John Searle, Philosopher

John Searle, Philosopher

I will give my personal opinion (i.e., the truth) about John Searle as a philosopher. He was clearly a brilliant and clever man, not to be tangled with; he was also a lucid and bracing writer. He was right about a great many things (I intend this as high praise). He was a much better philosopher than the vast majority of professional philosophers. But (and you must have seen this “but” coming) I found him curiously superficial, sometimes glib (proudly so), overly wedded to commonsense, not always interesting. I found his prose style flat and sparkless, a bit lackluster, lacking in charm or wit (though generally quite clear). I didn’t feel much zing or novelty of expression. I think he was stuck in the Oxford of his student days: all philosophy needs is some simple no-nonsense common sense to sort out its problems. Profundity was scorned. This led to problem-dodging and a lack of intellectual depth. It all seemed so obvious to him, or that was his manner. He was a good critic but not much of a theoretician. He didn’t stir me philosophically. In this he contrasted with other philosophers of his generation—Davidson, Fodor, Nagel, Lewis, Kripke, Rawls, and others. Truth is, I found him somewhat boring as a philosopher—despite his many virtues. I also think he was ahistorical, like his Oxford mentors.