent. If this was the case, some random basement dwelling Chud posting on the Internet about the need to "exterminate the Jews," would be as guilty of "genocide" as top Nazi officials. — Count Timothy von Icarus
lacks the capability to adequately think through the consequences of actions "put into their mind," by the father. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Even the harshest hate crime law advocates do not say we should hang people for urging genocide, and yet even people who don't want any hate crime laws see hanging Nazi officials who oversaw the Holocaust as completely justified. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Social context matters. — Count Timothy von Icarus
the difference lies — Count Timothy von Icarus
I may be trifling here but I always find it hard to conclude a cause without some very clear, fairly exclusive, reason for the act being caused by whatever is in question. Here, I don't see it. — AmadeusD
If you yell Fire in a crowded theater, but are mistaken, you are not culpable since you believed there was a fire. The resulting fracas and potentially injuries are not on your head, if you truly believed there was a fire. — AmadeusD
I do wonder if his inability to understand speech acts is related to his extreme individualism. — Banno
I don't think anyone would claim that Kant's CPR was caused by Hume. — AmadeusD
Kant did. — creativesoul
Maybe. If it gets a few more folk to learn a bit of philosophy of language it might be for the greater good.an agent provocateur. — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.