Ryle Revisited

I had a cursory glance at the previous note after two weeks of absence from this blog during which I pursued other projects (like earning money for my family).

I still think that the basic idea presented there is quite plausible. “Rome” and “the capital of twentieth century Italy” are phrases which are replacable in:

(3) Marek believes that Rome is a beautiful city
(4) Marek believes that the capital of twentieth century Italy is a beautiful city

but not in

(5) Cicero believes that Rome is a beautiful city (true perhaps)
(6) Cicero believes that the capital of twentieth century Italy is a beautiful city (false or nonsensical)

just because Marek but not Cicero believes that “Rome” and “the capital of twentieth century Italy” are the same thing.

But this is where things start to go wrong. “Believes” reappears in the explanation and we have again intensional sentences which need explanation. So we have an infinite regress We can only be saved by converting to behaviorism and not using any psychological language. But to become a behaviorist at my age?

When I cogitated at my predicament, I just remembered that this is not the first infinite regress connected with the behaviorism/mentalism dispute. Remember Gilbert Ryle and his campaign against a “Ghost in the Machine”.

According to the legend, whenever an agent does anything intelligently, his act is preceded and steered by another internal act of considering a regulative proposition appropriate to his practical problem. [...] Must we then say that for the hero's reflections how to act to be intelligent he must first reflect how best to reflect how to act? The endlessness of this implied regress shows that the application of the criterion of appropriateness does not entail the occurrence of a process of considering this criterion.(The Concept of Mind (1949), p. 31.)
The crucial objection to the intellectualist legend is this. The consideration of propositions is itself an operation the execution of which can be more or less intelligent, less or more stupid. But if, for any operation to be intelligently executed, a prior theoretical operation had first to be performed and performed intelligently, it would be a logical impossibility for anyone ever to break into the circle.(The Concept of Mind (1949), p. 30.)

There seem to be similarities between the two regresses. But I am not sure whether they have so much in common. I will need to think about this.