Abstract

Mr. Gellner’s book achieved a succès de scandale before it had been out very long. Professor Ryle’s refusal to have it reviewed in Mind on the ground that it was abusive and levelled accusations of disingenuousness against identifiable teachers of philosophy provoked in the columns of The Times an impassioned exchange of letters in the course of which a great many issues were firmly knotted together beyond all reasonable possibilities of disentanglement. The Thunderer summed up in favour of Mr. Gellner and Lord Russell in what must be the first leader devoted to a philosophical topic within living memory. Such a hubbub could scarcely, in our culture, have been provoked by purely philosophical differences. It has in fact been a party fight in which much more than philosophical differences have been at stake. The position of Oxford in relation to the provincial universities and the University of London; the connexion of philosophers with the cultural ‘establishment’; the obscure mechanisms by which reputations among professional philosophers are made and marred and advancement secured or frustrated; all these and other issues have been caught up into the controversy. All these issues are in fact raised by Mr. Gellner in his book, and legitimately enough from his point of view—he is a philosopher who is now professionally concerned with sociology—; but the nature of his book, as a critical account of certain philosophical doctrines and simultaneously a treatment of these doctrines as ‘ideology’, that is, as in some sense doctrines the rationale of which can only be understood in terms of obscure social motivations, presents the philosophical reviewer with some difficulties. Any such reviewer is bound to rise up from a reading of Words and Things with strong feelings of sympathy for Professor Ryle, even if he takes the view that the refusal to arrange for a review in Mind was, so to speak, strategically wrong and tactically absurd.