DOCSLIB.ORG

The Philosophical Development of Gilbert Ryle

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE PHILOSOPHICAL DEVELOPMENT OF GILBERT RYLE A Study of His Published and Unpublished Writings © Charlotte Vrijen 2007 Illustrations front cover: 1) Ryle’s annotations to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus 2) Notes (miscellaneous) from ‘the red box’, Linacre College Library Illustration back cover: Rodin’s Le Penseur RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN The Philosophical Development of Gilbert Ryle A Study of His Published and Unpublished Writings Proefschrift ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de Wijsbegeerte aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op gezag van de Rector Magnificus, dr. F. Zwarts, in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 14 juni 2007 om 16.15 uur door Charlotte Vrijen geboren op 11 maart 1978 te Rolde Promotor: Prof. Dr. L.W. Nauta Copromotor: Prof. Dr. M.R.M. ter Hark Beoordelingscommissie: Prof. Dr. D.H.K. Pätzold Prof. Dr. B.F. McGuinness Prof. Dr. J.M. Connelly ISBN: 978-90-367-3049-5 Preface I am indebted to many people for being able to finish this dissertation. First of all I would like to thank my supervisor and promotor Lodi Nauta for his comments on an enormous variety of drafts and for the many stimulating discussions we had throughout the project. He did not limit himself to deeply theoretical discussions but also saved me from grammatical and stylish sloppiness. (He would, for example, have suggested to leave out the ‘enormous’ and ‘many’ above, as well as by far most of the ‘very’’s and ‘greatly’’s in the sentences to come.) After I had already started my new job outside the academic world, Lodi regularly – but always in a pleasant way – reminded me of this other job that still had to be finished. I owe debt to my copromotor Michel ter Hark for his valuable comments on my writings. Brian McGuinness, James Connelly and Detlev Pätzold kindly agreed to be on my reading committee, and gave their approval to this dissertation. I would like to thank them for both. I am also grateful to Brian McGuinness for showing me an early unpublished letter from Ryle to his former tutor H. J. Paton (later published as McGuinness and Vrijen 2006). James Connelly greatly helped me to acquire some knowledge of Collingwood’s philosophical work and stimulated me to get in touch with other experts on the subject. Our discussions about the correspondence between Ryle and Collingwood were very useful as well. One of the things that made working on this dissertation a varied and stimulating experience was the fact that it involved doing research at Linacre College Library and the Bodleian in Oxford, as well as talking to some of Gilbert Ryle’s former colleagues, friends and relatives. Except for my conversations with Brian McGuinness I also benefited from personal stories and anecdotes by Rom Harré, John Rogers, David Pears, Peter Hacker, John North, Jerry Cohen and Tony Palmer. Ryle’s twin-sister’s stepdaughter Janet Beckley and his nephew Michael Ryle and his wife Bridget Ryle kindly invited me into their houses in respectively Dyffed (Wales) and Exmoor. Their anecdotes greatly helped me to get a better image of Ryle as a person. Louise Trevelyan and her fellow librarians at Linacre College Library enabled me to make use of the ‘Gilbert Ryle Collection’ to its full extent. My AIO-colleagues at the Department of Philosophy in Groningen who made working there a pleasant experience, not only focused on thinking and writing but also on talking, discussions, drinks and fun, are Kim van Gennip, Martine Prange, Casper Zijlstra, Jan-Willem Romeyn, Arend Jagersma, Barteld Kooi, Jan Albert van Laar, Katherine Gardiner, Alice Stollmeyer, Daan Franken, Menno Rol, Marc van Duijn and Constanze Binder. Other members of the department whom I would like to thank for their stimulating discussions and for creating a pleasant environment for doing research are Job van Eck, Pieter Sjoerd Hasper, Karin de Boer, Eddo Evink, Lodi Nauta, Michel ter Hark, Detlev Pätzold, Jeanne Peijnenburg, Jeroen Bartels, Jos Lensink, Theo Kuipers, Erik Krabbe, Martin van Hees, René Boomkens, Hans Harbers, Allard Tamminga, Gyan Otto, Gerda Bosma, Trijnie Hekman, Jorine Janssen, Marga Hids, Kirsten van der Ploeg, Janny Moesker, Miran Huizenga, Benno Ticheler, Eva-Anne le Coultre and Hauke de Vries. The board members of the GAIOO/GRASP! and my former badminton friends at Amor helped me to set my mind to other things than philosophy. My dear friends Barbara van der Pol, Reinier Michiels, Janien Kamps, Monique Heringa, Marco Visser and Liesbeth Schipper I thank for their support and friendship (and for not always asking when this dissertation was going to be finished). Finally I would like to thank my father and Bas, and my mother and Henk for always supporting me and giving me the opportunity to make my own mistakes. My brother Wouter and his girlfriend Gabie for their support, friendship and, occasionally, talking postcards. And, last but definitely not least, Wouter van Alst for being a great friend and boyfriend at the same time. Contents INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 5 CHAPTER 1 GILBERT RYLE – A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..................................... 9 Family Background and Childhood............................................................................... 9 Life as a Student......................................................................................................... 10 Christ Church College ................................................................................................ 11 Ayer and the Vienna Circle......................................................................................... 16 Second World War ..................................................................................................... 17 Magdalen College....................................................................................................... 18 Ryle as a Teacher ....................................................................................................... 23 Ryle as a Person ......................................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER 2 RYLE’S EARLY WRITINGS ................................................................... 29 Position 1: Denotationalism and the Reformulation of Systematically Misleading Expressions.............................................................................................. 31 Influences and Philosophical Context...................................................................... 31 Ryle’s Realism and Russell’s Influence Illustrated by Two Papers........................... 35 ‘Systematically Misleading Expressions’................................................................ 40 Position 2: Rejecting Denotationalism......................................................................... 44 Category-Mistakes: the Essence of Philosophical Problems..................................... 46 Philosophy as a Method and the Reductio ad Absurdum as the Ultimate Philosophical Argument ......................................................................................... 50 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 53 CHAPTER 3 THE CONCEPT OF MIND: MAIN AIMS, METHOD AND RECEPTION 55 Ryle’s Method: Starting With What We Already Know............................................... 56 Ryle’s Primary Target................................................................................................. 59 Theorizing as the Primary and Silent Activity of the Mind........................................... 62 One Action: Not Two ................................................................................................. 64 The Issues Under Discussion ...................................................................................... 66 Case-study: Self-Knowledge....................................................................................... 67 A More Accurate Account of the Category-mistake of Cartesian dualism .................... 70 The Reception of The Concept of Mind....................................................................... 71 Ryle’s Contemporaries ........................................................................................... 72 The Concept of Mind as a Non-Behaviourist Attack on Dualism.................................. 82 Ryle’s Behaviourism According to Modern Handbooks .......................................... 82 Suggestions of Behaviourism in The Concept of Mind............................................. 83 Ryle’s Rejection of a Behaviouristic Interpretation.................................................. 85 Two Interpretations: Shelley M. Park and Rowland Stout........................................ 86 Concluding Remarks .................................................................................................. 91 CHAPTER 4 GILBERT RYLE’S LATER WRITINGS................................................... 93 Ryle’s Meta-Philosophical Papers............................................................................... 94 Continuity in Ryle’s Ideas on Philosophical Method ............................................... 95 The Ordinary Use of Language............................................................................... 96 Language versus Speech and Words versus Sentences............................................. 97 Philosophy as an Inter-Level Activity ....................................................................
Recommended publications
  • The Unity of Heidegger's Project

