Talk:Gilbert Ryle

message: Er....I'm sorry? Ryle was refuted by Foucault? I don't THINK so. Actually Rylean 'behaviourism' is much closer to post-structuralist thought than is say, cognitivism or structuralism. I have changed the article accordingly. 
BScotland
Crikey! Well done BScotland!Thewikibeagles (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Seems like there should be a biographical section here. Kevin L. 04:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography 

message: Ryle's logical behaviorism should not be confused with Skinner's psychological (radical) behaviorism, but it is interesting to note that Skinner did profess admiration for Ryle, and it appears that Skinner borrowed some of Ryle's analysis of mentalism (along with Wittgenstein's) in developing his own critique of mentalist psychologies.
:::Behaviorism was an intellectual fad for the first half of the twentieth century. Many philosophers felt compelled to make their philosophies agree with that limited and restrictive psychology. Ryle, as a professional academic, could not oppose or contest the fad.Lestrade (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking about intellectual fads was an intellectual fad in the first part of the twenty-first century.  Many wikipedia commentators felt compelled to make their comments agree with that limited and restrictive sociology.  Lestrade, as a wikipedia commentator, could not oppose or contest the fad.  (Incidentally, the last line of your critique is clearly false.  The rest of it just reflects a particularly shallow conceptual framework.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.191.83 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ryle's behaviorism 

message: Does the tag at the top of the page really make sense now? It seems like there are now several citations within the article.  JustinBlank (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline references 

message: While it is important to highlight the criticisms of an influential thinker like Ryle, the quotation from Bloom is less of a scholarly critique, more of an ad hominem. I find it entirely inappropriate, essentially noise, for a philosopher of Ryle's stature. I will remove it at the earliest opportunity. Those who wish to quote Bloom at length can surely find something better.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oyigit (talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Descartes did posit an independent existence of the self by reifying it, as Ortega saw the issue, thereby taking off on the wrong track at the fork in the road.  There is no logical necessity to talk about the self as confirmation of your existence in the sense that it is a thing.Euonyman (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

text: I've modified the formatting to reflect ThePantsParty06's point and as the "old" criticisms contained only an additional contribution of Ryle not a criticism.  I also made all the sections between "Life" and "Legacy" subsections of a new "Works" section (and put the "writings" section in it as well. LookingGlass (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: There is no mention of Roy Schafer or his book "A New Language for Psychoanlysis" which is based on Ryle's "The Concept of Mind".
G. Robert Shiplett 15:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roy Schafer 

message: Tracking down plagiarism (from this site) by one of my students, I noticed that this article is itself plagiarized.  The section on The Concept of Mind has text taken directly from this blog: http://aeconomics.blogspot.co.uk/2007/01/concept-of-mind-and-infinite-regression.html
Since the blog contains more information and is more of a complete piece, it really looks like the copying without attribution goes in that direction.  One difference is the removal of mention of La Mettrie, as discussed in the edit talk below "La Mettrie and "ghost"s ?"
216.229.6.19 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I'll probably remove that content in the near future, and if I don't, another editor is likely to. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism in Article!