Skip to main content
Log in

Ryle’s regress defended

  • Published:
Philosophical Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Ryle anticipates these arguments and provides additional ones in his (1971).

  2. See also Fantl (2009, pp. 460–462).

References

  • Fantl, J. (2009). Knowing-how and knowing-that. Philosophy Compass, 3, 451–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginet, C. (1975). Knowledge, perception, and memory. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koethe, J. (2002). Stanley and Williamson on knowing how. The Journal of Philosophy, 99, 325–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. (1971). Knowing how and knowing that. Collected papers (pp. 212–225). New York: Barnes and Noble.

  • Stanley, J. (2010). Ryle on knowing how. Oberlin colloquium in philosophy. Oberlin, OH.

  • Stanley, J. (2011a). Know how. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, J. (2011b). Knowing (How). Noûs, 45, 207–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, J., & Williamson, T. (2001). Knowing how. The Journal of Philosophy, 98, 411–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Fantl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fantl, J. Ryle’s regress defended. Philos Stud 156, 121–130 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-011-9800-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-011-9800-8

Keywords

Navigation