Gilbert Ryle

1. Introduction

Gilbert Ryle (1900–1976) was a central figure in mid‑twentieth‑century British analytic philosophy, best known for his critique of Cartesian dualism and for developing an approach that combined logical analysis with close attention to everyday linguistic practices. He is widely associated with ordinary language philosophy at Oxford and with a broadly anti‑Cartesian understanding of the mind.

Ryle’s work addresses a cluster of interconnected topics: the nature of mental concepts, the distinction between knowing‑how and knowing‑that, the logic of dispositional predicates, the analysis of intelligent action, and the diagnosis of philosophical error through the notion of a category mistake. Across these areas, he maintained that many entrenched philosophical problems arise from misclassifying expressions and phenomena—treating them as belonging to the wrong logical category—and that a careful examination of our ordinary ways of speaking can reveal and correct these confusions.

"

“The belief that there is a mental world and a physical world is, I shall argue, a philosopher’s myth.”

— Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind

Historically, Ryle belongs to the generation after Moore and Russell and overlaps with the later Wittgenstein. He contributed not only as a theorist but also as an institutional figure: a longstanding Oxford tutor and Waynflete Professor of Metaphysical Philosophy, and for nearly a quarter‑century editor of Mind, then the most influential English‑language philosophy journal.

Interpretations of Ryle vary. Some read him as a logical behaviourist, reducing mental concepts to publicly observable behaviour; others emphasize his nuanced account of dispositions, abilities, and intelligent practice, arguing that he anticipated later work on skill, practical knowledge, and embodied cognition. While aspects of his program have been widely criticized or abandoned, his analyses of mental vocabulary, his rejection of the “Ghost in the Machine,” and his methodological reflections continue to inform debates in philosophy of mind, language, and action.

2. Life and Historical Context

Ryle’s life and work are closely bound up with the evolution of British analytic philosophy and the broader intellectual climate of the twentieth century. Born in 1900 in Brighton to a doctor with strong scholarly interests, he grew up in a milieu that encouraged classical learning and critical discussion. His lifetime roughly spans the period from late Victorian culture through two World Wars into the postwar welfare state and the early computer age.

Historical Setting

Ryle’s career unfolded against the background of the rise and consolidation of analytic philosophy in the Anglophone world. He came of age intellectually when the projects of Frege, Russell, and Moore—emphasizing logical analysis and clarity—were reshaping philosophy in Britain. After the First World War, Cambridge and Oxford became centres of this new style, and Ryle’s own training and early work reflect this logical and linguistic orientation.

In the interwar period, he participated in discussions that absorbed, filtered, and often domesticated the ideas of logical positivism and early analytic philosophy. While sympathetic to their emphasis on clarity and anti‑metaphysical critique, Ryle was more cautious about extreme verificationism and remained committed to exploring the subtleties of ordinary language.

Wartime and Postwar Context

The Second World War, in which Ryle served in British military intelligence, shaped his interest in intelligence, skill, and practical reasoning, themes that became prominent in his postwar writings. The war also altered the British university system and the social role of philosophy, leading to rapid expansion of higher education and new cohorts of students, many of whom encountered philosophy through Oxford tutorials.

Postwar British philosophy saw the ascendancy of Oxford ordinary language philosophy, within which Ryle played a leading role. This movement coexisted with, and sometimes opposed, other contemporaneous trends: phenomenology on the Continent, the emerging philosophies of science and language in the United States, and the early developments of cognitive science. Ryle’s rejection of Cartesian dualism and his re‑construal of mental concepts have often been read in light of these later developments, including debates about behaviourism and the computational theory of mind.

Timeline Snapshot

3. Education and Early Formation

Ryle’s education combined rigorous classical training with exposure to the developing methods of analytic philosophy. This dual background significantly shaped his style: philologically informed, textually attentive, yet committed to logical and linguistic clarity.

Schooling and Early Interests

Ryle was educated at Brighton College, where he developed strong abilities in Latin, Greek, and traditional grammar. Commentators often note that this early training in close reading and linguistic nuance prefigured his later sensitivity to the “logical grammar” of expressions. His family’s intellectual interests, including his father’s engagement with philosophy and astronomy, reportedly encouraged him toward reflective and critical habits of thought.

Cambridge Years

In 1919, Ryle entered Queens’ College, Cambridge, to study classics. His course of study was broadly comparable to Oxford’s Literae Humaniores: a blend of ancient languages, history, and philosophy. At Cambridge he encountered the work of Moore and Russell, and the emerging analytic approach to philosophical problems, though he did not study directly under all of the most famous figures.

Ryle’s early philosophical formation involved:

• Familiarity with classical texts, especially Plato and Aristotle, which later informed both his historical work and his sense that many philosophical problems have deep conceptual roots.
• Exposure to contemporary debates about logic, meaning, and analysis, including early discussions of logical form, which would later influence his diagnosis of category mistakes.
• Engagement with tutorial and discussion‑based teaching methods, which he later helped institutionalize at Oxford.