    The Unity of Heidegger's Project

    REFERENCE ONLY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON THESIS Degree fV\o Year Too£ Name of Author A-A COPYRIGHT This is a thesis accepted for a Higher Degree of the University of London. It is an unpublished typescript and the copyright is held by the author. All persons consulting the thesis must read and abide by the Copyright Declaration below. COPYRIGHT DECLARATION I recognise that the copyright of the above-described thesis rests with the author and that no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. LOANS Theses may not be lent to individuals, but the Senate House Library may lend a copy to approved libraries within the United Kingdom, for consultation solely on the premises of those libraries. Application should be made to: Inter-Library Loans, Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU. REPRODUCTION University of London theses may not be reproduced without explicit written permission from the Senate House Library. Enquiries should be addressed to the Theses Section of the Library. Regulations concerning reproduction vary according to the date of acceptance of the thesis and are listed below as guidelines. A. Before 1962. Permission granted only upon the prior written consent of the author. (The Senate House Library will provide addresses where possible). B. 1962- 1974. In many cases the author has agreed to permit copying upon completion of a Copyright Declaration. C. 1975 - 1988. Most theses may be copied upon completion of a Copyright Declaration. D. 1989 onwards. Most theses may be copied. This thesis comes within category D.
  • Margaret Macdonald and Gilbert Ryle: a Philosophical Friendship

