this is strange; I suppose you can 'succeed' in carrying out the utterance, but it does not consecrate anything, which... is the entire point? So, strange to say that it fails only in part when in another sense it fails completely. It's like I succeeded in taking a shot but missed the basket?

How can you take back an action? (though you could retract a claim about an action, of course)

Not absolute; not bedrock (though we thought it was). And merely? This is "merely" the dissolution of what you thought reality was?

Haha - claiming "truth" for something that he acknowledges might not be provable - 'take my word for it, it's a fact'. Use of the performative again in "claim," e.g. "I claim" cannot be responded to with "that's not true!"

Proverbial tip of the iceberg; the "seen" part.

Important distinction between doing and reporting; the former obviously an action, and the latter a verifiable statement. But can the lines blur? Is "I do" ever reporting the fact that you are getting married, which is verifiable?

All statements are boolean: T/F

Not sure that all cases considered are worth considering...?

You would think the goal of an essay would be to find or argue a truth, but here he is marginalizing it; truth is not the goal.

Arguing that truth and falsehood are not what matters; that the performative exists outside such claims (as we learn later).

Using the performative in his opening through the use of "I claim"; and here he claims truth. He performs his own argument.

So the utterance is surrounded by other ceremonial trappings, and without which there is a presumption that the utterance is hollow, that the accompaniments make it "complete"; suggests that the ceremony becomes greater than the sum of its parts by being able to bring about this binding force which the parts cannot do individually; or can they - is just the utterance enough to describe and seal the inward act? The other question is, does the utterance imply (and describe) the other trappings?

And yet these are just words; as believable or unbelievable as the uttering of an oath?

The consecration of the oath; but when is the uttering just a garnishment? For some, the internal / spiritual bond is the key thing, binding regardless of whether the one to whom the words are uttered believes them or not; the words are just words, but the intent is everything. The intent can exist without the words, and so the words can exist without the intent. It is the words though that offer a public record of commitment, and against which one's character is judged and assessed in accordance with their ability to live up to them.

Interesting choice of words; many swear that they are real and binding, but, yes, they are imaginary (in our culture); we require signed contracts, and verbal oaths are nice, but have a romantic tinge to them and we expect them maybe to not be kept as frequently.

The process by which we arm feelings of guilt / responsibility / etc to trigger when we have second thoughts about the vow we've made

Requires a certain solemnity, yes, but how many vows or promises are made with no intention of ever keeping them? Or only that they were meant in the moment, but that future circumstances resulted in the changing of one's heart/mind?

Drilling down to the even-more-particular; not just anyone can marry somebody, at any time, at any place, with a word (and have it mean anything); requires person w/ particular qualifications / authority / occasion / etc.

Also requires a society/set of institutions that considers such acts normal and reasonable. In this way, the particulars affected by the occasion are part of a much large general sphere in which they are legitimized and sanctioned; and outside of that may exist a larger sphere which is baffled by them.

While the naming or the uttering of "I do" symbolically 'seals' or makes the transaction official, the naming or the uttering is part of a longer ceremony. Not sure about betting though; it would be strange somehow if a complete stranger bet another with no prior interaction (i.e. no mechanism to build trust, etc), but it could happen

Dangerous?

Make them more particular; less general

Aren't the words more ceremonial? i.e. in marriage, they bind symbolically, but what really matters is the legal stamp of the JOP? But that's not what everybody stands, applauds or weeps for; maybe on some level that's what we're doing with words here?

Good qualifier; reminds us that language is always shifting.

Is it true that the function of the utterance is to assign metadata in some way?

Performs an action affecting particulars in a way that cannot be measured or perceived outside of the moment in which the utterance takes place.

Is this phrase also an exercitive, neither true nor false?

Involve the:

• creation of relationships
• creation of dividing lines which, prior to the uttering of the sentence, did not 'exist'; i.e. prior to "I do" they were not married, but afterwards they are; prior to "I name this ship...", it had no name, but afterwards it does; they are historical mile markers of sorts.
• involves particulars; not all women are my wife; this one is. Not all ships are named; but this one is.
• must be said aloud or in print, and often needs to be backed by some legal authority to "legitimate" the action; of course, anybody can name something, but the 'officially recognized' name can only come from a certain privileged source / I can marry a random woman just by saying "I do" to her, but the 'marriage' is not recognized, etc'; privileges some constructs over others by a vested authority
• also denote things that cannot be done for me; I must utter them in order for them to take effect (be true); they require agency (or the appearance of agency)
• the statements themselves are neither true or false, they just are; ex-post we can decide that a subsequent statement identifying the brother as the legal heir to the watch is 'true' or 'false'; but the original declaration is neither(?)
• involve the combination of words with some ceremony or ritual that somehow enshrines it (in the case of the bet maybe the ritual is the exchange of money, but not sure if that fits the bill). Almost like incantations of sorts.

"A speech act in which a decision is made regarding action; examples include orders and grants of permission."

The action is performed with the uttering of the sentence.

When in doubt, defer to authority.

Is the disguise applied moreso by the reader's bias than the author's intent?

pre-conceived view or bias

Makes me think of a generation set in its ways butting up against a younger "less respectful" generation that is "doing it all wrong"; i.e. generational divide between viewpoints; some may think a revolution hardly necessary, that it is fine the way it is and that they are simply being disruptive.

"denoting a speech act or sentence that is a statement declaring something to be the case"

Qualifying / conditional factors?

And how does the reader know exactly, and to what extent, the boundaries of a definition are being pushed by the use of a word which they think they are familiar with?

There is an unaddressed problem which hinders clear communication; there is no standard criteria for the establishment of intent in communication. (Doubt that's what the ultimate argument is, but seems to be the set-up)

A sentence remains a sentence; it is just a tool or vehicle for the delivery of something which depends entirely on its configuration.

The utility of the vehicle used to distinguish truth from falsehood itself rests on an assumption; purports that there is or maybe ought to be a 'purpose' to a statement.

Makes it feel inclusive; a conversation.