Block on Searle
Block on Searle
Ned Block says: “Searle was a pugilistic philosopher, much more interested in winning than in truth”. This is a nasty comment, coming so soon after Searle’s death. It isn’t so much the imputation of a desire to win as the suggestion that this was more Searle’s interest than the truth. The clear implication is that he would intentionally sacrifice the truth for the sake of a win. I think this is false and verges on the defamatory. He wanted to win because of what he took to be the truth—not in spite of it. Often, he was quite right in his judgment of the truth. No doubt some competitive ego was involved, but who isn’t guilty of that? It is the suggestion that he liked to win irrespective of truth, or that he preferred victory to truth, that is offensive. I myself had several intellectual run-ins with him, which were quite lively, but I never thought that he was trying to win no matter what the truth may be. And it is a calumny to claim that his writings were merely pugilistic; he wrote many books and articles in which he was transparently trying to find out the truth (and often did). He may have been pugilistic at times, but he wasn’t only pugilistic and unconcerned with truth. To say of a dead philosopher that he wasn’t concerned with the truth is a great insult, and in this case quite unjustified. He was certainly an effective critic of other philosophers’ views, but that is not to say he was merely pugilistic. This is all Block had to say about Searle as a philosopher and a man, and it is demonstrably untrue (as well as nasty). Is this the state that philosophy has reached?
I think it’s safe to say that no one could reach the level of eminence in philosophy that John Searle did while being more interested in winning than the truth. Such a judgment is absurd on its face.
I quite agree–an absurd statement and said just after his death. Nasty and mean-spirited.
Philosophical significance of Searle >> that of Block. Judgmental lightweight…
Yep.
As someone who has McGinn, Block, and Searle on his shelves … I am disappointed in Ned if that’s what he said.
Now, more importantly, I had two opportunities to meet John Searle at the podium. The first was at an AI and Philosophy miniconference in Rochester. He read his paper and threw off his glasses theatrically. I never forgot that conviction and energy. In fact, I was just telling my class about it today, not knowing that Professor Searle had passed away. The second was at a Philosophy/CogSci colloquium at Wash U. As the AI prof on campus, the phil dept asked me to introduce him. They were all excited about the Chinese Room, two decades after the original party in my estimation. So I said you all want to talk about Professor Searle’s Chinese Room. I’m telling you that AI has had much more progress based on his SPEECH ACTS ideas (derived of course from Austin, et al.). Professor Searle agreed and was glad to hear it.
Less importantly, but important to some, were the allegations against Searle that I stumbled across a few years ago. I don’t dignify the acts of some people, up and down the academic chain, except to say history will judge them. But I was just talking to our AI Vice Provost today about our Wash U law dean who went to Rochester to be Chancellor, and had assembled an outside committee to look into allegations against a linguistics prof. The loud voices on campus did not like the finding, despite the neutrality and authority of its composition. As I counseled a friend who won a Nobel Prize and still had to endure this sort of thing, we have been living in far too interesting times. Or at least some people find ruining senior faculty lives good sport and interesting use of their time.
I remember also that Professor Searle was proud of his Native American heritage, and I always thought that this was why he felt understanding* would never rise to human understanding as a category. A fair prejudice. As for Ned Block’s Mao-brain plumbing, well, he once tried to recruit me for the MIT PhD and I went to Rochester instead. I rarely mention anything Block has ever said, though I still seek to have a good opinion of him.
Block’s comment is on Leiter’s blog; it’s the first comment after the announcement of Searle’s death. It’s as if he couldn’t wait to get his dig in–why, I don’t know.
Your comment about people finding ruining the lives of senior faculty good sport is right on target. Their glee is palpable.
On reflection I go too easy on Professor Block here. I don’t inquire into the psychological reasons for his really quite vicious comment. And why does he say nothing further of a more positive nature? I wonder if he will enlighten us on this question.
