1

In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy it says

Anecdotal evidence (thanks to David Pears) is that Elizabeth Anscombe was scathing about The Concept of Mind when it was published.

I find this somewhat surprising, I would have guessed Anscombe and Ryle's views to overlap a lot. Does anyone know what she didn't like about it?

UtilityMaximiser
  • 159
  • 3
  • 1
    Anscombe is known to coin and promote consequentialism ethics and revived virtue ethics, while Ryle's *Concept of Mind* grounds mental events entirely on physical behaviors under certain contexts which she may be scathing about for ethics reason... – Double Knot Jul 23 '22 at 19:42
  • 1
    I always find the clash between physicalism and things like ethics perplexing. My car engine is a block of metal that burns gasoline, but I still have to register the vehicle and obey the speed limit. One does not usurp the other. – Scott Rowe Jul 24 '22 at 14:23
  • I do not agree that Ryle's account of mind was physicalist. Mental events are intimately connected with behaviour and behaviour is essential in making the mental events what they are, this is the position that struck me in The Concept of Mind. I do not agree that Ryle was attempting any kind of "translation" or "reduction" to physics. His position was similar to Wittgenstein's I think. – UtilityMaximiser Feb 27 '23 at 04:01

0 Answers0