Modern School of Philosophy
Introduction of Analytical Philosophy
Problems of philosophy have had an aura of puzzlement throughout the ages. These problems have been manifested in solutions. There is so many question like what is real? Or what is truth?
Or what is value, etc.? A number of answers have been given in each case and answering the
these questions we have had not only different but opposing theories like realism, idealism conceptualism and so on.
Regarding the number of reality we have monism, Dualism, and pluralism. Answering to these questions appear to be correct and true but also each appears to be in fallible. This aspect of philosophical questions are distinguished from scientific question.
1.2 Historical revolution of analytical philosophy
Towards the end of 19th century the global mind found itself at a cross road. On the one hand there was absolute stick metaphysics of Hegel and Bradly that was reigning supreme in the speculating sphere and on the other hand there was the undeniable efficacy of science and common
sense in the interest of which a review of philosophy was inevitable. KANT in modern era had demonstrated the impossibility of metaphysical knowledge beyond the limits of possible experience Comte before him and Buddha much before him had scorned metaphysical knowledge as unfruitful.
But 20th Century critics are systematic exposure that metaphysical questions aren’t only factually improbable and practically unfruitful but are logically unwarranted. By and large they demonstrated that metaphysical problems had their origin in the misuse or misunderstanding of the logic of our language. The 20thcentury has been described as the Age of Annalistic in respect of philosophical inquiry.
Bertrand Russel and G.E. Moore who 1st exposed the absurdity of philosophical pronouncement and systematic, consistent demonstration of the erroneous linguistic origin philosophical problems aren’t unreasonably considered as the founders of what is Analytic philosophy.
G.E. Moores first ever attack on speculative metaphysics came from the philosophy that flies in the face of commonsense and exposed the erroneous origin of philosophical problems
was outlined in his famous statement “In all Philosophical studies, the difficulties and
disagreements, of which its history is full, are mainly due to a very simple cause: namely to the
attempt answer questions without first discovering precisely what question it is which you desire to answer.
The above statement clarified the meaning of the crucial concept involved in philosophical
questions and theories, which had been left unexplained as a result of which philosophical theories
were produced that went against commonsense and ordinary beliefs. Where asRusselsexposér
of philosophical problems as erroneously originated was more logical and analytical and consisted
in demonstrating specific confusions in the use of language that led to speculative problems in philosophy.
He also attributed many of the prominent metaphysical theories to the confusion between
the grammatical form an logical form of our sentences or confusion between logical form and
real logical form of our daily use sentences. Russel’s theory of description in which he described
confusion leading to metaphysical problems like the problem of unreality and the platonic problem of Being and substance.
Russell and Moore belong the credit of demonstrating that metaphysical in general is due
to the misuse and misunderstanding of logic of our language and the tradition that logical analysis
of language holds for understanding of philosophical problems.
The antimetaphysical temper initiated by Moore and Russell reached a climax at Vienna
circle which is known as logical positivist. The scientific minded philosophers worked with dual objective.
• One is eliminating metaphysics
• Second is restoring confidence in science.
All the problems of traditional philosophy arise due to commission of logical error. And they sought to dissolve these problems by logical analysis of language which consisted in analyzing meaningful statements into 2 broad categories, namely
1. Analytic
2. Empirical verifiable.
The metaphysical utterance which fell into neither categories were pronounced as non-sense.
The most important analytical philopher was Ludwig Wittgenstein.In his first major
work.Tractatuslogicopholosophicus, in which he stated that philosophical problems are pseudo
problems arising out of the misunderstanding of the logic of our language and the function of
philosophy is the logical clarification of though which consists in showing to the philosophers that
he has been trying to answer a question that doesn’t exist.
The history of Analytical philosophy is schematically, the Russellain trend of thinking has
developed through the philosophy of the early Wittgenstein and reach a sort of culmination in the therapeutic analysis of Cambridge school of philosophy. Moore’s line of thinking has developed
through the philosophy of later Wittgenstein and culminated in the ordinary philosophy of the oxford school of philosophy.
