From Ayer's point of view, philosophy should simply concern itself with analyzing the meanings of words, which my group agreed was a narrow conception of philosophy upon discussion. What are empirical facts? Well by definition they are facts that can be determined by experience or experiment, in principle. Whether it be past, present, or future experience. Ayer argues that the only meaningful statements there can be are those about empirical facts, and statements about morality cannot be translated into empirical facts. In an example such as cheating, Ayer would disagree that “Cheating on your spouse is wrong” MEANS “Cheating on your spouse will hurt others”. His reason is that he thinks it is obvious that it is not a self-contradiction to say, “Cheating on your spouse will hurt others but is not wrong,” arguing that statements about morality are not absolute, because people disagree about morality. He basically concludes that statements about morality are just expressions of emotions. Ayer is a skeptic about morality, claiming that it holds no truths.
An awesome quote I stumbled upon whilst browsing the net for some Ayer info goes as followed:
"But I can express boredom without actually saying that I am bored. I can express it by my tone and gestures, while making a statement about something wholly unconnected with it, or by an ejaculation, or without uttering any words at all."
This sums up his point of view pretty well. And make sure you gain some familiarity with Ayer's near-death-experience. After finally being exposed to an experience that is definitely not clearly definable, Ayer's narrow-minded views shifted, (to an extent) gaining understanding for undistinguishable things. Although this experience still didn't convince him that a God-figure had to exist in our lives, it certainly opened Ayer's mind to new possibilities. Don't be surprised if his experience becomes a future test question!
I think that Ayer could be right to question morality and to be a sceptic of it. Morality is something that can be different to everyone. What one person sees as morally wrong another could see no problem with. Essentially, there could be no universal truths found through the study of morality. A universal truth cannot come from something that is perceived differently by everyone.
ReplyDeleteFQ: Which Philosopher relied heavily on the Oedipus complex to explain his findings?
Freud
DQ: Is Freud's "dream world" argument truly in-falsifiable?
I am not a big fan if Ayer just for the fact that he wanted you to prove statements were true ,even if in this day and age you know their correct and need no proof
ReplyDeleteFrom researching about Ayer, I think he went too far in applying "logic" to the extent that he wanted to see the religious language verified, I thought he is atheist in the sense that he believed that there is no God. To me applying his logic to the say "There is no God" can not be verified as well.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice to be able to seperate nonsense from factual information. Science is one of the greatest human achievements we have in this day in age and will remain that way for years to come, i Support his thoughts of having logical reasoning. But his views on god i cant say i agree with. Science is one of the greatest attributes of living howeverit cant explain the existence of god and we cant expect it to. This is where i'd throw in his face that his own theory couldnt pass itself own self. What are we even talking about here?
ReplyDelete