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.

"Akrasia" [weakness of will] in rational beings is as common as wine in France.

In the performance of an illocutionary act in the literal utterance of a sentence, the speaker intends to produce a certain effect by means of getting the hearer to recognize his intention to produce that effect; and furthermore, if he is using the words literally, he intends this recognition to be achieved in virtue of the fact that the rules for using the expressions he utters associate the expression with the production of that effect.

Dualism makes the problem insoluble; materialism denies the existence of any phenomenon to study, and hence of any problem.

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.

Materialism ends up denying the existence of any irreducible subjective qualitative states of sentience or awareness.

Where conscious subjectivity is concerned, there is no distinction between the observation and the thing observed.