That certain paper bills have monetary value, that Vladimir Putin is the president of Russia, and that Prince Philip is the husband of Queen Elizabeth II: such facts are commonly called ‘institutional facts’. IFF are, by definition, facts that exist by virtue of collective recognition. The standard view or tacit belief is that such facts really exist. In this paper we argue, however, that they really do not—they really are just well-established illusions. We confront realism about IFF with six criteria (...) of existence, three established and three less so but highly intuitive. We argue that they all tell against the existence of IFF. An obvious objection to IFF non-realism is that since people’s behaviour clearly reflects the existence of IFF, denying their existence leaves an explanatory gap. We reject this argument by introducing a variant of the so-called ‘Thomas Theorem,’ which says that when people collectively recognize a fact as existing, they largely behave accordingly, regardless of whether that fact really exists or not. (shrink)

Die meisten Ethik- und Philosophie-Lehrpläne sehen vor, dass Schüler/innen die Grundlagen der Moralphilosophie kennen und verstehen. Im vorliegenden Beitrag nennen und erläutern wir einige Probleme, die der Erreichung dieses Ziels entgegenstehen. Eines dieser Probleme – die Vermischung unterschiedlicher Fragen – illustrieren wir an einer konkreten Lehreinheit. Anschließend skizzieren wir schädliche Folgen dieses Problems und deuten mögliche Wege zu seiner Beseitigung an.

As is shown in the introduction of the book, the notion "illocutionary act" is used with quite a number of essentially different meanings; consequently, it is quite unclear what an "illocutionary act" is actually supposed to be. This problem is the starting point of the thesis. An argument is stated, to the effect that the introduction and use of scholarly terms like, for instance, "illocutionary act", or "performative sentence", is not entirely arbitrary. It is argued that technical terms should not (...) be re-defined without a reason, but in the absence of reasons to the contrary should be used in the way in which they have originally been introduced. This argument is applied to the notion "illocutionary act". John L. Austin is the one who introduced this notion. Consequently, his conception of these acts should be adopted unless there are good reasons to the contrary. Therefore the book provides a detailed analysis of Austin's account, and his original conception of these acts is reconstructed. The most popular alternative account of "illocutionary acts" is John R. Searle's. Therefore, secondly, the book provides an analysis of Searle's famous account of "illocutionary acts" - the first really detailed one available, including Searle's own work. It is shown that what Searle presents is in fact extremely sketchy, and can certainly not be viewed, as it often is, as an elaborated theory. It is further argued that the fundamental assumptions about language which Searle intends to illustrate with his account of "illocutionary acts" are mistaken, so that in general a theory following the lines Searle suggests is doomed to failure. Finally it is shown that Searle's account of "illocutionary acts", as far as it goes, is not an adequate adoption of the conception Austin introduced. Hence Searle's account is no reasonable alternative to Austin's account. (shrink)

The Speech act models of Searle and Bach/Hamish mistakenly reconstruct Austin's concept of "illocutionary act". In Austin's view, "illocutionary acts" are not pure acts of communication but social acts achieved by communicative behavior. Following Searle's "Speech Acts" and Strawson's "Intention and Convention in Speech Acts" today's speech act theory looks upon illocutionary acts as pure acts of communication, involving "conventionality" (in a certain sense) only as part of speaker's meaning. However, following Austin, to perform an illocutionary act is to bring (...) about conventional consequences which are not adequately dealt with in the speech act models of Searle and Bach/Hamish. (shrink)