Class Notes (839,315)
Canada (511,260)
Philosophy (95)
PHIL 4120 (9)
Lecture

A.J Ayer

3 Pages
61 Views

Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHIL 4120
Professor
Duncan Macintosh

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full 3 pages of the document.
Description
Monday, March 7, 2011 A.J Ayer – Logical Positivism Hume – knowledge was twofold: introspection and observation. Logical positivist – we can only know by observation. [Ex. Teaching a child a term (cow). Show the child a cow by exposing it to a cow. Child associates ‘cow’ with a cow.] Terms like electron? Logical positivist – total set of the descriptions of the observable world that can be confirmed in laboratories, etc. Know the consequences of it being true that electrons exist, you know electrons exist. If you know how the world would look for the sentence to be true, then you understand the meaning Can logical positivists make sense of the past? Statements true by definition – Duncan is a bachelor – it follows that Duncan is unmarried and a male Teaching someone a term in terms of other terms you can point at. Possible experience that the statement can verify if the statement was true 1. Truth/falsity can be told in a brief moment of experience (ex. Sense-data). Inspecting your own observations 2. Terms of lists of observation sentences (ex. Electron – add up multiple observations). Theoretical sentences – Empirical meaning 3. Logically determinant (ex. Bachelor) – Which statements fall into these categories? Natural sciences, formal sciences do nothing more than work out logical consequences of each other Where do philosophical statements lie? Ex. God exists. LP – Define God? Not an observation term, doesn’t stand for a set of such statements. Can’t define with experiments you can perform. Statement God exists isn’t true or false – meaningless. Ex. Picasso’s paintings are beautiful. No test or observation to find out if something is objectively beautiful – unverifiable, therefore it has no meaning Ex. It’s work to kill – no empirical property that says it’s wrong to kill. 3 areas of logical discourse LP don’t like: religion, aesthetics, ethics. No concrete evidence of the truth/falsity of sentences Statements in metaphysics, ontology, epistemology Problems are grammatical in nature – idealism vs. realism? Experiencing a preference for a certain vocabulary More to an object than the sum of its properties • Ex. Duncan – male, 6’1, brown hair • Substances (universals) • Universals only • What’s the difference? Nothing would be different. Pseudo-problem. Different way of talking about the same thing Universals? I.e. Redness – no empirical consequences. Either way – still going to be red things. Just a category choice over which language to choose Euclidian geometry Riemannian geometry LP – formal sciences can derive truth/falsity of statements without observation? LP – All philosophical problems will collapse or turn into empirical arguments LP – Operationalize what moral terms meant. Moral statements become empirical, reduce moral statements to factual statements. LP persuaded by the Open Questi
More Less
Unlock Document

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit