What is the nature of social institutions? Is Searle correct that collective agreement is the key to understanding social phenomena, or should we pursue a different theoretical framework?
Smit argues for a different understanding of institutions, which relies on the notion of a coordination game.
Read Smit's publications here: https://philpeople.org/profiles/j-p-smit
[00:00] Introduction and Guest Welcome
[00:15] Thought Experiment: Prison Economy
[01:29] The Nature of Money: Abstract vs. Physical
[02:12] Searle's Explanation of Money
[03:45] Philosophical Debates on Institutional Objects
[05:02] Game Theoretical Account of Money
[08:08] Analogy: Chess and Money
[20:06] Critique of Complex Theories of Money
[24:18] Coordination Games and Social Phenomena
[35:36] Exploring Social Facts and Ontology
[36:46] Human Existence and Social Phenomena
[38:03] Borders and Incentives
[41:47] Dormant Laws and Institutions
[45:41] Legal Definitions and Descriptive Tasks
[53:27] The Nature of Companies and Legal Entities
[01:02:14] Social Groups and Identity
[01:08:17] Concluding Thoughts
Fler avsnitt från "Brain in a Vat"
Missa inte ett avsnitt av “Brain in a Vat” och prenumerera på det i GetPodcast-appen.