'Proper Names' by John Searle

I won’t spam you or share your email address with anyone.

This is a video lecture in a course on the philosophy of language. It explains John R Searle's seminal and groundbreaking 1958 paper "Proper Names". Searle discusses and ultimately rejects both Frege's and Mill's theories of proper names. But Searle does think that associated with every name there is something like Frege's sense, except Searle thinks that it is a purposefully vague cluster of descriptions. Therefore, Searle's theory is often called the Cluster Theory of Proper Names. This video explain's Searle's theory and it uses a lot of examples involving Beyonce, Jay-Z, and Aristotle.

[vancesnyder]

John Searle was my professor at Berkeley in 1971; I took Social Psychology from him. Naturally at the time I had no idea he would be seen as one of the most important "philosophers of mind" of the twentieth century.

[benmancais]

You have a genuine talent for teaching and explaining things concisely

[kwisin]

Love the lecture. Your enthusiasm and energy are well suited for this medium.

We need more videos like this.

[htnog]

I do not come from philosophy, but history, and in history we DO have names that are constantly going through what is described as “historical debate”. The person to which we refer to does not change, but the First, Second, Third (…) things that come to mind when mentally conveying the referred person to the name changes our perspective on how we see them. In fear, in abjection, in condolences, in pity. The biggest names in sociology are a good example.

This subjectiveness around the Proper Name makes so that there could be 8 billion individual ways of conveying the same Name, although we could all agree it is the same person. I would like to see a part two where this aspect is discussed. How can we all are familiar to the same concept, and at the same time have our own conception about it…

[sannvii]

the fact that i was nodding throughout the video, and even once caught myself speaking like i was in discussion, while watching this video, even though i am 13 years old and not a native english speaker amazingly demonstrates how good of a teacher mr. kaplan is.
i understood everything perfectly sir. thank you very much :)

[bernardin]

BABE WAKE UP KAPLAN SEARLE VIDEO JUST DROPPED

[gnarbaflex]

Thank you. I remember the Morning Star, Evening Star problem from school, but never heard Searle's theory. You did quite well. I remember reading some Searle when I studied Philosophy of Language. Loved that class.

[JennyThePhilosopher]

I'm so glad you popped up in my YouTube recommendations! You've reminded me of my days as a philosophy major. I had no idea the Searle had contributed to the philosophy of language. Thank you for introducing me to this paper.

[robward]

YOURE
anytime i come across something amazing im afraid it will vanish into the void
please keep these coming

also, in the brief window where you'll see a comment before they get inundated, your marbury vs madison video was fantastic - something i always 'knew' about, but the way you told it, including the context and behind the scenes maneuvering made it come to life in a way i hadnt realized i was missing

plus, THANK YOU for creating a distinctive thumbnail that *isnt* some garbage clickbait covered with arrows and CrAzY googly eyes or some nonsense

[endervatta]

Professor these videos are always stimulating! Thank you so much for all your effort, and I couldn’t wait to throw my email in for a free copy haha.

[shahbasit]

I love your videos, as a bachelors student stumbling upon this channel .... the best thing that happened.... I am currently reading your suggestions of books to read and i loved the suggestion.... Please if you can make videos reagarding that too... That would be awsome...
Love you videos.

[randalltilander]

I like his point about “what if Aristotle was a bunch of people” because this is precisely the case with Homer.

[abdelkaioumbouaicha]

📝 Summary of Key Points:

📌 John Searle presents a theory of proper names, discussing the advantages and disadvantages of previous theories by John Stuart Mill and Gottlob Frege.
🧐 Searle argues that the rules for a proper name must be logically tied to the characteristics of the object, but the description used to teach the name may not stay attached to the name throughout its existence.
🚀 Searle proposes that non-existence statements are about the names themselves, not the objects they refer to, and that Mill's theory cannot explain the unique usefulness of proper names in language.
🚀 Proper names do not presuppose any stage setting or special contextual conditions, unlike demonstratives, and they refer without specifying any characteristics of the objects they refer to.
🚀 Searle suggests that the sense of a proper name is a cluster of descriptions, rather than a single description, and that the criteria for a proper name are loose and indeterminate.

💡 Additional Insights and Observations:

💬 "The rules for a proper name must be logically tied to the characteristics of the object." - Searle emphasizes the importance of the logical connection between the rules for a proper name and the characteristics of the object it refers to.
📊 No specific data or statistics were mentioned in the video.
🌐 John Searle's 1958 paper on proper names and his theory provide a comprehensive explanation of how proper names function in language.

📣 Concluding Remarks:

John Searle's theory of proper names combines elements of previous theories and provides a more comprehensive understanding of how proper names work in language. He emphasizes the logical connection between the rules for a proper name and the characteristics of the object it refers to. Searle also highlights the unique usefulness of proper names and their ability to refer without specifying specific characteristics. Overall, his theory offers valuable insights into the nature and function of proper names.
Generated using Talkbud (Browser Extension)

[lemonhaze]

You’re back ty always for providing awesome lectures ❤

[nestorlovesguitar]

Your work is top-notch quality. I am at a lack of words to express how much I like your content.

[marvincruz]

This is a very interesting discussion. To me it appears that names are part of the toolset of language and are like placeholders that do not in themselves have meaning by themselves. It is in their practical use that they bear some meaning and as such we understand what they are. In fact in conversation names do not need any preceding cognitive act in order to be understood. For example, when you ask about a certain name of one whom you are unfamiliar with, say Bob, that name itself is already specific albeit empty. It is just a placeholder. In fact it is the unfamiliarity, the lack of description, that makes it functional in a question, "Who is Bob?" The name precedes any description since the act of describing itself assumes that both conversant acknowledge its use as a name. Similarly, if two persons were talking about two different persons with the same name, each name despite being the same and confused are distinguishable and distinct. It is the variable function of a name that enables this kind of conversation to even make sense. The same however may be said of an unknown word or perhaps a foreign word. It is uttered but without descriptive meaning, but only word; but it has pragmatic value in the context of a conversation.

[Ether.]

you know its a good day when prof kaplan uploads

[johanlindeberg]

8:57 Now Zchwanga exists, and we will think about him and wonder.
He is the entity that doesn't have a description, fathomless, wandering
the corridors of Philosophy, in search of meaning.

[freethought]

If one of you ever need to explain how pointers and "void" pointers in C work. Just show them this video. Great job

[RalphBrooker-gniv]

These are quite *outstanding* lectures. Just out of interest, my tutor when I was an undergraduate at Sussex University, UK, locked horns with Searle in the early 80s about the so-called ‘physical symbol system hypothesis’ in AI. More simply, the issue between them concerned whether and how machines might think. Searle’s ‘Minds, Brains, and Programs’ (1980) triggered a series of published and broadcast exchange about whether Turing machines could think.