Abstract
The study focuses on two problems of Searle’s theory of institutional facts: on the problem of unified ontology, i.e. the question of how facts, the existence of which depends on intentionality of conscious beings, can be part of the physical world; and on the discrepancy that appears in Searle’s theory due to his requirement to elimininate the intentionalistic account in favor of a causalistic account. The author aims to show that Searle’s arguments for this requirement are not justified and that the intentionalistic account can be not only preserved, but even radicalized so that the institutional facts turn out to be a kind of intentional objects.
As to the problem of unified ontology, a new strategy, based on Searle’s distinction between causal and non-causal agentive functions, is suggested.