Footnote Km74

Km74. I agree with Russell's observation about a critic's motive in reading a particular philosopher, and I cannot say my motive in reading Ryle was altogether pure in the Russellian sense. It may be that I have not fully understood or appreciated Ryle. Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion that an examination of his case shows that he has not come near to solving the mind/body problem by trying to cast out the "concept of mind" from human affairs as non-logical and unnecessary, or, as he puts it, as a "category mistake."

Everyone knows that to read an author simply in order to refute him is not the way to understand him; and to read the book of Nature with a conviction that it is all illusion is just as unlikely to lead to understanding. If our logic is to find the common world intelligible, it must not be hostile, but must be inspired by a genuine acceptance such as is not usually to be found among metaphysicians.

Bertrand Russell,
"Mysticism and Logic" essay in
Mysticism and Logic (Longmans, Green 1918)

---