1.2.1 Metaphysical Position of Analytic Philosophies
The metaphysical stage is not as well defined as the theological, because its function was
less definite. Infact it was a transition between the theological and the Analytic, and as such
provided not far reaching beliefs nor did not it determine any social structures. The attempt in the
metaphysical stage to provide substantial substitutes for the belief supernatural cushioned the
shock of the conflict between the theological and analytical a provided an intellectual medium in
which positive philosophy gradually gained the ascendance and theological philosophy gradually declined.
The Analytic philosopher points out that they are not concerned with questions inside a
frame of reference as in traditional philosophy, but rather with questions about the frame of
reference. Many of this group of philosophers deal with this problem of the nature of the frame
of reference through an analysis of language and its meanings. A.J.Ayer of example is particularly
concerned with the meaning of sentences as opposed to individual work. He rejects metaphysic
on the metaphysics on the grounds that there is no basis in sense experiences for the statements
of metaphysicians.
They set up a criterion of verifiability to establish whether or not a statement has significance.
For them verifiability is dependent upon whether or not a statement has meaning. They conclude
they if it does, it is logically possible to make observations relevant to the probability of its truth or false hood.
Alfred julesAyer in his book “Language, truth and logic has rightly commented” we say
that a sentence is factually significant to nay given person, if, any only if, he knows who to verify
the proposition which it purports to express- that is, if he knows what observations would lead
him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as being true or reject it as being false.
If, on the other hand, the putative proposition is of such a character that the assumption of its
truth or false hood is consistent with any assumption whatsoever concerning the nature of his
future experience, then, as far as he is, if not a tautology, a mere pseudo-proposition. The
sentence expressing it may be emotionally significant to him, but it is not literally significant”.
Some of the Analytic philosophers go ever further indicating that verifiability is nothing
more than a logical lack of self contradiction. Basically, then the criteria of verifiability simply
imputes meaning to statements that can be either verified or falsified. this criterion that leads to
the denial of metaphysics.
1.2.2 Epistemological position of Analytic philosophies
The connotations of analytic epistemology vary from one philosopher to another. A significant
divergence is found in Karl Poper, who holds that in empirical matters, a judgment must be
falsifiable, but is never, in the last analysis verifiable. That is, it is always possible that something
will happen which will require abandonment of an idea found tenable until then, but it is never
possible that “the last fact is in” so that a proposition has passed beyond question. Popper also
finds other categories of judgments besides empirical one acceptable, but holds that they have a
different type of meaning.
Analytic philosophy is, a theory of knowledge. While some analysis today denies a bit
heatedly that they are positivists, the system is certainly competent in the repudiation of metaphysics. RylY deals with the question what knowing is by asking what it is to. Know a tune.
It is not, says he, being able to tell its name, nor describing it in words, now symbolizing it in
musical notation, not being able to sing it, which presupposes talent one knows the tune holds
Ryly, if he recognizes it when he hears it, Carnep says that animals that had sense-organs of a
type we lack might provide us with new knowledge. Arer says it is fruitless to try to transcend
the limits of possible sense-experience. In short, the theory of knowledge is empiricism knowledge
begins at and never transcends the sensory level. As a rule, the analysis philosophers do not
argue their empiricism. They take it for granted as part of the Zeitgeist.
1.2.3 Logic in Analytical philosophies
Considered most exclusively, the logic of analytic philosophy, as anticipated by the foregoing
discussion of its epistemology, is the logic of science. Accordingly they makes critical use of
both induction and deduction and goes beyond them to a language of mathematical and near
mathematical symbols in an attempts at precision and exactness in making meaning explicit.
The another important pattern of Logic which the Analytic philosophers agree is REASONING. They believe that all of life saturations are filled full of meanings, and meaning commonly have symbols by which they are communicated from one person to another. These
symbols also serve a single individual in a solitary way, by providing a means by which he can
effectively transfer meaning from one situation to another.
