Stan du Plessis
Biographic Data
| ID | 5996940 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Stan du Plessis |
| GIVEN NAMES | Stan |
| FAMILY NAME | du Plessis |
| SIGNATURE | DU PLESSIS S |
| AFFILIATIONS | University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 3 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 13 |
| WORKS AS AUTHOR | 3 |
| WORKS AS EDITOR | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2009 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2016 |
| H-INDEX | 2 |
The Incentivized Action View of Institutional Facts as an Alternative to the Searlean View
In our earlier work, we argued, contra Searle, that institutional facts can be understood in terms of non-institutional facts about actions and incentives. Butchard and D’Amico claim that we have misinterpreted Searle, that our main argument against him (“the circularity objection”) has no merit and that our positive view cannot account for institutional facts created via joint action. We deny all three charges
Developing the incentivized action view of institutional reality
Sport Stadia, Sporting Events and Urban Development
Developing the incentivized action view of institutional reality
The Incentivized Action View of Institutional Facts as an Alternative to the Searlean View
In our earlier work, we argued, contra Searle, that institutional facts can be understood in terms of non-institutional facts about actions and incentives. Butchard and D’Amico claim that we have misinterpreted Searle, that our main argument against him (“the circularity objection”) has no merit and that our positive view cannot account for institutional facts created via joint action. We deny all three charges
Sport Stadia, Sporting Events and Urban Development
Developing the incentivized action view of institutional reality
The Incentivized Action View of Institutional Facts as an Alternative to the Searlean View
In our earlier work, we argued, contra Searle, that institutional facts can be understood in terms of non-institutional facts about actions and incentives. Butchard and D’Amico claim that we have misinterpreted Searle, that our main argument against him (“the circularity objection”) has no merit and that our positive view cannot account for institutional facts created via joint action. We deny all three charges
Economics (3 works) · Action (physics) (2 works) · Economic Theory and Institutions (2 works) · Epistemology (2 works) · Law and economics (2 works) · Philosophy (2 works) · Political Economy and Marxism (2 works) · Political science (2 works) · Positive economics (2 works) · Sociology (2 works)