    Margaret Macdonald and Gilbert Ryle: a Philosophical Friendship

    British Journal for the History of Philosophy ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbjh20 Margaret MacDonald and Gilbert Ryle: a philosophical friendship Michael Kremer To cite this article: Michael Kremer (2021): Margaret MacDonald and Gilbert Ryle: a philosophical friendship, British Journal for the History of Philosophy, DOI: 10.1080/09608788.2021.1932409 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2021.1932409 Published online: 15 Jun 2021. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 28 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbjh20 BRITISH JOURNAL FOR THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2021.1932409 ARTICLE Margaret MacDonald and Gilbert Ryle: a philosophical friendship Michael Kremer Department of Philosophy, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA ABSTRACT This article considers the personal and philosophical relationship between two philosophers, Margaret MacDonald and Gilbert Ryle. I show that a letter from MacDonald to Ryle found at Linacre College, Oxford, was part of an extensive correspondence, and that the two were intimate friends and philosophical interlocutors, and I explore the relationship between their respective philosophies. MacDonald, who studied with Wittgenstein before coming to Oxford in 1937, deployed and developed Wittgensteinian themes in her own subsequent work. I show that this work was an important source of ideas in Ryle’s philosophy. I examine two episodes: (1) a 1937 symposium in which MacDonald gave the lead paper, and Ryle was a respondent – I argue that Ryle derived his famous distinction between knowledge-how and knowledge-that from her paper; and (2) Ryle’s rejection in Dilemmas (1953/4) of the central importance of the idea of a ‘category mistake’–I argue that this may have been in response to MacDonald’scriticalreviewof The Concept of Mind.
  • Critical Realism 27 Wikipedia Articles

    Critical Realism 27 Wikipedia Articles

    Critical Realism 27 Wikipedia Articles PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 22:36:28 UTC Contents Articles Critical realism 1 Roy Bhaskar 5 Structure and agency 8 Roy Wood Sellars 12 George Santayana 13 Arthur Oncken Lovejoy 20 Bernard Lonergan 22 Samuel Alexander 25 John Cook Wilson 30 Harold Arthur Prichard 31 H. H. Price 32 C. D. Broad 34 David Graeber 37 Margaret Archer 41 Michael Polanyi 43 Thomas Torrance 49 John Polkinghorne 52 Ian Barbour 60 Arthur Peacocke 63 Alister McGrath 67 N. T. Wright 71 James Dunn (theologian) 77 Geoffrey Hodgson 79 Transcendental realism 81 Alex Callinicos 82 Göran Therborn 85 Transformative Studies Institute 86 References Article Sources and Contributors 91 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 92 Article Licenses License 93 Critical realism 1 Critical realism In the philosophy of perception, critical realism is the theory that some of our sense-data (for example, those of primary qualities) can and do accurately represent external objects, properties, and events, while other of our sense-data (for example, those of secondary qualities and perceptual illusions) do not accurately represent any external objects, properties, and events. Put simply, Critical Realism highlights a mind dependent aspect of the world, which reaches to understand (and comes to understanding of) the mind independent world. Contemporary critical realism most commonly refers to a philosophical approach associated with Roy Bhaskar. Bhaskar's thought combines a general philosophy of science (transcendental realism) with a philosophy of social science (critical naturalism) to describe an interface between the natural and social worlds.
  • Action Verbs

