Saying that Logical Positivism, despite being demonstrably false, is "true in spirit" and that it's "attitude is right", is just another way saying "I know it isn't true by any sound rational standard but I'll nevertheless go on pretending that it is, since the judgments and beliefs in which the affirmation of it's truth typically issue happen to suit my antecedent prejudices". It's a blatant concession of intellectual dishonesty. Logical Positivism was an unmitigated disaster for philosophy!
Ayer spells out what he means by, "the attitude is right" by reference to the 'cash value' of statements, which went entirely over your head.
You're simply wrong in your very cheap assessment.
As for, 'intellectual dishonesty',
you show no appreciation that Ayer says, with great humor and joviality, that logical positivism was basically all wrong and spells out the reasons for it!!! On yeah, so dishonest
@set2light Your snide comment does not militate much against the truth of my assessment of Ayer's remarks here, nor does any slippery talk of the "cash value of statements" serve remotely to rehabilitate the philosophical detritus of the defunct dogma of Logical Positivism. Apart from a general predilection for anti-metaphysics, there is no good reason to believe that a theoretical account of meaning which ends in self-refutation and paradox should have any real value, heuristic or otherwise.
@set2light That I express disagreement with and criticism of Ayer's comments, is sufficient to suggest to you that I am a "sick puppy", in need of "therapy"? Perhaps; though you would do well to bear in mind that a tendency to pathologize dissent is one of the defining characteristics of the "narcissistic personality", and thus ironically evidence of your own need of "therapy".
So it looks as if the smart-ass internet douchebag pseudo-intellectual is hoist with his own petard!
@djs259 "Logical Positivism was an unmitigated disaster for philosophy!"
Absolutely not. The movement's work is one of the relatively few instances where practical applications have come out of philosophy. Namely great advances in the scientific method. It's important to keep in mind that it was not falsified by a radically different alternative that simply was demonstrably better, but by internal inconsistency.
@djs259 You are jumping to the conclusion that this means that Logical Positivism as a movement was a disaster, but there is an alternative possibility, namely that the reason Logical Positivism failed is because of inherent contradictions in the way humans view reality. If that is the case, the main flaw of the positivists would be that their goals were too ambitious.
Either way, LP was a great success in many respects and certainly exposed a lot of nonsense before being abandoned.
@djs259 Compared to many other movements in philosophy, which are also discarded, but never really impacted or clarified human thinking at all, you seem overly negative in this case.
In fact, Dawkins is exemplary of the kind of scientistic hybris which has yet to understand the impact of analytical philosophy regarding its own naively materialistic metaphysics.
very true! and not to forget the problems with his hypocritical humanistic faith in secular redemption for the modern world. his 'new atheist' standards are not based upon the 'reason' of universally true science, but upon the reasoning of his belief in post-christian enlightenment values. Dawkins is a homeless christian. he still has a long way to go before he can tackle things outside of his own biological field.
@achgeewells Oh, you know, "be good", "give to the clerics", "be humble", "kill the infidels", "pray all the time to appease God for all the sins you haven't committed", etc., slogans like these. Christians, although having no aptitude for logical thinking, intuitively feel that logic has recently become something of high esteem, accordingly they think that salvation of their childish "philosophy" lies in connecting these two or at least claiming they're not mutually incompatible...
@vivvpprof Goofy boy, we built the greatest universities in the world, uh uh Harvard??? Cambridge, Princeton, Oxford, etc. Scholasticism is quite logical. Atheists just do not have an aptitude for any faith
In fact, the proposition "christianity and philosophy are compatible" IS verifiable by logic. You describe what you mean by christianity and philosophy, and then you check whether the sentence is self-contradictory or a tautology.
To show this point: when you say 'apples and oranges are the same', you could translate that into "something that looks like an apple and something that doesn't look like an apple are the same", which is clearly self-contradictory. So it is a matter of "math" or logic
Philosophy and religion are different, even if they often draw the same conclusions. Every religion accepts a body and soul dichotomy, yet no religion has ever attempted to answer the how or the why. Science can answer the how (or and philosophy can answer the why, so unless you are interested in asking the reasons, we have no base to debate on.
