I was a teenage logical positivist

[purves grundy]

Posters of Rudolf Carnap on my wall, AJ Ayer's 'Language, Truth and Logic' under my pillow at night, thumping my fist on the table when anyone mentioned metaphysics...

Luckily I made it through and can now look back and laugh.

 

[revol68]

I've never understood analytical philosophy, its all form no content, like trying to understand a novel through studying the rules of grammar.

 

[purves grundy]

And that's precisely the point - once you put in the content, you're positing nonsensical entities. Somewhat dreary eh. It's philosophy without the philosophising; the Vienna Circle were so enamoured of science and the new physics of Einstein, and they wanted philosophy to be its handmaiden.

I can't remember even starting this thread yesterday, was a bit off my tits :/

 

[TruXta]

Oh it's not so bad, there's a certain rigour to it that I find invigorating after reading some fluffy "critical" stuff. Not saying it's right, but it has its upsides.

 

[Riklet]

Logical positivism makes me a sad panda. Reading it as a teen is self harm tbh....

 

[articul8]

Logical positivism is such bollocks - later Wittgenstein knew this

 

[nino_savatte]

Alan Greenspan is a logical positivist. Nuff said.

 

[frogwoman]

i never took you for one of those

 

[purves grundy]

i never took you for one of those

Sorry to disappoint, froggie. I did grow out of it in my early 20s though, rushing into the warm embrace of Derrida and co. I was ready for a change, for something différant...

 

[phildwyer]

Ideological form of late capitalism innit.

 

[Cheesypoof]

Alan Greenspan is a logical positivist. Nuff said.

what do you mean by that? if its a reference to the financial crisis, yew got the wrong fella.

 

[temper_tantrum]

Best thread title ever?

 

[revol68]

what do you mean by that? if its a reference to the financial crisis, yew got the wrong fella.

how has he got the wrong fella in reference to the financial crisis, I'd say the head of the US federal reserve till 2006 and long term mouthpiece for neo liberalism is the right fella.

 

[phildwyer]

Greenspan was also a member of Ayn Rand's inner circle.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Could someone give me an example of a meaningful metaphysical statement?

I can think of one and only one:

Existence is.

Or perhaps the same thought better expressed:

Knowledge is.


Any more?

 

[smmudge]

Define "meaningful" ...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Define "meaningful" ...

A statement made up of words ordered in such a way as to have meaning.

Chomsky's famous sentence

Colourless green ideas sleep furiously

is meaningless.

Unlike Chomsky's sentence, I would like some words ordered in such a way as to provide a metaphysical statement that has meaning.

 

[smmudge]

There are lots of theories of meaning though, and a sentence (metaphysical or not) can be meaningful or meaningless depending on which theory you subscribe to. So...define "meaning".

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I have defined it by giving a counterexample. What is it about my definition that you don't like? How does that affect how you can answer my question?

To change Chomsky's sentence to suit my purposes better:

Ideas are green.

What does that mean? How can ideas be a particular colour? Even metaphorically, this means nothing. It adds nothing to understanding. It is arbitrary. It is no more true than 'Ideas are red.' or 'Ideas are purple.'

Are you telling me that you do not understand what I mean by meaningful? If you do understand what I mean, you ought to be able to answer my question. Or alternatively, you provide your own definition of meaningful and show how you answer the question using your definition.


It seems to me that it is incumbent on critics of analytical philosophy to show what it is lacking. What does it lack? What is it missing? What do alternative approaches add?


(And please, don't just take us backwards from my question. That seems to be a 'trick' of non-analytical philosophers - to take a challenge such as mine and spend the whole of their time attempting to pick holes in the challenge, pretending that there is such a problem with the question that they cannot answer it. If you have a problem with the definition of any of the terms in the challenge, please provide your own definition and then proceed to the answer. )

 

[revol68]

I have defined it by giving a counterexample. What is it about my definition that you don't like? How does that affect how you can answer my question?

To change Chomsky's sentence to suit my purposes better:

Ideas are green.

What does that mean? How can ideas be a particular colour? Even metaphorically, this means nothing. It adds nothing to understanding. It is arbitrary. It is no more true than 'Ideas are red.' or 'Ideas are purple.'

Are you telling me that you do not understand what I mean by meaningful? If you do understand what I mean, you ought to be able to answer my question. Or alternatively, you provide your own definition of meaningful and show how you answer the question using your definition.


It seems to me that it is incumbent on critics of analytical philosophy to show what it is lacking. What does it lack? What is it missing? What do alternative approaches add?


