Consider these two speech acts:

A: I promise to pay you back
B: I told @NOS4A2 "I promise to pay you back", that sucker believed me!

A and B are doing very different things with the utterance "I promise to pay you back", even though the mechanical act is identical. The question "is it one act or two?" is kind of irrelevant. What is important is that these two things, locution and illocution, are distinguished.

The mechanical act is not identical because the act of writing B takes longer than writing A. More letters and punctuation is used.

It’s becoming more and more clear that people are searching for acts in the text and not in the actor. Philosophy of language in a nutshell: the philosopher drifts from a clear and plain view of the human being into the muddled pursuit of sifting through his expressions.

Hume's influence on the academic/philosophical/scientific community at the time caused Kant to awaken from dogmatic slumber. He said as much himself in the forward, or at the beginning of the CPR...

Right?

:yikes:

If it gets a few more folk to learn a bit of philosophy of language it might be for the greater good. — Banno

:point:

The mechanical act is not identical because the act of writing B takes longer than writing A. More letters and punctuation is used. — NOS4A2

Yeah, for that reason the emphasis in speech act theory is usually the utterance, not the sentence. But the point holds.

It’s becoming more and more clear that people are searching for acts in the text and not in the actor. — NOS4A2

That's not correct.

Here it is again, set out so the actor is clear:

NOS4A2 pressed buttons on a keyboard (if that is what you indeed did)
NOS4A2 made marks on a screen
NOS4A2 made a sequence of letters
NOS4A2 wrote "Any advice?"
NOS4A2 asked a question
NOS4A2 asked for advice
NOS4A2 elicited responses from Banno and others

NOS4A2 did things with words.

Which of these is false?

The mechanical act is not identical because the act of writing B takes longer than writing A — NOS4A2

But the act of saying/typing "I promise to pay you back" is identical in both cases.

Correct. But I'm unsure what else to say, because I've addressed the delineation between 'putting in mind', 'causing' and lets call it distant(in time/proximity) influence (in this case, the latter... Kant was caused to consider Hume's position and 'solve hte problem. His solution caused the CPR to be written).

I'm not suggesting 'everyone is wrong' i'm suggesting tthis is being described inaccurately, 'this', being hte difference between inspiration and cause. And I understand these are sloppy, underthought and are likely to be wrong. Just trying to be clear when it's not being quite nailed in criticisms.

↪creativesoul Correct. But I'm unsure what else to say, — AmadeusD

May I suggest Davidson's Anomolous Monism or his paper in the early 70's or late 60's, "Mental Events" which has a very basic argument, undeniable really, that you may find of interest. It's quite germane to this topic.

Yep. And Asncombe, but not as approachable.

That is a very interesting paper prima facie. However, I have some serious reservations about an hypothesis that posits mental events cannot be reduced to physical events, but still entertains a direct connection between the two. The basis of the argument, though, I already take. I look forward to sitting down with it later today (its 4pm).

A thoguht that struck me to address the OP's actually questions though:

Consider Sean Carroll on stage, providing data/information and eliciting 'WOW!" from some audience members (none of these discreet events matter, particularly).

He is, all at the same time:
Speaking;
Informing;
Performing; and
if taken to an extreme, and related to some previous discussion eliciting certain, lets say, involuntary responses to his speech.

Are all of these acts rolled into the one act?

Here it is again, set out so the actor is clear:

NOS4A2 pressed buttons on a keyboard (if that is what you indeed did)
NOS4A2 made marks on a screen
NOS4A2 made a sequence of letters
NOS4A2 wrote "Any advice?"
NOS4A2 asked a question
NOS4A2 asked for advice
NOS4A2 elicited responses from Banno and others

NOS4A2 did things with words.

Which of these is false?

I would argue against the last one because I performed no action worthy of the verb, and no one in particular was the direct object of my act. I simply put it out there. Your response and the response of others are the direct result of “listening acts”, your reading and so on. As for the rest, none of them are false.

I took some time away from reading the thread to illustrate how your act “elicit” has become separated from you. You elicited an answer days ago but your “force” never had any effect, intended or otherwise, until days later, when it would finally spring into action. A perlocution of this sort could occur over a millennia.

But if I were to film myself responding to your question, and if we were to observe this film rather than sifting through the actor’s byproducts, I think we’d have to admit that I was just plunking away on the keyboard. The other acts you describe become visible only when we analyze the text, and by then we are no longer observing the actor.

...the last one... — NOS4A2

This?

NOS4A2 elicited responses from Banno and others

Ok, then if you accept the rest, you accept that we sometimes do things with words?

Seems to me you are reading to much in to "elicited responses". I would not have written this unless you had posted; that's all that we need in order to say you elicited this reply.

Cheers.