Early Intellectual Orientation

Accounts of Ryle’s student writings suggest that he was initially attracted to a form of logical analysis that sought to clarify propositions and arguments by revealing their underlying structure. At the same time, his classical training made him wary of purely formal treatments that ignored the subtleties of ordinary usage and historical context.

These formative years set the stage for his later synthesis: a commitment to analytical rigor, combined with an insistence that philosophical clarification must respect the complexities of natural language and long‑standing conceptual practices. This dual commitment would become fully visible in his early Oxford publications and, later, in The Concept of Mind.

4. Academic Career at Oxford

Ryle’s academic life was largely bound to Oxford, where he became a leading figure in philosophy through teaching, administration, and editorial work.

Christ Church Fellowship and Early Teaching

In 1924, Ryle was elected to a fellowship at Christ Church, Oxford, a position he retained for decades. Here he contributed to the college‑based tutorial system, giving one‑to‑one or small‑group tutorials that emphasized close reading, argumentative precision, and attention to linguistic detail. Students’ later recollections often portray him as a demanding but imaginative tutor who used concrete examples and everyday cases to probe abstract issues.

During the interwar years, Ryle’s published work in journals such as Mind and the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society established him as a rising analytic philosopher. He wrote on logic, meaning, and philosophical method, gradually developing his characteristic focus on category mistakes and on the analysis of mental predicates.

Waynflete Professorship and Leadership Roles

In 1947, Ryle was appointed Waynflete Professor of Metaphysical Philosophy at Oxford, a prestigious chair that gave him additional influence over curriculum, appointments, and the direction of philosophical research. He held this position until 1971. His tenure coincided with the flourishing of Oxford ordinary language philosophy, and he is frequently described as one of its principal organizers and spokespersons.

Simultaneously, Ryle served as editor of Mind (from 1947 to 1971). In this role he played a gatekeeping and agenda‑setting function:

Proponents characterize Ryle’s editorial policies as broad yet exacting, open to various strands of analytic work while maintaining high standards of argumentative clarity. Some later commentators suggest that this combination helped consolidate an “Oxford style” of philosophy during the mid‑century period.

Later Academic Activities

In his later years at Oxford, Ryle increasingly turned to historical studies of Plato and Descartes and to reflective pieces on philosophical method, while continuing to supervise graduate students. He retired from the Waynflete chair in 1971 but remained active in philosophical discussion and writing until shortly before his death in 1976. His long service at Oxford ensured that his influence extended not only through his published work but also through multiple generations of students who went on to shape analytic philosophy in Britain and beyond.

5. War Service and Its Influence

Ryle’s service during the Second World War is widely regarded as an important factor in the development of his later philosophy, particularly his views on intelligence, skill, and practical reasoning.

Intelligence Work

From 1939 to 1945, Ryle worked in British military intelligence. Precise details of his assignments are partially documented and partially reconstructed from later accounts, but it is generally agreed that he was involved in:

• Training and supervising intelligence officers
• Evaluating reports and interpreting information under conditions of uncertainty
• Contributing to the design of procedures for gathering and assessing evidence

These activities required rapid, context‑sensitive judgment rather than reliance solely on explicit rules or theoretical knowledge.

Influence on Philosophical Themes

Commentators often connect Ryle’s wartime experiences with his postwar emphasis on intelligent behaviour and knowing‑how:

• The need to distinguish competent from incompetent intelligence work, even when overt behaviour looks similar, may have reinforced his interest in criteria for intelligent performance.
• The importance of training, drill, and improvisation in military contexts has been cited as a background for his claim that practical skills are not simply the application of prior theoretical knowledge.

In his later essay “Knowing How and Knowing That,” published shortly after the war, Ryle foregrounds examples of skilled practice—such as riding a bicycle or playing chess—features often compared to the kind of applied intelligence required in wartime operations.

Shifts in Focus

Before the war, Ryle had worked primarily on topics in logic and philosophical method. After the war, his writings increasingly address:

• The nature of mental concepts associated with thinking, deciding, and reasoning
• The structure of goal‑directed action and the role of reasons
• The critique of inner episodes as explanatory entities

Some scholars argue that the war sharpened Ryle’s suspicion of overly theoretical depictions of reasoning and highlighted the importance of publicly observable criteria for attributing intelligence and understanding. Others caution that these themes were already present in his prewar work and that the war primarily accelerated or redirected interests already forming.

In any case, Ryle’s war service marks a turning point at which issues of intelligence, skill, and practice come to the forefront of his philosophical agenda, culminating in The Concept of Mind and related essays.

