There Is No Success Or Failure In

Our Tools Are Extensions Of Our Purposes, And So We Find It Natural To Make Metaphorical Attributions Of Intentionality To Them; But I Take It No Philosophical Ice Is Cut By Such Examples.

You Do Not Understand Your Own Tradition If You Do Not See It In Relation To Others.

It Seemed To A Number Of Philosophers Of Language, Myself Included, That We Should Attempt To Achieve A Unification Of Chomsky's Syntax, With The Results Of The Researches That Were Going On In Semantics And Pragmatics. I Believe That This Effort Has Proven To Be A Failure. Though Chomsky Did Indeed Revolutionize The Subject Of Linguistics, It Is Not At All Clear, At The End The Century, What The Solid Results Of This Revolution Are. As Far As I Can Tell There Is Not A Single Rule Of Syntax That All, Or Even Most, Competent Linguists Are Prepared To Agree Is A Rule.

An Utterance Can Have Intentionality, Just As A Belief Has Intentionality, But Whereas The Intentionality Of The Belief Is Intrinsic The Intentionality Of The Utterance Is Derived.

Materialism Ends Up Denying The Existence Of Any Irreducible Subjective Qualitative States Of Sentience Or Awareness.