1.2.4 Ethics in Analytic philosophies
The analysists, like the positivist before them, stress that religions and logical deductions
can not under write moral or aesthetic values. This can only be done by experience. Such concepts
as beauty and goodness are urgently in need of reformulation. Values are not necessarily subjective,
but they need to be brought into the sphere of the observable. Some of the concepts upon which
moral judgment traditionally have depended, such as that of free will, are debunked as murdy.
The analysis’s holds that the study of ethics is reducible to psychology and should act; C.L.
Stevenson held that ethical terms have only emotive meanings. “Stealing is wrong” means,
“The idea of stealing fills me with horror” ethics can only state that certain action usually have
certain consequences one like these consequence or doesn’t.
1.3 Analytic Philosophy in Education
Analytic Philosophy has yet to be applied to question about education on a large scale;
Articles are beginning to appear, however characterized more by their methodology and
presupposition by consistent Pattern of conclusions.
1.3.1 Aim of Education-
As might be expected, the analysis’s deny that the goals of schooling can be reduced from
any mystical or rationalistic source. Some one captained that philosophy promises truth and
delivers only some quibbles about its definition. Similarly, the linguist concentrate on asking us
what we ‘mean’ when we talk about aims and objectives ‘ought to be’. Gotesky differentiates
mean, ends-in-view, anticipations, and outcomes. Perkinson argues that educational aims are
hypothetical rather than categorical and that they are empirically testable when a sufficient contest is supplied.
1.3.2 The Student-
The analysis’s have not had much to say yet about who is entitled to how much education
and why. They have of course, suggested a mythology for resolving this and all questions, as shuffler point out. It seems probable that this methodology will lead at last to the conclusion
suggested by Plato, and so often studiously ignored in the name of ‘democracy’ that each person
should receive the amount and kind of schooling from which he proves able to profit.
The question that should be educated would appear to be a rather simple one for Analysis’s.
One might accept him to answer that anyone who so desires should be given all the education he
wants. This response is probably correct as far as education in general is concerned, since the
broad meaning of education includes more than schooling. In other words, a person can educate
himself in many ways such as by reading, by working, and perhaps most important, by living-by
willing and acting.
How ever like existentialists some Analysis’s have been quite clear in advocating a culture
an education for the elite. Nietzsche was very outspoken in his theory of ‘equality of opportunity’
of all the children of all people. He felt that public education, which attempted to educate the
masses, was bound to fall short of the aim of true education simply because the masses were involved.
George Kneller does not object to universal education at least at lower level. But he does
point to the grave danger that compulsory public education might well engulf the individual in the
sea of complete, depersonalized anonymity. Also the ‘compulsory’ aspect of public education
seems to cause him concern since it removes completely the individual’s freedom of choice in matters.
1.3.3 Role of Teacher-
The goal of education for an analytic philosopher is making individual aware of the meaning
of homeless, of being at home, and of the ways of returning. In the strict sense the teacher is
concerned principally with open ended education. Freedom to his students from his isolation and
anonymity, freeing him seeing his situations and powers. So much so that the role of teacher
seems similar with psychiatric therapy. No educationist today is more concerned with education
in this sense than an Analysis teacher. Every analysis philosopher is a doctor and its missionary…
for the purpose of encouraging individuals of all kinds and conditions to understand their situations
and themselves. And it is the starting pint of every analysis’s that no other modern philosophy has
taken the self i.e. the student and its situation seriously enough to make the saturation the subject
matter of its inquiry.
1.4 CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY
Linguistic analysis as school of thought has been historically intertwined with logical
positivism, sophisticated system of linguistic analysis can be unfolded which is meta physically
non committal. Language analysis it has practiced almost always begs to question. To philosophise
is to discover intimate assumption, revised them and where necessary in to the interest of overall
consistency. Typical analytic philosophers has made his imperial and anti metaphysical assumptions
before the game begins, what he calls philosophing is just the application of these
assumption.Analytic philosopher can rid educational literature and rhetoric of the opaque, the
vague, the obscure, the ambiguous, they will have done a majestic service.
