Module 01 09 Gilbert Ryle

Hello everyone, I will be showing to you about the philosophical perspective of the self
according to Gilbert Ryle. The self is how you behave. It is a pattern of behavior.

This is his famous quotation. In searching for the self, one could not simultaneously be
hunter or the hunted. At the end of this lesson, you should have explained why Gilbert Ryle
said that self is behavior or a pattern of behavior.

And you are able to illustrate the criticisms about such perspectives of the self. While you
are studying this lesson, keep this transforming idea to mind. What is objectionable in the
dualistic view of the self is that it highlighted our physical bodies as opposite of our minds.

The body is more public whereas our mind is private. Now let us engage ourselves with
these two focus questions.

1. Is it enough to know who the person is by just observing his or her behavior? Why?
So you write here what you know, what you want to know, how can you learn more, and
what you have learned.

2. How do you describe who your self is? Will you be describing yourself based on how
you behave in specific circumstances? Why?
So you write it here what you know, what you want to know, how can you learn more,
what you have learned. Now let us explore. Gilbert Ryle is an analytic philosopher, an
important figure in the field known as linguistic analysis, which focused on the solving of
philosophical puzzles through an analysis of language.

He mounted an attack against Cartesian mind-body dualism and supported a behaviorist

theory of mind. So as I have said, for Gilbert Ryle, the self is how you behave. The dualistic
metaphysics of mind and body initiated by Plato, perpetuated by Descartes, and given an
unconscious twist by Freud leads to challenging conceptual questions and vexing enigmas.

Some philosophers and psychologists, in an effort to avoid the difficulties of viewing the
mind and body as two radically different aspects of the self, have decided to simply focus on
observable behavior in defining the self. Their solution to the mind-body problem is to
simply deny or ignore the existence of an internal, non-physical self, and instead focus on
the dimensions of the self that we can observe. No more inner selves, no more immortal
souls, states of consciousness, or unconscious entities.

Instead, the self is defined in terms of the behavior that is presented to the world, a view
that is known in psychology as behaviorism. In philosophy, one of the chief advocates of this
view is Gilbert Ryle, a British philosopher whose book The Concept of Mind had a dramatic
impact on Western thought. Ryle's behaviorism was a different sort from that of psychology.

He thought of his approach as a logical behaviorism that focuses on creating conceptual

clarity, not on developing techniques to condition and manipulate human behavior. Unlike
other behaviorists, like B.F. Skinner, Ryle focused more on creating conceptual clarity rather
than developing techniques to manage or change behavior. Here is now the learning task.
What do you understand by the mind-body problem? This is the view of the dualist. How
does some philosophers and psychologists avoid the difficulties of viewing the mind as
radically different and distinct from the body? The answers to these questions are just found
in this page. Let us again explore Ryle's concept of the self.

Ryle begins his book by launching a devastating attack on Descartes' myth, characterizing it
as the official doctrine that has insidiously penetrated the consciousness of academics,
professionals, and average citizens alike. According to Ryle, it is high time that this
destructive myth of dualism is debunked once and for all and be replaced with a clearer
conceptual and linguistic understanding of the true nature of the self. Ryle summarizes the
essential elements of the dualistic view of the self.

We know that the dualistic view of the self still originated from Socrates, followed by Plato,
and perpetuated by other philosophers like Descartes. These are the summary of the
essential elements of the dualistic view of the self according to Ryle. First, mind and body as
distinct entities, as I have said, first articulated by Plato and then perpetuated in various
incarnations through St. Augustine, Descartes, and others.

Under this dualistic view of the self, the body is seen as a physical entity, subject to the
physical laws of the universe, whereas the mind, that is the soul or the spirit, is a non-
physical entity and exempt from the laws of the universe. I think this is clear to you. As a
result of this kind of view, the body is mortal and dies, whereas the mind is at least
potentially able to continue existing beyond the death of the body.

Most of you believe on that. This dualistic view has serious implications for what we can and
not know according to Ryle. Although each person has direct knowledge of his or her mind,
you know what is in your mind, but I don't know what is in your mind, it is impossible for us
to have any direct knowledge of other minds.

Meaning to say, even if you know your mind, I don't have a direct knowledge of what is in
your mind. Each mind is its own private personal universe. What is objectionable in the
dualistic view of the self is that it highlighted our physical bodies as opposite of our minds.

They are not connected. Our bodies and their movements are available to everyone,
including ourselves, that is true, and it can be observed, photographed, measured, analyzed,
and their movements can be recorded. Our bodies and their movements are completely
private.

However, our minds are completely private. We cannot actually observe the mind or
analyze the mind. It is you alone who can know what is in it.

Now this is the learning task for this page. In a dualistic view of the self, how is the body and
mind differs according to Ryle. If our minds are completely private and only you who know
what is in it, would it be reliable? That is the question.

The privileged knowledge that we have of our own mental self means that others are
necessarily excluded from any direct understanding of what we're thinking or who we are.
Unfortunately, the same logic applies to us. We are prevented from having any direct
knowledge of others' minds, selves, spirits.
Although we can observe the bodies and actions of others, we can only make inferences
regarding the mind that is producing these actions. In fact, there is no way we can be
ensured that there even are other minds functioning in ways similar to ours. We observe
someone waving and smiling at us, and we say to ourselves, when I wave and smile, that
means I'm happy to see someone.