You have confused existence with context. The simple fact that I exist does not necessarily make me contextual. Existentialists do not believe "meaning" comes from the surrounding. In fact, "authenticity", which is a big part of existentialism, means an integrity to oneself, or self-making. The world may be indifferent, but you, as a being, is not, and therefore the meaning is in you. BUT it does not entail "individual creation of meaning" of the world. The meaning is in you, not out of you.
Yes, existentialists do believe in the "I exist" part before the "I think," but the question you asked is "how do we define ourselves?" and you claimed that existentialists are fallacious because they failed to answer the question, which is false. In fact, they are among the first ones to attempt to analyze the universal meaning of "I", the "Being." Their means and ends are both reasoned out objectively, so unless you disagree with their reasoning, you can't claim their conclusion is false
If you must phrase it into "what determines the 'meaning'?" it's you, the Being, your presence in that being, that determines the meaning of who you are. The "context" is you, and this you as a being is comprised of your actions, emotions, etc. The goal of Existentialists is to know the "how," so unless you disagree with their way of defining the "context" and the how.. by asking "how do we determine the context" you are just repeating the same question, of course being "fallacious logically."
You have indeed been graciously saved, having received one thumb down in such a long span of time. You made several errors that deserve to be graciously pointed out:
1. The practice of philosophy itself does not require the support of science and math. Please rewatch part 3
2. Wittgenstein can be thought of as taking an existential stance, but existentialists do not say "surroundings determine meaning" or "context determines meaning." In fact, they believe in the opposite.
There is no determining of context. Context is the given. Mathematics itself is taken as a given for science to procede, despite Godel's Incompleteness Theorum.
I didn't know he left so many of his views behind. I re-read his book the other day, and although I disagree with a lot of what he says, I hope I've been effected by the clarity in which he wrote it. It really is a great piece of work.
I love Ayer's passion for his subject. He's brilliant to listen to.
Anglican08 5 months ago 7
I just love how he almost celebrates the fact that he was completely wrong. Truly inspiring! Politicians could learn from this guy.
Charlemagne193 6 months ago 2
Saying that Logical Positivism, despite being demonstrably false, is "true in spirit" and that it's "attitude is right", is just another way saying "I know it isn't true by any sound rational standard but I'll nevertheless go on pretending that it is, since the judgments and beliefs in which the affirmation of it's truth typically issue happen to suit my antecedent prejudices". It's a blatant concession of intellectual dishonesty. Logical Positivism was an unmitigated disaster for philosophy!
djs259 7 months ago
@djs259
No not quite
Ayer spells out what he means by, "the attitude is right" by reference to the 'cash value' of statements, which went entirely over your head.
You're simply wrong in your very cheap assessment.
As for, 'intellectual dishonesty',
you show no appreciation that Ayer says, with great humor and joviality, that logical positivism was basically all wrong and spells out the reasons for it!!! On yeah, so dishonest
You are one sick puppy in need of therapy
set2light 6 months ago
Comment removed
djs259 6 months ago
Comment removed
djs259 6 months ago
@set2light Your snide comment does not militate much against the truth of my assessment of Ayer's remarks here, nor does any slippery talk of the "cash value of statements" serve remotely to rehabilitate the philosophical detritus of the defunct dogma of Logical Positivism. Apart from a general predilection for anti-metaphysics, there is no good reason to believe that a theoretical account of meaning which ends in self-refutation and paradox should have any real value, heuristic or otherwise.
djs259 6 months ago
@set2light That I express disagreement with and criticism of Ayer's comments, is sufficient to suggest to you that I am a "sick puppy", in need of "therapy"? Perhaps; though you would do well to bear in mind that a tendency to pathologize dissent is one of the defining characteristics of the "narcissistic personality", and thus ironically evidence of your own need of "therapy".
So it looks as if the smart-ass internet douchebag pseudo-intellectual is hoist with his own petard!
