The Ups and Downs of Searle’s Deriving “Ought” from “Is” With A Suggestion
This study aims to observe Searle’s How to Derive Ought From Is (1964). Starting with David Hume, there is a tradition that defends the idea that it is impossible to derive ought from is or, values from facts. Searle, however, claims that he suggests a new way to assess the matter, through which he believes he can solve the problem. Here, I analyze Searle’s suggestion, for which I hold several objections. Along with the objections I hold, I suggest a new perspective by referring to the Background, which belongs to Searle but whose origin lies in the philosophy of philosophers such as Bourdieu. I believe that by applying the Background, the derivation becomes possible for both institutional and brute facts. Furthermore, I believe that as copulas, auxiliaries, and main verbs belong to the same group, any kind of transition among them is not mysterious.
- Aarts, B. (2011). Oxford Modern English Grammar. Oxford University Press.
- Austin, J. L. (1962). How To Do Things With Words. Oxford University Press.
- Be. (September, 2024). Cambridge Dictionary of English: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/be#be__15
- Butterfield, J. (2015). Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford University Press.
- Cohon, R. (2004). Hume’s Moral Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy, 1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-moral/#io
- Hume, D. (1888). A Treatise of Human Nature. Clarendon Press.
- Roberts, I., & Roussou, A. (2003). Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.
- Searle, J. R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. The Free Press.
- Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the Social World. Oxford University Press.
- Searle, J. R. (1998). Mind, Language, and Society. Basic Books.
- Searle, J. R. (1970). Speech Acts-An Essay in The Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.
- Searle, J. R. (2001). Rationality in Action. The MIT Press.
- Searle, J. R. (1964). How to Derive “Ought” From “Is.” The Philosophical Review, 73(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.2307/2183201
- Seiss, M. (2009). On The Difference Between Auxiliaries, Serial Verbs and Light Verbs. In M. Butt, & T. H. King (Ed.), LFG09 Conference (pp. 501-519). CSLI Publications.