Titlebook: Ryle; A Collection of Crit Oscar P. Wood,George Pitcher Textbook 1970Latest edition Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers

巨頭

Ryle on Perception,of the ideas and reasonings it contains. A notable source of its vitality is the resolution with which he avoids the ordinary devices of scholarly exposition. Other philosophers are seldom mentioned by name and even less often quoted. The positions criticised are not precisely and historically ident

你不公正

abstemious

阻止

Categories,t the case that category-propositions (namely, assertions that terms belong to certain categories or types) are always philosopher’s propositions, but, I believe, the converse is also true. So we are in the dark about the nature of philosophical problems and methods if we are in the dark about types

pantomime

思考才皺眉

驚呼

Words and Sentences,particular topic —namely, that of the relations, or some of them, between the notions of ., and .. On this topic, on which Ryle has written more than once,. he seems to me, though battling on the side of the angels, to have gone wrong in some respects; and I believe he has gone wrong through seeking

GROG

Ryle in Relation to Modern Science,ch more as simply part of nature, rather than as set over nature. Even statistically there has been a great change in emphasis. Thirty years ago it seemed quite likely that the origin of the solar system was due to a highly improbable celestial accident and that it was not unreasonable to suppose th

競選運(yùn)動

FIS

In Defence of Platonic Division,s of the ., and . In his . paper of 1939 (reprinted in R. E. Allen’s . .), and again in the chapter on Dialectic in ., Professor Ryle has made scathing remarks about this “method,” and has drawn a sharp contrast between it and genuine dialectic or philosophy: the construction of Linnaeus-type genus-