A long-standing assumption in philosophy is that there is a need for metaphysics. — frank
The attitude of Vienna Circle towards metaphysics is well expressed by Carnap in the article 'The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language'. A language, says Carnap, consists of a vocabulary, i.e., a set of meaningful words, and a syntax, i.e., a set of rules governing the formation of sentences from the words of the vocabulary. Pseudo-statements, i.e., sequences of words that at first sight resemble statements but in reality have no meaning, are formed in two ways: either meaningless words occur in them, or they are formed in an invalid syntactical way. According to Carnap, pseudo-statements of both kinds occur in metaphysics.'
...
According to Carnap, although metaphysics has no theoretical content, it does have content: metaphysical pseudo-statements express the attitude of a person towards life, and this is the role of metaphysics. He compares it to an art like lyrical poetry; the metaphysician works with the medium of the theoretical; he confuses art with science, attitude towards life with knowledge, and thus produces an unsatisfactory and inadequate work. "Metaphysicians are musicians without musical ability". — Wikipedia
Ayer achieved great success with his first book Language, Truth and Logic (1936). Written with verve and enthusiasm, it gave a clear statement of Logical Positivism. This doctrine maintained that there are only two ways in which one can make meaningful statements: first by making statements which can be verified by observation; second, by making ones which are true in virtue of the rules of language. Anything else is meaningless. In particular, the idea that philosophy is a search for first principles was “a superstition from which we are freed by the abandonment of metaphysics.”
think that both metaphysics and epistemology are impossible to avoid if one is doing philosophy. — Terrapin Station
These questions are not posed to elicit an answer, as they're unanswerable — Wayfarer
Expressing the matter as a need is metaphysical in so far as the question recognizes that there are agents and they want to understand what the hell is going on. — Valentinus
Why never has a reasonable answer. — whollyrolling
You're saying that ontological statements aren't truth-apt? Is that right? — frank
No, I'm saying that they can't be answered - well, they can't be answered unequivocally. They're in some sense beyond adjudication, you can't appeal an ultimate authority to judge the different responses. So they really are metaphysical questions. (I believe there are more and less appropriate metaphysical views, but by their nature, they are not subject to ordinary validation.) — Wayfarer
We cannot achieve any such knowledge via empirical inquiry or pure reason. — Janus
The final outcome of empiricism is some possible understanding of things — whollyrolling
Metaphysics tries to understand the physical by applying the idiotic to it. The final outcome of empiricism is some possible understanding of things, metaphysics is as futile as anarchism. — whollyrolling
Actually, you are wrong. The final outcome of empiricism is absolute doubt or solipsism. — Merkwurdichliebe
We cannot achieve any such knowledge via empirical inquiry or pure reason. — Janus
The point is that my experience or intuition is only a good reason (if it is a good reason) for my own metaphysical attitude or disposition, and convincing others would be more a matter of rhetoric than of rigorous argument. — Janus
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.