    Action Verbs

    ACTION VERBS Accepts To receive as true; to regard as proper, normal, inevitable Accounts To give a report on; to furnish a justifying analysis or explanation Accumulates To collect; to gather Achieves To bring to a successful conclusion Acknowledges To report the receipt of Acquires To come into possession of Activates To mobilize; to set into motion Acts To perform a specified function Adapts To suit or fit by modification Adjusts To bring to a more satisfactory state; to bring the parts of something to a true or more effective position Administers To manage or direct the execution of affairs Adopts To take up and practice as one's own Advises To recommend a course of action; to offer an informed opinion based on specialized knowledge Advocates To recommend or speak in favor of Affirms To assert positively; to confirm Aligns To arrange in a line; to array Allots To assign as a share Alters To make different without changing into something else Amends To change or modify for the better Analyzes To separate into elements and critically examine Answers To speak or write in reply Anticipates To foresee and deal with in advance Applies To put to use for a purpose; to employ diligently or with close attention Appoints To name officially Appraises To give an expert judgment of worth or merit Approves To accept as satisfactory; to exercise final authority with regard to commitment of resources Arranges To prepare for an event; to put in proper order Ascertains To find out or discover through examination; to find out or learn for a certainty
  • Free Will Vs. Determinismvs

    Free Will Vs. Determinismvs

    the case for free will free will Free will and determinism free will vs. determinismvs. against compatibilist free will determinism against incompatibilist free will the case for free will We’ve been discussing the free will defense as a response to the argument free will from evil. This response assumes something about us: that we have free and determinism will. against compatibilist free will But what does this mean? against incompatibilist free will To say that we have to free will is to say that some of our actions are up to us; it to say that, at least sometimes, we have the ability to choose what we do. Is it true that some of our actions are up to us, and that we sometimes are able to choose what we will do? This is the question we’ll be asking ourselves for the next two weeks. Our discussion will involve us considering the three strongest arguments against the view that we have free will. But before doing that it is worth asking why there is any reason to accept the common view that we do have free will. Are there any arguments in favor of the reality of free will? view that we have free will. the case for free will But before doing that it is worth asking why there is any reason to accept the common view that we do have free will. Are there any free will and determinism arguments in favor of the reality of free will? against compatibilist free will There are. The first argument starts with an apparent fact about moral against responsibility: it seems (at least to a first approximation) that we are incompatibilist free will only responsible for actions which we freely perform.
  • Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.Pdf

    Ludwig.Wittgenstein.-.Philosophical.Investigations.Pdf

    PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS By LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN Translated by G. E. M. ANSCOMBE BASIL BLACKWELL TRANSLATOR'S NOTE Copyright © Basil Blackwell Ltd 1958 MY acknowledgments are due to the following, who either checked First published 1953 Second edition 1958 the translation or allowed me to consult them about German and Reprint of English text alone 1963 Austrian usage or read the translation through and helped me to Third edition of English and German text with index 1967 improve the English: Mr. R. Rhees, Professor G. H. von Wright, Reprint of English text with index 1968, 1972, 1974, 1976, 1978, Mr. P. Geach, Mr. G. Kreisel, Miss L. Labowsky, Mr. D. Paul, Miss I. 1981, 1986 Murdoch. Basil Blackwell Ltd 108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be NOTE TO SECOND EDITION reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or THE text has been revised for the new edition. A large number of otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. small changes have been made in the English text. The following passages have been significantly altered: Except in the United States of America, this book is sold to the In Part I: §§ 108, 109, 116, 189, 193, 251, 284, 352, 360, 393,418, condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re- 426, 442, 456, 493, 520, 556, 582, 591, 644, 690, 692.
  • Meaning and Necessity Author(S): Gilbert Ryle Reviewed Work(S): Source: Philosophy, Vol

    Meaning and Necessity Author(S): Gilbert Ryle Reviewed Work(S): Source: Philosophy, Vol

    Royal Institute of Philosophy Meaning and Necessity Author(s): Gilbert Ryle Reviewed work(s): Source: Philosophy, Vol. 24, No. 88 (Jan., 1949), pp. 69-76 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Institute of Philosophy Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3747236 . Accessed: 18/10/2012 00:35 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Cambridge University Press and Royal Institute of Philosophy are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy. http://www.jstor.org DISCUSSION MEANING AND NECESSITY' PROFESSORCARNAP in his new book proffersa method for analysing and describingthe meaningsof expressionsand, more briefly,discusses the theory of logical modalities,the concepts,that is, of logical necessityand possibility. His meaning-analysisis in the main intendedas an improvementupon certain doctrinesand practices of Frege. His account of the modal concepts of logic is in the main intended as an improvementupon certain doctrinesof C. I. Lewis. Views of Quine, Russell, Tarski, Churchand othersare also discussed. Students of Carap's other writingswill notice with interestthat he has now swung still furtherfrom the extreme nominalismof his earlier years. Inverted commas are no longer his panacea, and he now makes alarming requisitionsupon philosophy'sstock of extra-linguisticentities.
  • PHIL. 555 – Fiction and Fictionalism Course Description: We Have No

