{"id":10456,"date":"2011-08-10T12:53:27","date_gmt":"2011-08-10T12:53:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2011\/08\/10\/a-prime-example-of-philosophical-cockiness\/"},"modified":"2011-08-10T12:53:27","modified_gmt":"2011-08-10T12:53:27","slug":"a-prime-example-of-philosophical-cockiness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2011\/08\/10\/a-prime-example-of-philosophical-cockiness\/","title":{"rendered":"A Prime Example of Philosophical Cockiness"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Gilbert Ryle once predicted with absurd confidence, &quot;<em>Gegenstandstheorie<\/em> . . . is dead, buried, and not going to be resurrected.&quot; (Quoted in G. Priest, <em>Towards Non-Being<\/em>, Oxford, 2005, p. vi, n. 1.) Ryle was wrong, <em>dead<\/em> wrong, and shown to be wrong just a few years after his cocky prediction. Variations on Meinong&#39;s Theory of Objects flourish like never before due to the efforts of such brilliant philosophers as Butchvarov, Castaneda, Lambert, Parsons, Priest, Routley\/Sylvan, and Zalta, just to mention those that come first to mind. And the Rylean cockiness has had an ironic upshot: his logical behaviorism is&#0160; dead while Meinongianism thrives. But Ryle too will be raised if my&#0160;converse-Gilsonian &#0160;law of philosophical experience holds.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Etienne Gilson said, famously, &quot;Philosophy always buries its undertakers.&quot; I say, rather less famously, &#0160;&quot;Philosophy always resurrects its dead.&quot;<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gilbert Ryle once predicted with absurd confidence, &quot;Gegenstandstheorie . . . is dead, buried, and not going to be resurrected.&quot; (Quoted in G. Priest, Towards Non-Being, Oxford, 2005, p. vi, n. 1.) Ryle was wrong, dead wrong, and shown to be wrong just a few years after his cocky prediction. Variations on Meinong&#39;s Theory of &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2011\/08\/10\/a-prime-example-of-philosophical-cockiness\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;A Prime Example of Philosophical Cockiness&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10456","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-metaphilosophy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10456","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10456"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10456\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}