So that's what this waving and smiling must mean. The mind inside the body is happy to see
me, and I'm assuming that there is a mind inside that body because the body is acting like I
do, and I'm a mind. Of course, we can't really be sure that other minds exist, or that the
movement of their bodies really expresses the meaning that we are projecting onto it.

Ryle's point is this. In our everyday experience, we act and speak as if we have much more
direct knowledge of other minds when in fact we don't have, and what they're thinking
without having to go through this tortured and artificial reasoning process. We encounter
others, experience the totality of their behavior, and believe that this behavior reveals
directly who they are and what they are thinking, when in fact it is not like that.

Ryle goes on to analyze how this apparent conflict between the theory of Cartesian dualism,
which is the ghost in the machine, and our everyday experience of others is actually the
result of what? Confused conceptual thinking, a logical error that he terms a category
mistake. What is category mistake? Representing the facts or concepts as if they belong in
one logical category when they actually belong in another category. Now this is our learning
task.

Give instances when you are wrong in assuming that you are correct in interpreting the
behavior of a friend. Does this prove that Ryle is correct in saying that we really do not know
what is in the mind of others and that we are wrong in our dualistic view of the mind? In the
same way that the university is a concept, can you see the university? No, you cannot. In the
same way that the university is a concept expressing the entire system of buildings,
curricula, faculty, administrators and so on, Ryle believes that the mind is a concept that
expresses the entire system of thoughts, emotions, actions and so on that make up the
human self.

The category mistake happens when we speak about the self as something independent of
the physical body, a purely mental entity existing in time but not space. According to Ryle,
this self does not really exist anymore than the university or team spirit exists in some
special non-physical universe. After having made a case for an integrated mind-body
perspective on the human self, Ryle then focuses his attention primarily on human behavior.

In Ryle's perspective, the self is best understood as a pattern of behavior, the tendency or
disposition for a person to behave in a certain way in certain circumstances. What are the
difficulties in seeing the self as a pattern of behavior? Is the experience of love equivalent to
the tendency to act in a certain way under certain circumstances? When you say, I am
deeply in love with you, is that reducible to a series of behavioral tendencies or
dispositions? I will share experiences with you, procreate children, attend you when you are
sick, give thoughtful cards and gifts on your birthday, say on a regular basis, I love you, and
so on. Although your proposed partner may appreciate your detailed commitments, he or
she is unlikely to respond in the passionate, intimate way that you likely hope for.
That is why reducing the complex richness of our inner life and consciousness to a list of
behaviors and potential behaviors simply doesn't do the job conceptually for most people.
Now here is the learning task. What do you think will be the difficulties when you look at the
self as just a pattern of behaviors? Think about yourself.

Assume the perspective of someone who knows you well and describe yourself as he might
see you, based solely on your observable behavior. What aspects of yourself do you think
his description would capture? What aspects of yourself do you think his portrait of you
would omit? That is the question. Let's explore.

Ironically, while ends up being his own most incisive critic, he bases his criticism of Cartesian
dualism on the premise that the central principles of the doctrine are unsound and conflict
with the whole body of what we know about minds when we are not speculating about
them. But exactly the same criticism can be made of Ryle's logical behaviorism. It attempts
to define and translate the self and the complex mental-emotional richness of the life of the
mind into a listing of behaviors and potential behaviors.

That conflicts with the whole body of what we know about minds when we are not
speculating about them. As the Australian philosopher J.J.C. Smart notes, there does seem
to be, so far as science is concerned, nothing in the world but complex arrangements of
physical constituents, all except for one place, consciousness. In the final analysis, despite
Ryle's devastating critic of Descartes' dualism, he hasn't been able to provide a compelling
philosophical explanation of Descartes' I think.

Ryle's denial of inner selves causes a difficulty analogous to that engendered by Jung's
denial of a similar entity, namely, that Ryle writes, speaks, and acts as if the existence of the
inner selves is not in doubt. In fact, it's not clear how a person could truly believe what
behaviors say they believe would actually function in life. Nevertheless, humans are
profoundly influenced by their experiences, and that we can in fact control and manipulate
human behavior to a certain extent through systematic conditioning, and that these facts
have significant implications for the possibility of personal freedom.

That's the contribution of behaviorism. It says that we or others can manipulate your
behavior, can make you do what you don't like to do, and that is what behaviorists have
more or less discovered. That's their contribution.

Here is another learning task. Identify several of the defining qualities of yourself. For
example, empathetic, gregarious, reflective, fun-loving, curious, and so on.

Then using Ryle's approach, describe the qualities in terms of a tendency to act a certain
way in certain circumstances. Analyze your characterizations. Do your descriptions
communicate fully the personal qualities of yourself that you identified? If not, what's
missing? So that's the learning task.

To make a summary of what you have learned in this lesson, now you can do the mind map.
The philosophical perspectives of the self according to Gilbert Ryle. So using mind mapping,
connect concepts you have learned in this lesson.
Include criticisms, objections from other philosophers about Ryle's perspectives of the self.
Thank you for listening. Have a nice day.

This is your teacher, Jennifer L. Tuazon-gutierrez.