Talk:John Searle

Death

Mr. Searle has passed. apologies for ignorance on protocol but it looks like multiple parts of the article need editing to reflect that he is deceased and various academic debates he was involved in are no longer taking place.

Personal Beliefs

I saw somebody had categorized Searle under Atheism without providing any details or source. (ex: Category:21st-century agnostics). I came across this primary source youtube video where he clearly states that he's an Agnostic, not a pure Atheist, and I updated the bottom category section accordingly. If you have any concerns, you may respond to me here. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT2O81SIVbY (User talk:Ari777m) 19:35, 04 July 2018 (PST)

Another Plea for an Improved Derrida-Searle Section

The Searle-Derrida section desperately needs editing. It is written with an obviously Derridean Slant. It overly relies on jargon as well. A better section would mention that there's fairly widespread disagreement about what happened in the 'debate' and more importantly, that just about everyone thinks neither of them understood the other. Reading the current section, however, one would think Searle totally misunderstood Derrida and not vice versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8000:90F0:C5CD:E1DA:D4E9:543F (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes

I have reverted a series of recent changes. Among other things, these changes placed the section on recent accusations against Searle at the very beginning of the article, before any of the other sections, which seems inappropriate and without justification. The reverted changes also gave sections titles like "Attacks on affordable housing", and "Right-wing politics", which is also inappropriate. Such section titles make the article read like a series of personal attacks on Searle, and are unacceptable, per WP:NPOV. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Objecting to rent control is not the same thing as "attacks on affordable housing." Opinions vary, of course, but there is a legitimate debate about rent control. Many housing advocates assert that rent control exacerbates housing shortages in the long run, increasing the price of both rents and home purchases. Additionally, the article seems to suggest, without evidence that Searle was, or is, a predatory landlord. It is not uncommon for U.C. Berkeley professors of his generation to own rental properties.

Regarding the "Searle decision," Searle was not the only plaintiff, he was one of many. He is not a lawyer and did not write the petition. The passage that says, "The court described the debate as a "morass of political invective, ad hominem attack, and policy argument" unfairly implies that Searle, personally held such misguided and objectionable views. If you read the passage carefully, you see that this statement refers to "the debate," likely including various parties on both sides, not just Searle. Searle did not necessarily make any such statements. This passage is a non-sequitir, compared to the previous sentence. Searle did argue that in this case, the landlords were deprived off due process. This is not a sensational legal argument and it should not be sensationalized.

In short, these passages seem to have been written by authors who dislike Searle because of his opposition to rent control in Berkeley, and for other political reasons. They are not even-handed and they do not belong at the beginning of the article. They seem intended to prejudice the reader against Searle and his work.

I guess I should add that tbe article's description of Searle's views regarding the 9/11 attack are also prejudicial. Support for a signaled support for "a more aggressive neoconservative interventionist foreign policy" does not make him a colonialist or a morally suspect person. Such views were, and remain common, among both conservatives and progressives, notwithstanding the misguided invasion of Iraq. I didn't look up the source, but this passage appears to suggest that Searle described his own views as "neoconservative," "aggressive," and so on. This is unlikely. Once again, this passage is prejudicial.

The article begins with Searle's support of the Free Speech Movement at U.C. Berkeley, in the early 1960s. Some readers may find this admirable, but it is not particularly related to the large body of his teaching and philosophical publications. Searle is one of the most admired and influential philosophers of the 20th and early 21st century, regardless of what his personal imperfections might have been. The tone, balance, structure and sequence of this article should reflect that. Bigvalleytim (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit: A few minutes later... I do not normally edit wikipedia articles. I will leave the task of editing the Searle article to others more capable and experienced than me. I hope those others will consider the foregoing comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigvalleytim (talk • contribs) 19:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

---

John Searle (philosopher) → John Searle – Searle is clearly the most notable John Searle as can be seen from any Internet search of the name. Thriley (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support. This will revert an undiscussed move from January, which led to the WP:MISPLACED situation that currently exists. Clear primary topic based on usage. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely agree.Kfein (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.