(And please, don't just take us backwards from my question. That seems to be a 'trick' of non-analytical philosophers - to take a challenge such as mine and spend the whole of their time attempting to pick holes in the challenge, pretending that there is such a problem with the question that they cannot answer it. If you have a problem with the definition of any of the terms in the challenge, please provide your own definition and then proceed to the answer. )

you've mistaken meaningful with empirical/truth statement.

furthermore you've not defined metaphysical.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

you've mistaken meaningful with empirical/truth statement.

furthermore you've not defined metaphysical.

I don't think I have. The only meaningful metaphysical statement I can think of also happens to be true. That's by the by.

As for the definition of metaphysical, how about you provide one and then answer the question? I don't want to backpedal from the question - I want to go forwards from it. But for the sake of doing that, I'll give you a definition if you like - a metaphysical statement is a statement whose truth cannot be tested. If you don't like my definition, give me yours and then answer the question using your definition.

 

[love detective]

a metaphysical statement is a statement whose truth cannot be tested

this is itself a meaningful metaphysical statement

 

[littlebabyjesus]

this is itself a meaningful metaphysical statement

Ok. I shall have to add to the original question, in that case - it would appear that my provisional definition of metaphysical is not adequate:

Please give an example of a meaningful metaphysical statement that is not simply a question of semantics.

At risk of slipping into recursion, I'm not sure you're right, though. You can test whether or not what I say I mean by a word actually is what I mean by it by looking at the way I use that word.

 

[revol68]

Well see I think metaphysical is a fluid thing and that one statement can be metaphysical within one context and yet not in another, that is from one perspective a statement is metaphysical in so much as it is assumed, it is an apriori foundation for that perspective, yet at another level or perspective we could challenge or descronstruct it. For example your statement knowledge is, well we could accept it based on a shared assumption of knowledge's meaning or we could deconstruct it knowledge as a catch all for various different types of means of understanding and navigating the world, indeed the that raises the issue of knowledge as a product or a process, is it reflection or active production etc

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I chose 'Knowledge is' because it strikes me that this is incontrovertibly the case - and meaningful - yet I cannot define knowledge. I - the knower - can say nothing meaningful about what it is to know. Nonetheless, I do know.

Leave it as 'existence is' if you prefer. As far as I'm concerned the two statements are equivalent.

You could also say 'experience is', but I actually want to say something a bit more general than the solipsism.

 

[revol68]

saying that, way to totally show off the utter banality of analytical philosophy, it seeks to build a system of knowledge before addressing it to the world, failing as it does to understand that knowledge is an active process that can only arise from acting in the world. It is idealism of the highest order.

 

[love detective]

At risk of slipping into recursion, I'm not sure you're right, though. You can test whether or not what I say I mean by a word actually is what I mean by it by looking at the way I use that word.

you asked for a meaningful metaphysical statement, as you could only think of one, you also defined what you meant by meaningful and metaphysical

I gave you a statement which met that criteria, ironically a statement uttered by yourself in the course of setting the question

If you disagree, show me what empirical observation could be made that could falsify the statement:-

a metaphysical statement is a statement whose truth cannot be tested

 

[littlebabyjesus]

saying that, way to totally show off the utter banality of analytical philosophy, it seeks to build a system of knowledge before addressing it to the world, failing as it does to understand that knowledge is an active process that can only arise from acting in the world. It is idealism of the highest order.

Ok, this is a good criticism. Particularly your last sentence. I shall try to address it.


In a sense you are completely right that it is idealism of the highest order as it specifically excludes one particular question from study - taking it as inaccessible to study, in fact. This is my position, pretty much: The fact of existence is not something we can say anything meaningful about - it is simply something we have to accept. But it is the only thing we cannot say anything meaningful about. It is the nature of all complete systems that they cannot completely prove themselves from reference only to themselves. If you want to call that idealism, you are not entirely unjustified. Nonetheless, I think it is provably true.

As for 'knowledge can only arise from acting in the world'. Yes, but I think this is a circular statement. Knowledge and the world coexist. There cannot be one without the other. This is why I said that I consider 'existence is' and 'knowledge is' to be effectively equivalent statements.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you disagree, show me what empirical observation could be made that could falsify the statement:-

a metaphysical statement is a statement whose truth cannot be tested

You could look at the statement I gave. If you think it is in fact a statement whose truth can be tested - and furthermore, if you think I realise this - you may start to doubt the truth of the definition.

We're slipping into semantics, unfortunately, which is something I specifically wanted to avoid. But perhaps it was inevitable that we would. Perhaps that's the point I was trying to make.

 

[love detective]

You could look at the statement I gave. If you think it is in fact a statement whose truth can be tested - and furthermore, if you think I realise this - you may start to doubt the truth of the definition

same could be said about knowledge is

but regardless, your point doesn't address what i asked - i.e. what empirical observation could be made which would objectively falsify, not just start to doubt, it