Tu quoque!
djs259 6 months ago
@djs259 "Logical Positivism was an unmitigated disaster for philosophy!"
Absolutely not. The movement's work is one of the relatively few instances where practical applications have come out of philosophy. Namely great advances in the scientific method. It's important to keep in mind that it was not falsified by a radically different alternative that simply was demonstrably better, but by internal inconsistency.
Gnomefro 2 weeks ago
@djs259 You are jumping to the conclusion that this means that Logical Positivism as a movement was a disaster, but there is an alternative possibility, namely that the reason Logical Positivism failed is because of inherent contradictions in the way humans view reality. If that is the case, the main flaw of the positivists would be that their goals were too ambitious.
Either way, LP was a great success in many respects and certainly exposed a lot of nonsense before being abandoned.
Gnomefro 2 weeks ago
@djs259 Compared to many other movements in philosophy, which are also discarded, but never really impacted or clarified human thinking at all, you seem overly negative in this case.
Gnomefro 2 weeks ago
I love how excited Ayer gets!
Gevzh 11 months ago 5
"Well I suppose the most important defect was that all of it was false!" Lol!
StAndAl0neCompl3x 11 months ago 4
I'm digging this Ayer book
anxiousmodernman 11 months ago
He's smoking!! Cool!!!
tairanotomomori 1 year ago
LOL at 6:40
BenLS1975 1 year ago
logical positivism is now part of mathematics...
it is become a fossil in philosophy departments ..
cirosuperiore 1 year ago
Certainly--- yes.
-
THe fella's naked.
-
Hit's on him in the end??
ReduxRex 1 year ago
Dawkins of his day! (in fact it was Dawkins himself who linked me to this 'brilliant' man).Go to his site... dawkins.net
KOOKY1PANDORA 1 year ago
@KOOKY1PANDORA Dawkins is a pre-analytical idiot.
In fact, Dawkins is exemplary of the kind of scientistic hybris which has yet to understand the impact of analytical philosophy regarding its own naively materialistic metaphysics.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna
very true! and not to forget the problems with his hypocritical humanistic faith in secular redemption for the modern world. his 'new atheist' standards are not based upon the 'reason' of universally true science, but upon the reasoning of his belief in post-christian enlightenment values. Dawkins is a homeless christian. he still has a long way to go before he can tackle things outside of his own biological field.
Judas130 1 year ago
Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to watch this.
AndreaZ64 1 year ago
Wikipedia editors would do well to watch this...
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
Thanks for posting this!
rockslavesoft 1 year ago
Ayer at 6:34, very funny! Thank you flame0430 for posting all of these.
elbulibasa85 2 years ago 5
Many thanks for the upload.....this and all the others Flame0430.
Ayer is magnificent and Magee does an excellent job.
flozinha 2 years ago 3
barmp!
justinosmond 2 years ago
What exactly do you mean by Christianity?
achgeewells 2 years ago 9
@achgeewells Oh, you know, "be good", "give to the clerics", "be humble", "kill the infidels", "pray all the time to appease God for all the sins you haven't committed", etc., slogans like these. Christians, although having no aptitude for logical thinking, intuitively feel that logic has recently become something of high esteem, accordingly they think that salvation of their childish "philosophy" lies in connecting these two or at least claiming they're not mutually incompatible...
vivvpprof 1 year ago
@vivvpprof Goofy boy, we built the greatest universities in the world, uh uh Harvard??? Cambridge, Princeton, Oxford, etc. Scholasticism is quite logical. Atheists just do not have an aptitude for any faith
MrJonneypro 1 year ago
In fact, the proposition "christianity and philosophy are compatible" IS verifiable by logic. You describe what you mean by christianity and philosophy, and then you check whether the sentence is self-contradictory or a tautology.
