Abstract

In this article, we point out the problem on Stanley and Williamson’s reconstruction of Ryle’s regress argument to refute their critique toward Ryle’s argument. We identify the object of Ryle’s criticism through analysing some intellectualisms which try to solve the regress argument. To reconcile the contradiction of intellectualism and anti-intellectualism, we propose a moderate version of intellectualism – Intellectual Explanation Thesis – which does not lead to infinite regress while maintains the necessary connection between knowledge-how and knowledge-that. This alternative thesis introduces a criterion for judging whether an action is intellectual or not, therefore offers a new perspective on the complex relationship between intellectual action and knowledge.