6. Major Works and Publications

Ryle’s philosophical views are articulated across books, journal articles, and lectures. Several texts have become canonical within analytic philosophy.

Principal Monographs and Collections

Influential Essays

Several individual essays have had lasting impact:

• “Descartes’ Myth” (chapter 1 of The Concept of Mind): sets out the critique of the “Ghost in the Machine” and introduces the idea of dualism as a philosophical myth.
• “Knowing How and Knowing That” (1946): articulates the distinction between practical and propositional knowledge and argues against reducing the former to the latter.
• Essays on dispositions, intention, and feeling: develop his broader dispositional analysis of mental predicates.

"

“Intelligent practice is not a stepchild of theory; it is the ancestress of theory.”

— Gilbert Ryle, “Knowing How and Knowing That,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 2

Editorial Work

While not a philosophical work in the standard sense, Ryle’s long editorship of Mind (1947–1971) amounted to an important intellectual contribution. By selecting and framing papers, he influenced which debates came to prominence and helped solidify analytic philosophy as a distinct tradition.

Taken together, these works present Ryle’s systematic attempt to reconceive the status of mental concepts, to clarify the logic of dispositional and ability ascriptions, and to propose a method of philosophical investigation grounded in the analysis of ordinary language and conceptual practices.

7. Core Philosophy and Method

Ryle’s core philosophical outlook is organized around a distinctive method of analysis and a corresponding diagnosis of philosophical error.

Conceptual Analysis and Logical Grammar

Ryle holds that many philosophical problems arise from misunderstandings of the logical grammar of our concepts. Philosophers, he argues, often misclassify expressions—treating them as if they belonged to one logical category when they in fact belong to another. Clarifying this logical grammar is the central task of philosophy.

His method typically involves:

• Careful examination of ordinary uses of key expressions (e.g., “know,” “believe,” “mind,” “intention”).
• Identification of patterns of inference, negation, and embedding that reveal the logical role of these expressions.
• Demonstration that certain philosophical theories presuppose a category mistake, such as treating “mind” as the name of a thing of the same logical type as “body.”

Rather than constructing new speculative theories, Ryle often aims to dissolve puzzles by showing they arise from such conceptual confusions.

Category Mistakes and Philosophical Myths

The notion of a category mistake is central. A category mistake occurs when something is represented as belonging to a logical type that it does not belong to—e.g., thinking that a university is an extra building in addition to the colleges, libraries, and offices. For Ryle, major doctrines such as Cartesian dualism exemplify such mistakes.

"

“There is a doctrine … which I shall call the dogma of the Ghost in the Machine.”

— Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind

These large‑scale conceptual errors give rise to what he calls philosophical myths: powerful but misleading pictures that shape how philosophers talk and reason.

Dispositions, Abilities, and Behaviour

Methodologically, Ryle emphasizes that many mental predicates (e.g., “believes,” “knows,” “is angry”) function primarily as dispositional or ability ascriptions. To say that a person believes or knows something is, on his view, often to say that they are liable or bound to act in certain ways under certain conditions, not that they are undergoing hidden inner episodes.

This leads some interpreters to classify his position as a form of logical behaviourism, while others stress that he does not reduce mental concepts to mere overt behaviour but to richer patterns of intelligent conduct and capacities.

Anti‑Metaphysical Orientation

Ryle frequently describes his approach as anti‑metaphysical or at least demythologizing. He does not deny the existence of mental phenomena, but he seeks to show that treating them as inner objects or processes is conceptually confused. Philosophy, on this conception, is less about discovering new entities and more about clarifying the conceptual framework within which we talk about persons, minds, and actions.

8. Philosophy of Mind and the Critique of Cartesianism

Ryle’s philosophy of mind is best known for its systematic rejection of Cartesian dualism and its alternative account of mental concepts as primarily dispositional and ability‑ascribing.

The “Ghost in the Machine” and Cartesian Myth

In The Concept of Mind, Ryle labels the prevalent picture of mind as a “Ghost in the Machine”: a non‑physical inner entity inhabiting, and causally interacting with, the physical body. He argues that this view, derived from an interpretation of Descartes and entrenched in common philosophical thinking, is not a scientific hypothesis but a philosophical myth generated by category mistakes.

"

“The belief that there is a mental world and a physical world is, I shall argue, a philosopher’s myth.”

— Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind

According to Ryle, dualism conflates different logical categories:

• It treats “mind” as if it were the name of an entity of roughly the same logical type as “body.”
• It assumes that mental verbs (think, feel, decide) function like descriptions of inner events, analogous to physical events, only non‑material.

Ryle maintains that this leads to insoluble puzzles about mind–body interaction, other minds, and self‑knowledge.