    PHIL. 555 – Fiction and Fictionalism Course Description: We Have No

    PHIL. 555 – Fiction and Fictionalism Course Description: We have no trouble at all deploying our concept of fiction in everyday life. Yet, from a philosophical standpoint, few concepts are as problematic. Is what accounts for the difference between fictional and real representations something in the syntax (something manifest in the structure of the representation) or the semantics (the presence or absence of truth and reference), or is it a matter of pragmatics (the ways in which representations are used/intended to be used)? How should we analyze the truth- value of statements made in or about fictions? Can we learn anything from fictions, and can we make the case for literary cognitivism by drawing on the analogy between fictions and thought-experiments? What kinds of entities are fictional characters, and do they share anything in common with the entities postulated by mathematical and moral realism? This seminar will begin to address all of these questions, and touch upon the significance of the problems posed by fiction for aesthetics, metaphysics, metaethics, and the philosophy of mathematics. Schedule of Readings Week 1 Introductory Class Overview and organizational matters No readings Week 2 The Nature of Fiction I What is fiction, anyway? John Searle – The logical status of fictional discourse Gregory Currie – The Concept of Fiction David Davies – What is a literary work & The nature of fiction (Chs. 2 and 3 of Aesthetics and Literature) Week 3 The Nature of Fiction II What are fictions about? Harry Deutsch – Making Up Stories Stacy Friend – Real People in Unreal Contexts John Gibson – The Fictional and the Real Week 4 Truth in Fiction How to make it work; adding an intensional operator David K.
  • CRITICAL NOTICE Why We Need Ordinary Language Philosophy

    CRITICAL NOTICE Why We Need Ordinary Language Philosophy

    CRITICAL NOTICE Why We Need Ordinary Language Philosophy Sandra Laugier, Translated by Daniela Ginsberg, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2013, pp. 168, £ 24.50. ISBN-13: 978-0-226-47054-2 (cloth). Reviewed by Derek A. McDougall Originally published in French in the year 2000, the English version of Sandra Laugier’s short book of 10 Chapters plus an Introduction and Conclusion, has a 7 page Preface, 9 pages of Notes, a brief Bibliography and 121 pages of actual text. The reading of Wittgenstein and Austin that she provides is distinctly Cavellian in character. Indeed, Stanley Cavell in a dust-cover quote, remarks that her work is already influential in France and Italy, exciting as it does a new interest in ‘language conceived not only as a cognitive capacity but also as used, and meant, as part of our form of life’. Cavell goes on to say that this new translation is not merely welcome but indispensable, and has at least the capacity to alter prevailing views about the philosophy of language, so affecting what we have come to think of as the ‘analytic-continental divide’. Toril Moi of Duke Uni., in another dust-cover quote, states that Laugier’s reading of Wittgenstein-Austin-Cavell shows how their claim that ‘to speak about language is to speak about the world is an antimetaphysical revolution in philosophy that tranforms our understanding of epistemology and ethics.’ She concludes with the thought that anyone who wishes to understand what ‘ordinary language philosophy’ means today should read this book. This is a large claim to make, and anyone who is inclined to read Wittgenstein and Austin strictly in their own terms, and with their own avowed intentions - where discernible - steadily in view, is almost bound to conclude that it is simply not true.
  • Willard Van Orman Quine: the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction

    Willard Van Orman Quine: the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction

    Willard Van Orman Quine: The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction Willard Van Orman Quine was one of the most well-known American “analytic” philosophers of the twentieth century. He made significant contributions to many areas of philosophy, including philosophy of language, logic, epistemology, philosophy of science, and philosophy of mind/psychology (behaviorism). However, he is best known for his rejection of the analytic/synthetic distinction. Technically, this is the distinction between statements true in virtue of the meanings of their terms (like “a bachelor is an unmarried man”) and statements whose truth is a function not simply of the meanings of terms, but of the way the world is (such as, “That bachelor is wearing a grey suit”). Although a contentious thesis, analyticity has been a popular explanation, especially among empiricists, both for the necessity of necessary truths and for the a priori knowability of some truths. Thus, in some contexts “analytic truth,” “necessary truth,” and “a priori truth” have been used interchangeably, and the analytic/synthetic distinction has been treated as equivalent to the distinctions between necessary and contingent truths, and between a priori and a posteriori (or empirical) truths. Empirical truths can be known only by empirical verification, rather than by “unpacking” the meanings of the terms involved, and are usually thought to be contingent. Quine wrestled with the analytic/synthetic distinction for years, but he did not make his thoughts public until 1950, when he delivered his paper, “The Two Dogmas of Empiricism” at a meeting of the American Philosophical Association. In this paper, Quine argues that all attempts to define and understand analyticity are circular.
  • Centaurs, Pegasus, Sherlock Holmes: Against the Prejudice in Favour of the Real

    Centaurs, Pegasus, Sherlock Holmes: Against the Prejudice in Favour of the Real

    Kairos. Journal of Philosophy & Science 17, 2016 Center for the Philosophy of Sciences of Lisbon University Centaurs, Pegasus, Sherlock Holmes: Against the Prejudice in Favour of the Real Cristina Travanini University of Rome Tor Vergata DAAD Fellow 2015/16 – FU Berlin [email protected] Abstract Meinong’s thought has been rediscovered in recent times by analytic phi- losophy: his object theory has significant consequences in formal ontology, and especially his account of impossible objects has proved itself to be decisive in a wide range of fields, from logic up to ontology of fiction. Rejecting the traditional ‘prejudice in favour of the real’, Meinong investigates what there is not: a peculiar non-existing object is precisely the fictional object, which exemplifies a number of properties (like Sherlock Holmes, who lives in Baker Street and is an outstanding de- tective) without existing in the same way as flesh-and-blood detectives do. Fictional objects are in some sense incomplete objects, whose core of constituent properties is not completely determined. Now, what does it imply to hold that a fictional object may also occur in true statements? We shall deal with the objections raised by Rus- sell and Quine against Meinong’s view, pointing out limits and advantages of both perspectives. Keywords Ontology of fiction, Meinong, classical quantification, Quine, meta-onto- logy. DOI 10.1515/kjps-2016-0017 1. Fictional Objects. Why Should We be Interested in Them? A fictional object is an object that occurs in fictional discourse, such as novels, scripts, short stories, created by the author’s imagination, so that we cannot find it in our actual world.
  • Ryle and the Para-Mechanical

    Ryle and the Para-Mechanical

    BRYAN BENHAM Ryle and the Para-mechanical WINNER OF mE 1999 LARRY TAYLOR MEMORIAL AWARD The thesis of this paper is the unconventional claim that Gilbert Ryle is not a logical behaviorist. The popular account ofRyle clearly places his work in The Concept ofMind (1949) in the camp oflogical behaviorist.! The object of this paper, however, will be to illustrate how the conventional interpretation of Ryle is misleading. My argument is not an exhaustive account of Ryle, but serves as a starting point for understanding Ryle outside of the behaviorist label that is usually attached to his work. The argument is straightforward. First, it is apparent on any reasonable construal that logical behaviorism is a reductionist project about the mind. The basic claim of logical behaviorism is that statements containing mental vocabulary can be analyzed into statements containing only the vocabulary of physical behavior. Second, any reasonable account ofRyle will show that he is not a reductionist about the mental, in fact he was adamantly anti-reductionist about the mind. Once these two claims are established it follows quite readily that Ryle was not a logical behaviorist. The first premise is uncontroversial. Anyone familiar with logical behaviorism understands that its aim is to show that mental terminology doesn't refer to unobserved phenomena, supposedly in the head of the person described, but rather to the observed physical behaviors or dispositions to behave (Hempel 1999). In fact, in its strict formulation, logical behaviorism claims that mental terminology signifies only these observed behaviors or dispositions to behave. Thus, I will take it as a reasonably established claim that logical behaviorism is reductionist about the mind.