Many thanks for such a masterly reply to my question which guided me towards remembering what I first read back in the early 1970s when I started to read philosophy at the new British Open University and found that wonderful arrogant piece from Ayer’s Language Truth and Logic that, “metaphysical statements such as “God exists” are unverifiable and meaningless.”Please accept the comment that answers your question.
seconds ago — Brian Leahy
Many thanks for such a masterly reply to my question which guided me towards remembering what I first read back in the early 1970s when I started to read philosophy at the new British Open University and found that wonderful arrogant piece from Ayer’s Language Truth and Logic that, “metaphysical statements such as “God exists” are unverifiable and meaningless.”
God is not the important factor for me but his dismissal of metaphysical most certainly was. — Brian Leahy
Many thanks for such a masterly reply to my question which guided me towards remembering what I first read back in the early 1970s when I started to read philosophy at the new British Open University and found that wonderful arrogant piece from Ayer’s Language Truth and Logic that, “metaphysical statements such as “God exists” are unverifiable and meaningless.” — Brian Leahy
Perhaps wrongly I infer criticism of RGC's ideas or at least some of them. If you have any criticism, please share - I'm not smart enough to figure out any on my own, and having read a small bunch of his books, would appreciate correction where needed. The author of the article you referenced seems to have thought highly of RGC.Anyone who entertains nostalgia for Collingwood...(I don't) — BirdInitials
RGC called Ayer a fool for his logical positivism. (And imo made his case.) — tim wood
I'm not now convinced by any of this. While the context in which a proposition occurs may be useful in understanding its meaning, and perhaps the reasons for its being stated, its truth will be independent of this context. The laws of motion formulated by Isaac Newton were accepted as science because they fit the facts, quite independently of the story about the apple in his orchard. Or indeed anything else about Newton's life or the society he lived in
Hi. The first quote is quickly found, but I cannot find the second. Can you pin it down? The first is of course in the chapter titled, "On Presupposing." And the chapter is about, not propositions, but suppositions, relative and absolute; and the point he makes about them is that, "The logical efficacy of a supposition does not depend upon the truth of what is supposed, or even on its being thought true, but only on its being supposed," (28). And so on. Suppositions, then, not propositions.In the Essay, he says "Every statement that anybody ever makes is made in answer to a question"; and also "If the meaning of a proposition is relative to the question it answers, its truth must be relative to the same thing".
I'm not now convinced by any of this. — BirdInitials
Alas! This pretty much indicates you're not acquainted with RGC's arguments, how they work, what they're for or about.I'm not convinced either by the principle of the logic of question-and-answer, — BirdInitials
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.