Dispositional and Behavioural Analysis

In place of dualism, Ryle proposes that many mental terms are best understood as dispositions and abilities to act in certain ways in certain circumstances. For instance, to say that someone is angry is not necessarily to report an inner episode, but to say that they are prone to behave, react, or speak in certain patterns under certain provocations.

He extends this kind of analysis to:

• Beliefs and desires: as relatively stable tendencies to reason and act in characteristic ways.
• Emotions and feelings: as complex patterns of reaction and expression.
• Perceptions and sensations: in part as abilities to discriminate and report features of the environment.

This approach leads many to describe Ryle as a logical behaviourist. Proponents of this reading argue that he reduces mental states to patterns of actual and potential behaviour. Others contend that his focus on intelligent, rule‑governed performance and on contextual criteria shows a more nuanced position that acknowledges internal organization without positing occult inner objects.

Occurrent vs Dispositional States

Ryle also distinguishes between occurrent mental episodes (actually thinking, imagining, calculating at a given moment) and dispositional states (knowing, believing, being able). He claims that many traditional philosophical accounts mistakenly model all mental phenomena on occurrent episodes, leading to false assumptions that knowing, for example, consists in the mind’s being constantly engaged in some inner act.

Reception and Alternatives

Ryle’s critique of Cartesianism has been highly influential, especially in undermining naïve substance dualism. However, later philosophers and cognitive scientists have argued that:

• Internal states with causal roles may be posited without falling into Rylean category mistakes.
• Some mental phenomena (e.g., conscious experience, pain) resist purely dispositional or behavioural treatment.

As a result, Ryle’s work is sometimes seen as a precursor to, but also a foil for, later functionalist and cognitive theories of mind. Nonetheless, his analysis of mental vocabulary and his challenge to the Ghost in the Machine remain central reference points in debates over the nature of mind.

9. Knowledge, Skills, and Knowing-How

Ryle’s distinction between knowing‑how and knowing‑that is one of his most influential contributions to epistemology and the philosophy of action.

The Knowing-How / Knowing-That Distinction

In his 1946 paper “Knowing How and Knowing That,” Ryle argues that practical skill (knowing how to do something) is not simply a matter of possessing propositional knowledge (knowing that certain facts obtain). For example, knowing how to ride a bicycle cannot be fully captured by knowing a set of propositions about balance and motion.

"

“Intelligent practice is not a stepchild of theory; it is the ancestress of theory.”

— Gilbert Ryle, “Knowing How and Knowing That”

Ryle maintains that:

• Knowing‑that is typically manifested in the ability to make true assertions and reason about them.
• Knowing‑how is manifested in intelligent performance, guided by skill, judgment, and sensitivity to context.

He objects to what he calls the “intellectualist legend”: the view that every intelligent action must be preceded by an internal act of contemplating a proposition or rule. On his view, this leads to a regress: if every intelligent action requires a prior intellectual operation, that operation itself would also have to be intelligent, and so on.

Skills as Dispositions and Abilities

Ryle treats knowing‑how as a complex disposition or ability:

• It consists in being reliably able to perform actions in contextually appropriate ways.
• It includes the capacity to adjust one’s performance in response to novel situations.
• It is learned through practice and training, not merely through the acquisition of factual information.

This account aligns with his broader dispositional analysis of mental predicates and his focus on intelligent behaviour as the primary locus of mentality.

Later Interpretations and Challenges

Ryle’s distinction has given rise to extensive debate:

• Some philosophers, such as those in the intellectualist tradition, argue that knowing‑how can be understood as a form of knowing‑that—e.g., as knowledge of instructions or rules, perhaps in tacit or non‑linguistic form.
• Others, inspired by Ryle, maintain that practical knowledge is irreducibly non‑propositional, emphasizing embodied skill, habit, and forms of understanding that cannot be captured as sets of beliefs.

Contemporary discussions often link Ryle’s analysis to:

• Debates about skills and expertise in cognitive science and psychology.
• The role of tacit knowledge in science and craft.
• The structure of practical reasoning and action guidance.

While there is no consensus on whether knowing‑how reduces to knowing‑that, Ryle’s framing of the question continues to shape how philosophers and theorists distinguish between theoretical understanding and practical competence.

10. Language, Logic, and Category Mistakes

Ryle’s work integrates attention to ordinary language with a logical analysis of the concepts expressed in that language, centring on the idea of category mistakes.

Logical Grammar and Ordinary Usage

Ryle holds that philosophical clarification requires understanding the logical grammar of expressions: the patterns of use that determine what counts as a meaningful assertion, question, or denial. He emphasizes that:

• Ordinary language, though imperfect, embodies tacit knowledge of logical distinctions.
• Philosophical theories often go astray when they impose inappropriate logical forms on everyday expressions, neglecting the way these expressions actually function.

Accordingly, his method often starts from familiar linguistic practices—how we talk about minds, actions, or institutions—and proceeds to expose misleading analogies and false categorizations.