Yes you are gentle with a person who at the very least is disrespectful to a colleague and a better philosopher. As a consolation on a side, people who matter much more pay tribute to Searle. Here is an example of a world leading AI security theorist doing it https://x.com/romanyam/status/1972699037393444915
It’s a fault of mine: being too nice with people.
Block has a habit of doing this. He did this shortly after Dennett died, going on a YouTube podcast and calling him an egomaniac and someone who would over-dominate conversations he participated in. Unsurprising, really.
Perhaps when he dies we can all go around saying, “He was a philosopher who liked to denigrate other philosophers just after they died”.
What is also remarkable, is that on the back of Searle’s book, it is written:
“The Rediscovery of Mind is a brilliant work of great scope and power” – Ned Block, Professor, Department of Linguistic and Philosophy, etc.
That is very strange. What could have possessed him?
Block’s behaviour is even worse than it seems: Searle said in an interview to Tim Crane in 2014 that Block was his good friend “Two good friends of mine, Ned Block and Tyler Burge, were in Berkeley and they ….”
Source: https://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/blog/an-interview-with-john-searle/
The interview worth reading for anyone who wants to know more about Searle the person and his philosophical inclinations. Not a good interview for the admirers of “possible worlds” thinking. Also of note are his extensive remarks on Bernard Williams.
Oh dear.
I just found another example. Blurb to Searle’s 2005 book, *Mind: A Brief Introduction*:
“Searle has written a forceful, clear, accessible and fascinating introductory book that explains much more convincingly than anything else his iconoclastic view that both materialism and dualism are false. Searle vigorously explores the big issues in philosophy of mind, always keeping the deepest intuitions about the mind in focus.”– Ned Block, New York University
Incredible that he said what he did–the complete opposite of what he said earlier!
I don’t know much about Block, seen him on the Closer to truth channel on youtube.
I have provided my humble opinions on Searle on the other post about him. I am not an academic philosopher, but I have learned in universities. The question I ask is how does one assess how great a philosopher is in his lifetime? I think there were a handful of very great philosophers in the sense that their theories, books, and ideas were widely discussed, respected and influential. Chomsky would obviously be one of these highly regarded thinkers. There are a large number of reviews and responses to each book and many papers of Searle. His Chinese Room argument is most likely his most widely diffused innovation, and people still discuss it. There were 2 or 3 books about Searle and his works already in his lifetime. Chomsky has even more, although he was made more widely known by his venture outside of philosophy and into political theory.
In his debates, Searle seemed to overshadow his opponents although that may just be his skill at debating and clarity of presenting his thoughts.
I don’t mean to demean many other great philosophers, and i may get round to reading Blocks works at some point.
I don’t think influence is the best criterion, especially judged quantitatively. That can depend on many factors. Chomsky isn’t a philosopher. Tom Nagel is pretty hard to beat. A better criterion is who will be remembered most.
Yes you are right, and I’m trying, from a lay perspective, to see if there is a measure. Sometimes it’s qualitative. For example, David Chalmers is a very good next generation philosopher of mind. I might even agree with him on a couple of points in his debate with Searle. The issue (shouldn’t be) who one agrees with more. There’s just a qualitative feel that Searle was a greater philosopher.
Because of woke cancel culture, they have tried to “cancel” his reputation, there was even talk at Berkeley to cancel his books. Could be that block is in the grip – as Searle would say – of that culture.
Searle was a first-rate philosopher, though he didn’t contribute much beyond mind and language (not much epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, logic, etc.). Chalmers is even more limited, and less original. He is really an amateur philosopher.
It is appalling that Searle was treated this way. Fools and knaves.
So the question is whether there are any brilliant philosophers eg in their 40s and 50s?
Ie on a substantially higher level than Chalmers, as impressive as Searle or Nagel?
Absolutely not or else they would be well known by now. I assume you know my views on who the best three philosophers ever are?
Firstly, my name changes slightly because I alternate between my phone and my PC.
I can’t actually say that I do know your top 3 philosophers. Could you kindly elucidate?
