Abstract

Regardless of the fact that I am using certain texts by Searle, Ferraris, Smith and De Soto, my intention is not at all to reiterate someone else?s position in my own words, nor is it to question or modify some such position. My intention for now is to, using Ferraris? theory of the document, affirm the existence of a paradox - one rejected by Searle, but unconvincingly so, I think - regarding the institution. In order to do that, it seems to me that I am forced to slightly disturb both Searle?s and Ferraris? conception, in attempting to offer my own contribution to a new future theory of the institution.