Category Mistakes

A category mistake occurs when expressions are combined as if they belonged to the same logical type when they do not. Ryle’s famous examples include:

• A visitor to a university who, after seeing the colleges, libraries, and offices, asks “But where is the university?” as if it were another building.
• Treating “mind” as the name of an entity parallel to “body,” rather than as a concept functioning in a different logical role.

For Ryle, many central philosophical problems—especially concerning mind, self, and free will—are products of such mistakes. By diagnosing them, he aims not to solve puzzles but to dissolve them, showing that the apparent question rests on a misuse of concepts.

Logic and Philosophical Argument

Though often associated with informal methods, Ryle was trained in, and wrote on, formal logic. He saw logical symbolism as a tool for clarifying inference patterns and exposing hidden assumptions. However, he also warned against reifying the forms revealed by symbolic logic, insisting that:

• Not all meaningful distinctions are captured by formal systems.
• The logical categories relevant to philosophical analysis often emerge from ordinary inferential practices, not just from formal calculi.

Reception and Alternatives

Ryle’s focus on category mistakes has been influential in later philosophy of language and mind. Some interpreters view it as an early version of what later came to be called “conceptual engineering”, in that it diagnoses and sometimes recommends revising problematic conceptual schemes.

Critics argue that appeals to category mistakes can be question‑begging, presupposing the very conceptual framework under dispute. Others suggest that scientific developments may justify reclassifying phenomena into new categories, challenging Ryle’s reliance on existing linguistic practice.

Despite these debates, the notion of category mistakes remains a standard tool for analyzing alleged confusions in philosophical and everyday discourse, and it plays a central role in Ryle’s demythologizing critique of traditional metaphysics, especially concerning mind.

11. Epistemology and Practical Reasoning

Ryle’s contributions to epistemology focus on the nature of knowledge, especially as it manifests in practice, and on the structure of practical reasoning.

Knowledge as Disposition and Ability

Beyond the knowing‑how/knowing‑that distinction, Ryle offers a dispositional account of knowing‑that itself. To say that a person knows that p, he suggests, is often to say that they are disposed to:

• Assert p under appropriate conditions
• Use p correctly as a premise in reasoning
• Act in ways that reflect p when it is relevant

On this view, knowledge is not primarily an inner state or mental occurrence but a standing capacity revealed in what a subject is prepared to say and do. This aligns with his broader approach of treating mental predicates as dispositional ascriptions.

Intelligent Behaviour and Reasons

Ryle analyzes intelligent action as behaviour that is:

• Context‑sensitive and adaptable
• Governed by reasons, which are not hidden causes but normative justifications the agent can cite
• Embedded in practices where criteria exist for distinguishing competent from incompetent performance

In his view, ascribing intelligence or understanding to an agent is not a matter of inferring hidden mental episodes but of recognizing patterns of rule‑governed yet flexible conduct.

Practical Reasoning

Ryle is interested in how agents reason practically, moving from beliefs and desires to actions. He resists overly intellectualist models that treat each action as the outcome of explicit deliberation over propositions. Instead, he emphasizes:

• That much practical reasoning is tacit and skill‑like, embedded in habits and dispositions.
• That agents often display understanding in action, adjusting their behaviour without conscious calculation.

Practical reasoning, on this account, is as much a matter of competent coping with situations as it is of consciously formulating and weighing options.

Relation to Traditional Epistemology

Ryle does not focus heavily on classical epistemic problems such as skepticism, justification, or the analysis of knowledge into necessary and sufficient conditions. Instead, he tends to:

• Recast epistemic notions in terms of publicly observable criteria for attributing knowledge, belief, and understanding.
• Question whether some traditional problems (e.g., radical skepticism) arise from misdescribing the logical status of knowledge claims.

This orientation has led some interpreters to classify him as a forerunner of “externalist” or practice‑oriented approaches to knowledge, though he does not use that terminology. Others argue that his emphasis on observable criteria underplays the role of internal justification.

In contemporary discussions, Ryle’s ideas on knowledge and practical reasoning are often revisited in relation to debates on virtue epistemology, skill, and the cognitive underpinnings of action, where the interplay between dispositional capacities and explicit reasoning remains a central theme.

12. Ethics, Action, and Responsibility

Ryle did not develop a systematic ethical theory in the manner of utilitarians or deontologists, but his analyses of action, intention, and intelligent behaviour have implications for understanding moral responsibility and agency.

Action and Intention

Ryle treats intentional action as behaviour that can be appropriately described under action‑verbs such as “deciding,” “choosing,” or “doing on purpose,” and which fits into patterns of explanation by reasons. He resists the idea that an intentional action is a mere bodily movement plus an inner mental act (such as an act of willing) that causes the movement. Instead:

• The intention is not an occult inner event but is manifested in how the action is performed, its context, and how the agent can justify or explain it.
• Distinctions between acting intentionally, accidentally, or under compulsion are grounded in publicly accessible criteria, including the agent’s patterns of behaviour and responsiveness to reasons.

