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

Money, Institutions, and Social Groups | J. P. Smit