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