Talk:The Concept of Mind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophy of mind Philosophical literature

	Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Dubious

Not really dubious, more of a clarification: In the article it is claimed: "The reader must assume that Ryle himself is not misusing concepts when he employs metaphors of space, such as set, geography, relocation, replacing, preceding, following, and taking cross-bearings, in order to communicate his logic regarding concepts and categories. It is then to be taken for granted that the concept logic can lawfully be a member of the category (logical type) space."

Is this his claim out of the book, or is this commentary? Briholt 23:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)