JOHN ROGER SEARLE’S POSITION CONCERNING THE RIDDLE OF CONSCIOUSNESS
Metafizika Journal December 15, 2025 DOI: 10.33864/2617-751x.2025.v8.i8.326-341 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Key points | Argues that Searle's philosophy of intentionality serves to address gaps and ambiguities in neuroscience accounts of consciousness, while Searle critiques both dualist and materialist approaches. The paper contends that consciousness remains only fragmentarily understood despite its intimate familiarity. |
Abstract
The problem of consciousness is regarded as one of the riddles that have long haunted human thought, a persistent enigma which all branches of science and philosophy have strived, each in their own way, to grasp its essence and unveil its inner nature; nevertheless, what has been grasped so far are only scattered fragments, mere shards of this intricate puzzle. Likewise, our philosopher “John Rogers Searle” is counted among the contemporary philosophers of mind who are actively engaged in studying and analyzing the problem of consciousness and the way in which it comes about, attempting to trace back some of the errors that earlier thinkers committed- those who adhered either to dualism or to materialism. Moreover, we find that he has contributed his own share, so to speak, by offering critiques at times, and at other times advancing positions that appear to agree, in a certain manner, with neurobiology, insofar as he tried to fill the gaps and clarify the ambiguities left by neuroscience, and this specifically through his philosophy of intentionality. Thus, if we imagine that we live our lives in the midst of a world- even if we were not fully aware of it- or that our consciousness encompasses all the things that exist in it, there is nevertheless no doubt that we do have some knowledge and capacity for consciousness as well as an understanding of how it happens. However, scientists and philosophers have a different point of view, for although we are familiar with consciousness and its flexibility of use, we know consciousness in an intimate manner more than we know the rest of the world, but we understand the rest of the world more comprehensively than we understand consciousness.