Responsibility and Capacities

Ryle’s dispositional approach to mind supports an understanding of moral responsibility that emphasizes:

• The agent’s capacities and dispositions to recognize reasons, to deliberate (overtly or tacitly), and to regulate behaviour accordingly.
• The relevance of training, character, and habits in shaping those dispositions.

On this view, holding someone responsible often involves assessing whether their conduct expresses stable dispositions of character, rather than merely recording isolated acts. Discussions of negligence, for example, can be framed in terms of failures to exercise expected capacities for attention and foresight.

Critique of Inner Volitions

Ryle is critical of theories that explain responsibility by positing special inner acts of volition or will. He argues that such theories commit category mistakes by introducing a further inner process to account for agency, leading to regress or mystery. Instead, he treats talk of “will” and “decision” as part of the vocabulary we use to describe patterns of action and commitment.

Ethical Implications and Reception

Ryle himself rarely draws explicit ethical conclusions from his analyses, but later philosophers have explored their implications for:

• Compatibilist accounts of free will, where agency is understood in terms of capacities to respond to reasons rather than metaphysically free inner choices.
• The role of character and skill in virtue ethics, given his emphasis on trained dispositions and practical know‑how.
• Debates about moral psychology, especially the relation between belief, desire, and action.

Critics sometimes argue that Ryle’s reliance on public criteria may not capture the full complexity of moral motivation, including conflicts of conscience or inner struggle. Others see in his work a resource for demystifying responsibility without reducing agents to mere mechanisms, by focusing on the intelligent organization of behaviour across contexts.

13. Historical Work on Plato and Descartes

Alongside his systematic philosophy, Ryle devoted significant attention to the history of philosophy, particularly Plato and Descartes. His historical work is characteristically revisionist, seeking to unsettle received interpretations by applying his methods of conceptual analysis.

Plato’s Progress

Ryle’s book Plato’s Progress (1966) offers an unconventional narrative of Plato’s philosophical development. Rather than reading the dialogues as expressions of a fixed system, Ryle depicts Plato as:

• An evolving thinker experimenting with different conceptual tools and argumentative strategies.
• Responding to and revising his own earlier positions across dialogues.

The book challenges traditional developmental schemes that sharply partition “early,” “middle,” and “late” dialogues, proposing instead a more fluid account of Plato’s intellectual trajectory. Some scholars welcomed Ryle’s emphasis on conceptual innovation within Plato’s work, while others criticized his reconstructions as speculative or insufficiently grounded in philological detail.

Descartes and “Descartes’ Myth”

Ryle’s engagement with Descartes is both historical and systematic. In the opening chapter of The Concept of Mind, “Descartes’ Myth,” he presents the Cartesian mind–body dualism as a paradigmatic philosophical myth rooted in category mistakes.

"

“There is a doctrine … which I shall call the dogma of the Ghost in the Machine.”

— Gilbert Ryle, The Concept of Mind

Ryle interprets Descartes as having:

• Introduced a sharp ontological division between res cogitans (thinking substance) and res extensa (extended substance).
• Encouraged the assimilation of mental predicates to descriptions of inner episodes occurring in a private realm.

Historical specialists in Descartes have debated the accuracy of this portrayal. Some argue that Ryle oversimplifies Descartes’ views, neglecting elements such as his account of passions, embodiment, and the union of mind and body. Others suggest that, even if not textually precise, Ryle’s “myth” captures a powerful post‑Cartesian picture that influenced much later philosophy.

Methodological Approach to History

Ryle’s historical writings illustrate his broader methodological commitments:

• He treats canonical philosophers as fellow analysts, whose conceptual moves can be reconstructed and critically assessed.
• He is more interested in how historical figures frame and transform problems than in providing strictly antiquarian exegesis.

This approach has been both praised for its philosophical insight and criticized for downplaying textual and contextual scholarship. Nonetheless, Ryle’s readings of Plato and Descartes have played a role in stimulating discussions about:

• The development of metaphysical and epistemological concepts in the Western tradition.
• The extent to which modern philosophy inherited and reshaped Cartesian categories, sometimes in ways that Ryle regards as confused.

14. Ryle and Ordinary Language Philosophy

Ryle is commonly associated with ordinary language philosophy, particularly the mid‑century “Oxford” variety, though his position within this movement is nuanced.

Alignment with Ordinary Language Philosophy

Ordinary language philosophers hold that many philosophical problems can be resolved—or dissolved—by attending carefully to everyday uses of words. Ryle shares several core commitments with this movement:

• He regards ordinary language as a repository of subtle logical distinctions, developed through long usage.
• He believes that philosophical theories often distort these distinctions, leading to category mistakes.
• He employs examples from mundane contexts (university tours, cricket games, coaching performances) to clarify conceptual issues.