Ah, I guessed as much: me, Berkeley, and Frege (me as number 1). You can easily find the relevant essays by searching my posts under “Best Ever Philosopher”.
When I’m back on the PC.
Btw after I read your previous answer, I recalled having read an interview with Searle, around maybe 25 years ago. He was asked the same question, if or why there are/not any great philosophers around today.
His answer was different to yours. He said there are many great philosophers with great types of logic. He named a few, I don’t recall who they were, except one was a Japanese name.
There were many at that time, but not now. The discipline has seen a significant decline in the last 30 years or so.
I have a quick look at your best philosophers list.
It’s interesting that Searle has a number of quick digs at quine.
I’ve not seen a long piece on it yet, but in two or three places I’ve seen him attacking quine’s logic.
Which is not surprising to me, because I find it unintelligible. Of course you may disagree.
Do you mean attacking Quine’s philosophical position or do you mean his formal logic (first-order predicate calculus)?
As for the best or greatest philosopher – there is a parallel discussion in religion (in my case judaism) abootu who is the greatest Rabbi of this generation or previous generations. Similar to the above criteria we proposed, all sorts of reasoning is proposed – greatest knowledge of religious texts, greatest and most prolific publications, size of following both lay and professional, and even he who declares that he is the greatest , holiest or endowed with Divine spirit. But there is never a definitive answer, and it is often ideological, based on sects or theological positions. Interestingly, some of those endowed with greatest knowledge, are often eschewed or called irrelevant or even heretical by a larger group. I’d say it’s similar to philosophy in quite a few ways.
Formal logic
So you favor second-order and modal logic.
Not so different for scientists and even tennis players.
Quine clearly presupposed behaviorism.
I saw a video interview with Searle, at the time of his writing his last published book “making the social world. ”
In the interview he said he was writing three books, one of them, the above names and two others which have not made it to the publishers. I think he said one was about language and the other was about philosophy in general.
Would be great if The completed manuscripts were found. (If they actually exist)
I wonder if they exist. I reviewed Making the Social World for the NYRB.
Unfortunately I don’t feel they will see the light of day. The article you posted on here said that his house was emptied by daughter in law, so even if there were computer files, they are sitting in a warehouse or worse. There’s no foundation to preserve and publish his works.
He had his own page on the Berkeley website, deactivated long ago.
What a vile business it is.
Thank you for letting me know.
I will search for that review on making the social world.
You will also see an exchange between the two of us following the review.
I’m looking at it now, thank you
I think it is tragic, it’s hard to comprehend
Cruel, excessive, performative, false–you name it.
I have seen nothing in which Block qualifies or explains his nasty comment, let alone retract it or apologize. Who does this remind you of? Is this the intellectual culture we are now living in?
His statement is false, I’m the sense that Searle was trying to get to the truth to the best of his ability.
It might have some subjective superfluous truth, in that X is convinced he is right, but Y is convinced he is right. X therefore alleges that Y is pugilistic.
But that alone doesn’t prove that X is right.
It’s definitely false–so why did he make it and then stick to it? It makes him look bad.
Sour grapes?
To put it another way, I remember seeing in one of Searle’s books a comment about how philosophers casually throw insults at you, across the table at cocktail parties. Can’t remember where he wrote this but I assume it was from personal experience.
I don’t think Searle would have gotten very far if he had relied on “pugilism” and ignored plausibility. He would have been dismissed as a fraud long ago.
Agreed
It’s just a cheap shot.
What lies beneath that bitterness I don’t know
Block also made an unpleasant comment on a Facebook page which was posted by someone else in remembrance of Searle.
Divulging some tattle tale anecdotes about Searle’s marriage.
Deplorable. I used to know the guy.
Strawson also has a little bit of a grudge, lower down from block. I know nothing about Galen strawson, – but a lot of people are rude to each other. Why mention it in an ad. Hoc obituary?
Sheer self-centeredness.
NY times obituary
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/12/books/john-searle-dead.html