A Capacity to Get Things Right: Gilbert Ryle on Knowledge

Gilbert Ryle's distinction between knowledge‐how and knowledge‐that faces a significant challenge: accounting for the unity of knowledge. Jason Stanley, an ‘intellectualist’ opponent of Ryle's, brings out this problem by arguing that Ryleans must treat ‘know’ as an ambiguous word and must distinguish knowledge proper from knowledge‐how, which is ‘knowledge’ only so‐called. I develop the challenge and show that underlying Ryle's distinction is a unified vision of knowledge as ‘a capacity to get things right’, covering both knowledge‐how and knowledge‐that. I show how Ryle specifies the general notion into knowledge‐how and knowledge‐that and discuss the mutual interdependence exhibited by the two forms of knowledge. Ryle's positive view of knowledge, properly understood, emerges as an important, neglected, alternative which should be brought back into the ongoing conversation about practical and theoretical knowledge.     

Ordinary language: The contributions of Gilbert Ryle and John Austin to the experimental analysis of behavior

The aim of this paper is to show how "conceptual analysis"-the philosophical method used by Gilbert Ryle and John Austin-can contribute to behavior analysis in general and in particular to the elucidation and development of views put forward by B. F. Skinner. One of the key requirements is a sensitivity to the precise circumstances in which particular combinations of words are uttered. Without such sensitivity, it is difficult to make informed decisions as to when ways of talking should be changed and when they should be left as they are.     

“鲍德里亚与他的《生产之镜》”专题——青年鲍德里亚：从后马克思到反马克思主义

通过对鲍德里亚早期理论立场的分析，该文强调鲍德里亚从来就不是马克思主义者，其早期属于后马克思思潮立场，而《生产之镜》则是他告别后马克思思潮走向某种草根浪漫主义的过渡性文本。在这一文本中他公开地拒斥了马克思主义，而其从马克思主义理论内部进行的批判则是今天必须面对的一个问题。[编者按]     

青年鲍德里亚:从后马克思到反马克思主义

通过对鲍德里亚早期理论立场的分析,该文强调鲍德里亚从来就不是马克思主义者,其早期属于后马克思思潮立场,而《生产之镜》则是他告别后马克思思潮走向某种草根浪漫主义的过渡性文本。在这一文本中他公开地拒斥了马克思主义,而其从马克思主义理论内部进行的批判则是今天必须面对的一个问题。     

Individuals and technology: Gilbert Simondon,from Ontology to Ethics to Feminist Bioethics

Two key themes structure the work of French philosopher of science Gilbert Simondon: the processes of individuation and the nature of technical objects. Moreover, these two themes are also at the heart of contemporary debates within Ethics and Bioethics. Indeed, the question of the individual is a key concern in both Virtue Ethics and Feminist Ethics of Care, while the hyper-technical reality of the present stage of medical technology is a key reason for both the urgency for and the success of the field of Bioethics. And yet, despite its potential for thinking about these issues, Simondon’s philosophy remains largely unknown. Rather than exploring Simondon’s complex ontology for itself, the aim of this paper is to establish what contribution his work can make in Ethics and Bioethics on two essential questions: the relational structure of the self and the nature of the human-technology relation. I argue that Simondon’s re-conceptualization of the individual harmonizes with perspectives in Feminist Bioethics (particularly the Ethics of Care) and points toward what I call an “open” Virtue Ethics that takes relations to be essential. In order to establish this connection, I explore at length the relational approach to Feminist Bioethics offered by Susan Sherwin’s work. I argue that a Simondonian account of technology and of the individual furthers the relational understanding of the self, offers a characterization of Virtue Ethics that is in harmony with the Ethics of Care, and clarifies a notion of responsibility that is implicated in the complex reality of the modern technological milieu.     

The gifts of culture and of eloquence: An open letter to Michael J. Mahoney in reply to his article, "Scientific psychology and radical behaviorism"

In what seems to be a response to a paper by Skinner (1987), Mahoney (1989) provides evidence of unfamiliarity with and intellectual intolerance toward radical behaviorism by presenting a critique of it that includes a variety of improper and counterfactual attributions. For example, he argues that radical behaviorism is Cartesian rather than Baconian when the historical record shows the opposite, that it is fundamentally associationist when in fact it is selectionist, and that its philosophy of science is essentially that of operationalism and logical positivism when instead it moved on to other criteria decades ago. The details of Mahoney's history are sometimes flawed and sometimes unsubstantiated, as when he provides a distorted account of the origins of the Association for Behavior Analysis or when he makes undocumented claims about the banning of books. On examination, many of his arguments are couched in stylistic terms that share their rhetorical features with racial, ethnic, and religious stereotyping.     

From affect to feelings and thoughts: from abuse to care and understanding

The capacity of the infant to bear affect relies on the capacity of the caregiver until it has achieved enough strength to perform this task itself. In the case of neglect the necessary strength to contain, metabolize and think about affect so that it may be converted into differentiated feelings cannot develop because of the absence of a caregiver capable of sustaining the infant in its emotional development. Instead a system of defence against affect arises in which the affect itself is perceived as intrusive and abusive. Because of neglect a confusion between abuse and affect is to be observed, with catastrophic consequences for the growing up child. Furthermore neglected children can be seduced by external abuse in the hope of being protected from affect that threatens to feel abusive from within. Paradoxically these children are drawn toward abusive situations in the hope of finding some ongoing shelter from unmanageable affect. A corollary of this is that actual containment comes to feel abusive to them: if they are made to feel affect, they perceive the other, who put them in touch with affect, as abusive: thus affect, abuse and containment are confused. Clinical material will support this thesis.     

J.L. Moreno: An Unrecognized Pioneer of Family Therapy

J.L. Moreno's fundamental and pioneering contributions to the development of group therapy, encounter, transactional analysis, and especially psychodrama are well known. However, most family therapists seem unacquainted with the fact that from his earliest writings in 1923 J.L. Moreno developed an interactional view of psychotherapy that in 1973 already resulted in formulations of a true systems orientation and very concrete ideas about marital therapy, family therapy, and network therapy. He probably is the first (1937!) therapist that actually involved a husband's lover in conjoint marital therapy. His general theoretical formulations about the pathology of interpersonal relations as well as his practical suggestions for the therapy of the interpersonal relations seem to be insufficiently known to workers and researchers in the field of family therapy.     

Incest: The four letter word. A theological approach to therapy

As those of us in the ministry reach out to counsel in the community, we sooner or later encounter the problem of incest. This article poses the question of possible clergy reluctance to treatment of the incest family. It then provides various theological issues present in incest and attempts to demonstrate the unique contribution brought to such therapy by the theological perspective.Mr. Smith is a pastoral counselor in private practice and may be addressed at 2301 Fifth Ave., Fort Worth, Texas 76110.