You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 4 (1004 words)
Complete Name: Course: Gilbert Ryle draws a distinction between "knowing how" and "knowing that". Why does he draw this distinction; what is main moral or conclusion he argues for; how does he so argue; and is his reasoning successful (say why or why not)?
G. Ryle necessitates to distinguish one from the other based on some prospects of which, a part is to yield relief from the misconception that the mere capacity to attain knowledge of truths ought to be the defining property of the mind. As another prospect, the distinction is intended to illustrate how humans are quite disposed to pay attention to competencies and deficiencies in the process of acquiring truths instead of the truths or propositions themselves and the nature thereof. It is Ryle’s aim as well to present the similarities and dissimilarities between ‘knowing how’ and ‘knowing that’ in order to substantiate further his findings upon the claim that the ‘intellectualist legend’ is false. In general, Ryle points out herein that “efficient practice precedes the theory” or that ‘knowing how’ comes before ‘knowing that’. According to Ryle, theorists have often acknowledged the so-called ‘intellectualist legend’ which relies on the basic assumption that an intelligent behaviour is a function of what cognition has intellectually established. In other words, if such legend holds, then one is brought to conceive that any kind of performance is a product of intelligence that works within the inner faculties being its ever prior source. ...
Not exactly what you need?