Jesus Navarro

Suele considerarse que los ensayos de Montaigne contienen el germen del subjetivismo moderno: incapaz de superar su crisis escéptica, Montaigne habría iniciado el giro de la filosofía hacia la interioridad del yo, ensayándose a sí mismo en su escritura, replegándose sobre sí. Sin embargo, conviene no olvidar que los Ensayos carecieron del firme -y falaz- apoyo de la certeza; por ese motivo Montaigne no nos ofrece un decálogo a seguir por un sujeto solitario en el ejercicio autárquico de su razón. Por el contrario, consciente de que la incertidumbre nunca podrá ser despejada, centra su reflexión en el ejercicio de la conversación asumiendo la relación y el comercio con el otro como elementos constitutivos de su propia identidad.

Speech Acts, Criteria and IntentionsWhat makes a speech act a speech act? Which are its necessary and sufficient conditions? I claim in this paper that we cannot find an answer to those questions in Austin's doctrine of the infelicities, since some infelicities take place in fully committing speech acts, whereas others prevent the utterance from being considered as a speech act at all. With this qualification in mind, I argue against the idea that intentions—considered as mental states accomplishing a causal role in the performance of the act—should be considered among the necessary conditions of speech acts. I would thus like to deny a merely ‘symptomatic’ account of intentions, according to which we could never make anything but fallible hypotheses about the effective occurrence of any speech act. I propose an alternative ‘criterial’ account of the role of intentions in speech acts theory, and analyse Austin's and Searle's approaches in the light of this Wittgensteinian concept. Whether we consider, with Austin, that speech acts ‘imply’ mental states or, with Searle, that they ‘express’ them, we could only make sense of this idea if we considered utterances as criteria for intentions, and not as alleged behavioural effects of hidden mental causes.

The aim of this paper is to discuss a basic assumption tacitly shared by many philosophers of mind and language: that whatever can be meant, can be said. It specifically targets John Searle’s account of this idea, focussing on his Principle of Expressibility (PE henceforth). In the first part of the paper, PE is exposed underlining its analyticity (1) and its relevance for the philosophy of language (2), mind (3), society and action (4). In the critical part, the notion of Background is taken into account in order to re-evaluate two basic distinctions: the one between sentence and utterance meanings (5), and the one between native and type speakers (6). PE is reconsidered in the light of the previous arguments as a methodological strategy that does not prevent uses of language from eventual semantic excesses and deficits (7), and a complementary Principle of Expression Fallibility is finally proposed (8).