To show this point: when you say 'apples and oranges are the same', you could translate that into "something that looks like an apple and something that doesn't look like an apple are the same", which is clearly self-contradictory. So it is a matter of "math" or logic
QuagMireFG 2 years ago
Dear Savedbygrace,
Philosophy and religion are different, even if they often draw the same conclusions. Every religion accepts a body and soul dichotomy, yet no religion has ever attempted to answer the how or the why. Science can answer the how (or and philosophy can answer the why, so unless you are interested in asking the reasons, we have no base to debate on.
aintyourlilac 2 years ago
You have confused existence with context. The simple fact that I exist does not necessarily make me contextual. Existentialists do not believe "meaning" comes from the surrounding. In fact, "authenticity", which is a big part of existentialism, means an integrity to oneself, or self-making. The world may be indifferent, but you, as a being, is not, and therefore the meaning is in you. BUT it does not entail "individual creation of meaning" of the world. The meaning is in you, not out of you.
aintyourlilac 2 years ago 2
Yes, existentialists do believe in the "I exist" part before the "I think," but the question you asked is "how do we define ourselves?" and you claimed that existentialists are fallacious because they failed to answer the question, which is false. In fact, they are among the first ones to attempt to analyze the universal meaning of "I", the "Being." Their means and ends are both reasoned out objectively, so unless you disagree with their reasoning, you can't claim their conclusion is false
aintyourlilac 2 years ago
If you must phrase it into "what determines the 'meaning'?" it's you, the Being, your presence in that being, that determines the meaning of who you are. The "context" is you, and this you as a being is comprised of your actions, emotions, etc. The goal of Existentialists is to know the "how," so unless you disagree with their way of defining the "context" and the how.. by asking "how do we determine the context" you are just repeating the same question, of course being "fallacious logically."
aintyourlilac 2 years ago
Dear savedbygrace,
You have indeed been graciously saved, having received one thumb down in such a long span of time. You made several errors that deserve to be graciously pointed out:
1. The practice of philosophy itself does not require the support of science and math. Please rewatch part 3
2. Wittgenstein can be thought of as taking an existential stance, but existentialists do not say "surroundings determine meaning" or "context determines meaning." In fact, they believe in the opposite.
aintyourlilac 2 years ago 3
There is no determining of context. Context is the given. Mathematics itself is taken as a given for science to procede, despite Godel's Incompleteness Theorum.
Tractatus88 2 years ago
Ayers is a cool fellow. He seems perfectly approachable.
snowtrot 3 years ago
he smokes, ofcourse he's cool.
GeorgesBarras 3 years ago
A.J. AYER and MIKE TYSON
(i can't post a link but google it)
Ayer is a great analytic philosopher, but, almost more importantly, a perfect gentleman
theinternetscholar 3 years ago 7
ahahah a perfect gentleman ? are you mad ? Read his autobiographies.
mattbelshaw 3 years ago
I don't care for Logical Positivism, but that was very enjoyable. Ayer was cool.
Zadokor 3 years ago 6
Then you don't care much for the history of philosophy in the 20th century.
Guaguanco11 3 years ago
Of course I do. What a silly thing to say. I'm just more interested in other movements. You need to get out of the circle sometime...
Zadokor 3 years ago
When you said you don't care for LP I took you to be saying your not interested in understanding/learning about LP. Did you mean something else?
Guaguanco11 3 years ago 2
I find it interesting that he admits that none of the specific ideas hold weight, yet it "was true in spirit". Sounds fishy to me.
rootberg 4 years ago
Karl Popper said the same thing. In his autobiography, just after saying that he killed Logical Positivism, he said that he admired its attitude.
efctony 3 years ago 16
(Nelson) Goodman also said a very similar thing in an interview, that he 'rejected the theses of logical positivism, but never it's spirit'.
paulsmyname 3 years ago 4
Nice. I didn't know about that, thanks!
rootberg 3 years ago 2
Ha! 06:38
I didn't know he left so many of his views behind. I re-read his book the other day, and although I disagree with a lot of what he says, I hope I've been effected by the clarity in which he wrote it. It really is a great piece of work.
Huesos138 4 years ago 2
He was a very good writer indeed. He knew how to get to the point which is not exactly the rule in philosophy.
Formica45 3 years ago