ABSTRACT
Suppose it was Ryle’s position, in The Concept o f Mind, that mental epithets are distinguished from material epithets by their dispositional character. If asked whether there are material predicates and mental predicates Ryle would, strictly speaking, reply that there were not both. He would say so because he believes that, in the last analysis, certain paradoxes o f selves and others would otherwise result. Apparently the only way to close successfully the epistemological gap between selves and others, to avoid the paradoxes o f such a dualism, is to limit the involved terms to one or other side o f the gap - in Ryle’s case the ‘ others’ ’ side.