In this respect, he stands alongside figures such as J. L. Austin and later Wittgenstein as a key proponent of linguistic analysis as a primary philosophical tool.

Distinctive Features of Ryle’s Approach

However, Ryle’s style differs from some of his contemporaries:

• He places greater emphasis on systematic dispositional analyses and on the idea of logical grammar, whereas others (e.g., Austin) focus more on intricate distinctions between speech acts and senses.
• He often aims at broad reconceptualization of domains (e.g., the mental) rather than only case‑by‑case clarification of particular expressions.
• He is relatively sympathetic to the use of formal logic as a complement to ordinary language, rather than treating formal methods with suspicion.

Some commentators therefore describe Ryle as a bridge figure between earlier analytic concerns with logical form and the later ordinary language turn.

Institutional Role at Oxford

Ryle’s positions at Oxford—Christ Church fellow, Waynflete Professor, editor of Mind—made him a central organizer of the context in which ordinary language philosophy flourished. He participated in and helped shape:

• Informal discussion groups and seminars where close analysis of language was practised.
• Curricular emphases on textual and argumentative skills grounded in ordinary language.

This institutional role contributed to the perception of Oxford in the 1950s and 1960s as the centre of an ordinary language “school”, with Ryle as one of its key representatives.

Reception and Critique

Ordinary language philosophy, including Ryle’s version, has faced criticism from philosophers who favour more theory‑driven or scientifically informed approaches. Critics argue that:

• Appealing to ordinary usage can conserve conceptual confusions rather than expose them.
• Scientific progress often requires revising ordinary concepts rather than deferring to them.

Defenders respond that Ryle does not simply sanctify existing language but seeks to make explicit its logical structure, and that understanding how concepts currently function is a necessary starting point for any rational revision.

15. Criticisms, Revisions, and Later Reception

Ryle’s work has attracted sustained criticism and reinterpretation, leading to a complex reception history.

Behaviourism and Its Discontents

Ryle is frequently labelled a logical behaviourist, a classification that has been both influential and contested. Critics argue that:

• Reducing mental states to behavioural dispositions fails to account for inner experiences, such as pain or imagery.
• Behavioural criteria seem insufficient for explaining cognitive processes posited by psychology and cognitive science.

Some also contend that his approach struggles with qualia, the subjective aspects of experience, and with cases of behaviourally indistinguishable but mentally different subjects (e.g., “zombies”).

Defenders of Ryle maintain that:

• He is not a reductive behaviourist but a theorist of dispositions and abilities, concerned with the logical role of mental predicates rather than their physical realization.
• His focus on intelligent conduct leaves room for complex internal organization, provided it is not conceptualized as an inner ghostly realm.

Critiques of the Knowing-How / Knowing-That Distinction

Ryle’s distinction between knowing‑how and knowing‑that has been extensively debated. Intellectualist critics argue that:

• Skills can be represented as knowledge of rules or propositions, perhaps tacit or non‑linguistic.
• The regress argument against intellectualism can be blocked by positing non‑conscious, automatic application of propositional knowledge.

Supporters of Ryle counter that such views collapses important differences between embodied skill and theoretical understanding, and that reducing all know‑how to know‑that distorts the phenomena.

Responses from Cognitive Science and Analytic Philosophy of Mind

The rise of cognitive science and functionalism in the 1960s and 1970s shifted the landscape. Many theorists embraced the idea of internal states with representational and causal roles, which seemed at odds with Ryle’s suspicion of inner episodes. Nevertheless:

• Some see Ryle as a precursor to functional role analyses of mental states, insofar as he emphasizes patterns of use and inference.
• Others read him as an antagonist to computational and representational models, given his focus on public criteria and his critique of internal scripts.

Philosophers of mind such as David Armstrong and D. M. Armstrong, as well as later discussions of physicalism, often engage Ryle’s views as a foil for more explicitly naturalistic theories of mind.

Later Reassessments

In recent decades, Ryle has been revisited in light of:

• Embodied and enactive approaches to cognition, which share his emphasis on skilled action and environmental engagement.
• Renewed interest in practical knowledge and skill in epistemology and philosophy of action.
• Historical work re‑examining his readings of Plato and Descartes.

Some scholars argue that earlier dismissals of Ryle as a crude behaviourist overlook the subtlety of his dispositional analyses and his focus on intelligent practice. Others continue to find his framework too restrictive for capturing the richness of mental life as understood in contemporary psychology and neuroscience.

Overall, Ryle’s reception reflects both substantive disagreements with his conclusions and ongoing recognition of his role in transforming how philosophers frame questions about mind, knowledge, and language.

