That all his arguments, though otherwise intended, are, in reality, merely sceptical, appears from this, that they admit of no answer and produce no conviction. I don't really think it likely that Dr Johnson was making a philosophical point when he kicked the stone - I think he was amusing his listeners with a forceful expression of the prevailing view of his time. But if I set that issue aside, I can ask whether, if Johnson had been intending to make a philosophical point, would he have succeeded. I have already said what Berkeley's dismissal of such an objection would be. The problem is that, while kicking a stone may highlight, indeed very vividly, the fact that humans are primarily active agents and not passive observers, it can hardly be considered as proof.
Philosophy has for centuries rested on the conception of humans 'sitting and thinking'.
In his book The Concept of Mind, Gilbert Ryle claims to be seeking to destroy the 'Cartesian Myth' of mind-body dualism. Part of his problem is to overcome this 'epistemology of the passive observer'. But although Ryle spends an entire book labouring his point, and gives me the sense that he's trying to express something very important, and gives hundreds of examples, he never actually sets out clearly what he's trying to say. One book doesn't change the course of philosophy. I think maybe it explains why many ordinary people think philosophy is silly - philosophy fails to describe the way life is for them, because they are mainly active, rather than passive.