In Many Cases It Is

Berkeley Had A Liberal Element In The Student Body Who Tended To Be Quite Active. I Think That's In General A Feature Of Intellectually Active Places.

The General Nature Of The Speech Act Fallacy Can Be Stated As Follows, Using "good" As Our Example. Calling Something Good Is Characteristically Praising Or Commending Or Recommending It, Etc. But It Is A Fallacy To Infer From This That The Meaning Of "good" Is Explained By Saying It Is Used To Perform The Act Of Commendation.

It Seems To Me Obvious That Infants And Many Animals That Do Not In Any Ordinary Sense Have A Language Or Perform Speech Acts Nonetheless Have Intentional States. Only Someone In The Grip Of A Philosophical Theory Would Deny That Small Babies Can Literally Be Said To Want Milk And That Dogs Want To Be Let Out Or Believe That Their Master Is At The Door.

Where Questions Of Style And Exposition Are Concerned I Try To Follow A Simple Maxim: If You Can't Say It Clearly You Don't Understand It Yourself.

I Will Argue That In The Literal Sense The Programmed Computer Understands What The Car And The Adding Machine Understand, Namely, Exactly Nothing.