16. Influence on Analytic Philosophy of Mind

Ryle’s impact on analytic philosophy of mind is both direct, through the content of his theories, and indirect, through the debates he helped to shape.

Undermining Naïve Dualism

Ryle’s critique of the “Ghost in the Machine” significantly contributed to the decline of substance dualism within analytic philosophy. His arguments:

• Exposed conceptual problems with conceiving mind as a separate non‑physical substance.
• Encouraged philosophers to seek non‑dualist accounts of mental phenomena, including various forms of materialism, functionalism, and physicalism.

Even theorists who reject his dispositional behaviourism often acknowledge that his demolition of traditional dualist pictures cleared the ground for later naturalistic approaches.

Behaviourism, Functionalism, and Beyond

Ryle is a central figure in the history of behaviourism in philosophy of mind. His analyses influenced:

• Mid‑century discussions of analytical behaviourism, which sought to define mental states in terms of behavioural dispositions.
• Later transitions toward functionalism, where mental states are identified by their causal roles rather than overt behaviour alone.

Some functionalists view Ryle as an ancestor who focused on role and pattern, though they depart from him by positing internal states with computational and representational character. Others see functionalism as a corrective to perceived shortcomings in Ryle’s behaviourist tendencies.

Debates on Consciousness and Qualia

Ryle’s relative silence on qualitative experience has made his work a frequent target in debates about consciousness. Philosophers working on:

• Qualia and the “hard problem” often cite Ryle as an example of approaches that allegedly neglect subjective character.
• Higher‑order and representational theories sometimes adapt Rylean insights about public criteria while attempting to integrate them with internalist accounts of experience.

His views continue to function as a reference point for contrasting third‑person, behaviourally oriented perspectives with first‑person, phenomenological approaches.

Knowledge, Skills, and Cognitive Science

Ryle’s analysis of knowing‑how has influenced:

• Discussions of procedural vs declarative memory in psychology and neuroscience.
• Work on expertise, skill acquisition, and motor control, where the idea that practical competence is not reducible to explicit rules is widely explored.

While cognitive scientists typically employ empirical methods absent from Ryle’s work, his conceptual distinction has shaped the vocabulary used to interpret experimental results.

Ongoing Theoretical Roles

Contemporary philosophers of mind continue to engage with Ryle:

• As a foil for more representational and computational approaches.
• As a source for non‑intellectualist accounts of action and practical knowledge.
• As a stimulus for revisiting the role of language and public criteria in understanding mental attribution.

Thus, Ryle’s influence is best understood not as a settled doctrinal legacy but as a set of challenges and distinctions—about category mistakes, dispositions, and intelligent behaviour—that remain integral to the structure of analytic debates about the mind.

17. Legacy and Historical Significance

Ryle’s legacy spans his direct philosophical contributions, his institutional role, and his impact on how subsequent generations have framed questions about mind, language, and action.

Reframing the Concept of Mind

Historically, Ryle is credited with helping to shift analytic philosophy:

• Away from substance‑based metaphysics of mind toward analyses of conceptual roles, dispositions, and patterns of behaviour.
• From the idea of mental states as private inner episodes to a focus on publicly assessable criteria for mental attributions.

Even where his specific analyses are rejected, his insistence that theories of mind must be sensitive to the logical grammar of mental concepts has had lasting influence.

Institutional and Disciplinary Impact

As Waynflete Professor at Oxford and long‑time editor of Mind, Ryle exerted significant influence on the development of analytic philosophy as a discipline:

His role in consolidating ordinary language philosophy and in mediating between earlier logical analysis and later linguistic approaches is a key part of his historical importance.

Mixed but Enduring Reception

Ryle’s reputation has undergone shifts:

• In the late twentieth century, as cognitive science and formal theories of mind advanced, he was sometimes portrayed as outdated or overly behaviourist.
• More recently, renewed interest in skill, embodiment, and practical knowledge has led to a reappraisal of his insights into knowing‑how and intelligent action.
• Historical scholars have continued to debate his portrayals of Plato and Descartes, which, even when found wanting in detail, have influenced how these figures are taught and discussed.

Place in the Canon

Today, Ryle is widely regarded as:

• A canonical figure in twentieth‑century analytic philosophy, often grouped with Moore, Russell, and Wittgenstein.
• A pivotal thinker in the philosophy of mind, whose critique of Cartesianism remains a standard reference point.
• An important contributor to discussions of knowledge, action, and language, particularly through his concepts of category mistakes, dispositions, and knowing‑how.

His work continues to be read both for its direct philosophical proposals and for its methodological lessons about how to approach entrenched philosophical problems. Whether viewed as a behaviourist to be surpassed or as a subtle analyst of our conceptual practices, Ryle remains a central figure in understanding the trajectory of modern philosophy.