But motivation is not a cause on my account. Its an invitation or inspiration. I don't think anyone would claim that Kant's CPR was caused by Hume. I distinguish between something being 'put in mind' and an act being 'caused'. It seems you're not? — AmadeusD

When he brings up counterfactuals, he is correct. Without Hume there would have been no CPR. Two points of attention is that counterfactuals still rely on regularity, like Hume. And that there are causes that are not counterfactuals, such as "Maria throwing a rock caused the window to break", but without Mary throwing the rock, Dimitris would have thrown his. So without Maria throwing her rock, the window still would have broken. So it seems that causes are necessary, while counterfactuals are sufficient.

I like this podcast to learn about different theories of causation: https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/nature-causation

Without Hume there would have been no CPR. — Lionino

This is the worst piece of reasoning ive seen along this line. "if but for" is not the same as 'cause'. Without Aristotle, there would be CPR either.

Wonder when the pin will drop..

Without Aristotle, there would be CPR either. — AmadeusD

Well, yes, that is how the (bare-bones) counterfactual theory of causation (CFTF) works.

And you don't see that this is fallacious, and unwieldy at best, and complete irrelevant at worst>

And you don't see that this is fallacious, and unwieldy at best, and complete irrelevant at worst> — AmadeusD

No, because no syllogism has been made. Yes, as I expounded in the post before. No.

How so? Counterfactual analysis is probably single biggest tool used in the philosophy of causation. If Aristotle never writes anything, it is clear that our world would be quite different, due to innumerable small changes across the ages. It's not even clear if there would be a Kant or a Prussia. More directly, if Kant never read Aristotle and was never introduced to his ideas, it seems reasonable to assume his thought would have been quite different. What are the chances that Kant derives Aristotle's exact categories for judgement had he not already been using those categories because of Aristotle?

So where is the absence of any causal link?

Is the objection that reading Hume or Aristotle didn't necessitate Kant's work? That's certainly true, but there is a useful distinction between "x uniquely determines y," and "x plays a causal role in y." No one cigarette is going to "cause" lung disease, but years of smoking would seem to, each playing a causal role.

Animals evolving to survive on land didn't uniquely specify the invention of cars, but it seems to be a necessary precondition for their invention. That everything can be causally traced back to the begining of the universe per prevailing physics is sometimes raised as an objection to the entire concept of causation, but I don't think this really holds water.

The difference on display:

Ok, then if you accept the rest, you accept that we sometimes do things with words?

I did something with a keyboard. I can watch myself do this. Rather, you did something with the words. You read them. This appears to be the only thing we’re doing with words.

Ifunny showing its comedic supremacy once again.
But then the dilemma: if you could go back in time and kill baby Hegel, would you?

No — Lionino

Interesting.

Is the objection that reading Hume or Aristotle didn't necessitate Kant's work? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, and as seems standard around these parts, no one's noticing that, as is standard in philosophical discourse, I am parsing phrases and using words in manners that make them make sense instead of less-sensible ways they've been used before - and I cop to that, given this isn't a piece of academic writing. But, I notice others doing this all the time and respond as such, so Im not sure what's missing fro my writing that prevents others from noticing this. The term 'cause' doesn't make sense if it also includes distant influences, and not proximate causes only.

Hume (the Treatise, particularly) is/was necessary, but not sufficient, as a cause for the CPR - would be my position here, and I can't use the word 'cause' to represent something which it doesn't represent, to my mind. If others are using it that way, my position is they are hurting themselves by doing so. I don't understand repeatedly using words in ways that make them impossible to adequately use in detailed discussions. These are personal, developing methods of interacting with these ideas. I see an issue - i address it.

So where is the absence of any causal link? — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is the opposite of a reasonable enquiry. Show me one? Given my previous explanation of why i'm still using 'cause' here, I imagine this isn't a reasonable request. But that's the point. It cannot be shown.

"x uniquely determines y," and "x plays a causal role in y." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Oh, yes, I absolutely agree, and this is largely the reason im rejecting some uses of 'cause'. 'a cause', to me, is a discreet and necessarily traceable relationship. That can't be done adequately for 'causal influence' for eg. It is inferred or assumed loosely (or, when you're actually told by the source that X was a distance influence on work II), whereas a 'cause' is (read: should be, under my use) capable of immediate recognition given, essentially, two pieces of information (the purported cause, and the purported effect per se coupled with their spatio-temporal relationship per se (i.e "Did it occur before, or after?").

I do not find this to be quibbling, either. The distinction you make is baked into my use of the word. I haven't got an adequate singular for 'distant causal influence' on foot, though. Perhaps this is just a needed refinement.

Speech acts seem to have greater validity than mere acts of speech. While the implications of a speech act cannot be avoided, they can be in acts of speech.

The flaw in "listening acts" is that ulterior motives can still be present, so people can provide a visible "act," but the implications may not truly be known to the subject, so there would be other acts that are not seen. In other words, an "act" may be perceived as genuine, with the implications seemingly clear; however, there is deceit being seeded into this act - this is common in the works of a Machiavellian. Frankly, this is not necessarily a flaw in "listening acts" itself, but more so in the nature of the manipulator. Although, the way that language has evolved and is regulated during the time of writing this easily allows deceit to elicit more "acts".

Why would anyone bother to do nothing with words?

Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live.
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
And their posts are hard to forgive.

I did something with a keyboard. I can watch myself do this. Rather, you did something with the words. You read them. This appears to be the only thing we’re doing with words. — NOS4A2

This is how I roughly read you: There are no words. You do things with a keyboard. Now there are words. Now other people can do things with words.

I think a lot of miscommunication here might arise from careless handling of the type/token distinction. Speech Act theory, I'm fairly certain, assumes that uttering the word "cat" produces a token "cat" of the type "cat". "How to Do Things with Words" includes both type and token, as without tokens we can't have types, and without types we wouldn't have tokens.

Word count: "The cat sat on the mat." Type-count: 5, Token count: 6

For example, if I were to count how many times the word "word" occured in this post, I'd be assuming that the word "word" is a word indepently of any words that actually occur in this post. To produce a token count of "word" I need to know how to identify a token of "word". For example, I must know that "ward" isn't a variant of the type. I must have, in my brain somewhere if you will, knowledge about the type "word". I could count a word that doesn't occur in this post and come up with a token count of zero, but I can't give an example in example in this post, because I'd be using a word token to do and thus disqualify it in the process. I've just thought of a word whose token count (in this post) is zero. I'll make another reply in a moment to reveal the word.

I'll make another reply in a moment to reveal the word. — Dawnstorm

The word that doesn't appear in above post, and whose token count is zero, is "armadillo". While typing the above post I did something with the word "armadillo" without typing the word "armadillo". What I did wasn't actually count the word. What I did was "thinking of an example of a word I didn't use." I produced a token of the type in my head, which none of you can verify.

I apologise for the double post. It's partly a joke, but part of me thinks the double post was necessary to make a point. You can do things with words without actually creating an artifact associated with it (naturally occuring brain activity suffices). And I had to make a double post for reasons stated in my above post.

It's still silly, though, for me to do this.

This appears to be the only thing we’re doing with words. — NOS4A2

Which implies that you have not asked questions, made statements, extracted responses, provided answers and so on.

Which is a bit odd.

@Banno @baker @Dawnstorm

Only imagining an “act” as like a physical movement comes from the desire to insert the question of intentionality. But you don’t even make a movement an act; raising your arm is judged to be waiving down a taxi, or signaling a question. Thus , the possibility of something being multiple different acts (even, as raising your arm).

First though, Austin does not normally limit himself to acts of speech; including thinking, understanding, etc. “Speech acts” are not anything special and here are just examples of other things that words can do than just be: true or false. He wants to show that we (philosophers especially) minimize the world to things we know, things we can be certain about (true or false), as we imagine we can be certain of “our intention”, creating the seeming primacy of physical movement.

However, for example: claiming a truth and making a promise both accomplish something. One proposes something to be true, the other makes a commitment.Yes, a proposition is stated by me, but my intention is only occasionally relevant (as clarifying, not a casual necessity), though the particulars of time, place, and the audience (maybe) may matter. More universally, what I say ties me to the judgment others can make of it, and of me through it (so we are “observing the actor” not just “sifting through… expressions”). Similarly, the important part in me making a promise is that it’s me that answers for it when it’s due.

Third, a promise is meaningful to us in the same way claiming truth is, which means: a promise has its worth as what it is (differentiated from other relations between us) by criteria that necessarily, essentially, make it (judged as) what a promise is. As truth is right or wrong, a promise is binding or not, and fulfilled or reneged on. Also, a promise does have truth value: in the integrity of its criteria; either something fits into the criteria of a promise, or it is not a promise (it’s an aspiration).

Having criteria different than certainty (or physicality, or intention) does not make promising less of an act. What makes up both exists outside of, and before, us. The important part is not that the words are the consequence of me. The way it works is that I submit myself to (or avoid) the responsibility for, and the consequences of, what my acts are judged as.

Language is shared, and cannot be privatised. The thread is all about claiming the right to join the community of communicators while repudiating any responsibility or commitment to said community to put any value on honest and truthful communication. A special word has been coined for the proper community response to this immoral and illegitimate move — "de-platforming". In olden days we used to call it "sending to Coventry" presumably because Coventry was unspeakably awful. No one can, or should even try, to have a serious discourse with one who does not commit to making sense and speaking the truth as far as they are able.

This means, unfortunately that political discussion can no longer be had with most politicians in public.

Thanks for the input.

But the premise of “doing things with words” still stands out as mistaken wherever it is mostly focused on the so-called acts of the speaker, especially given that communication more often than not involves those who are faced with his utterances. It seems to me we're missing out on myriad acts of a listener: what to do with the utterance, how to understand it, read it, consider it, judge it, respond to it, and so on. Austin himself spends an inordinate amount of time doing this, considering utterances, what they might mean, and how one might respond to them. These acts, such as they are, can be explicated in both physical terms and using Austin's nomenclature of "doing things with words", whereas expressing the words seems far less consequential, even inconsequential, given the physics and biology of these interactions and behaviors.

The Greeks had a term for those who did not think in terms of our commonality,