2.1 Positive Relativism
The doctrine of positive relativism is that some central aspect of experience, though
evaluation or reality is some how relative to something else. The standard of justification moral
principles or truth or validity are sometimes said to be relative to language, culture dress pattern,
different way of living. Although relativist though lead to very implausible conclusions, there is something seductive about them. Relativistic motifs turn up in every area of philosophy, it also
advocates the philosophy of social science which concerns the understanding and interpretation
of western culture or distant historical events and also bears on issues in the philosophy of science
about conceptual change and incommensurability. Relativistic themes play a large role in today’s
culture wars. Ethical relativism even pose threats to our standards and practices evaluation.
Truth justification or judgments are relative to the most fundamental issues about objectively
knowledge and intellectual progress.
Relativist arguments begin with truistic premises.foreg.. we are culturally and historically
situated creatures that we can’t talk without using language or think without using concepts. The
problem is exacerbated by the fact that relativistic thesis comes into 2 forms.
1. Bold and arresting version (which is proclaimed)
2. Weaker or less vulnerable version (which is defended)
First version having tendency to morph into second when it is under attack. Relativism
also sounds better in the abstract then does when we got down to actual cases, which turn out to
be rather trivial or quite implausible most famous version ofRelativism is “everything is raltive
anything goes” are sometimes inconsistentBut to conclusion that there is no interesting versions
of relativism is to err in the opposite direction.
2.2 Epistemology of Relativism
One is n’t a relativist or a descriptive or normative relativist. Both are families of different
views which holds epistemic standards, moral principles etc are related to language and culture.
Different versions of relativism result from replacing Y by different features of though,
experience, evaluation, or even reality (e.g. modes of perception, standards of rationality)
replacing X by something that is though to lead to differences in the value of Y (eg. Language,
historical period) and explaining what the phrase relative to amounts to in the case at hand. Each
choice of Y and X yields both a version of descriptive relativism and a version of normative
relativism (we turn to these below) many variations are possible, but for a relativistic thesis to
be of much interest, Y needs to be something that is important and that is often regarded as non-
relative across groups.
In the general schema Y is a dependent variable (depending on frameworks) and X is the
independent variable (that influences one or more dependent variables). When people speak of
relativism of a given sort thy sometimes focus on factors that typically function as dependent
variables (as with conceptual relativism or moral relativism) other time that focus on factors
that typically function as independent variable (cultural relativism, the linguistic relativity
hypothesis). But a complete version of r4elativism requires the specification of both (along with
an account of the relationship between them)
2.3 Types of Relativism
There are 2 types of relativism
1. Descriptive Relativism
2. Normative Relativism which is related to truth
2.3.1 Descriptive Relativism
Empiricist claims that there are many modes of thoughts feeling, standard of reasoning
which are meant to describe the principles and practices. They aren’t meant to evaluate. There is no ultimate fact to the matter as to which epistemic principles or ethical principles are correct.
It is possible to be a descriptive relativist about ethical principles but not about logical principles.
A person’s culture, language or any though influenced by any external culture language etc
doesn’t meant that they are completely determine how he/she thinks. Smoking is a casual for
long cancer because they do smoke. Similarly a culture language or any external thoughts affects
a particular facts of experience or thought allows for other influence as well. The descriptive
relativism(any form) is depending on the hypothesized strength of an independent variables influence.
According to Kant, there are certain sorts of cognitive difference between human beings
are impossible and there deference’s can never be found. Because our empirical inquiry has
certain limit and what the empirical inquiry find that to be true. The normative ethical relativism
claimed that different groups have different moral codes or ideals it also claimed that some
important aspects of human experience or though does vary among the group of human beings
nature and condition.
2.3.2 Normative Relativism
It advocate that Normative relativism evaluates the effort of modes of though and standard
of reasoning the central theme of normative relativist is “relative to” a frame work.
Normative ethical relativism claimed that ethics are true or false simplicitier but only
have truth valve relative to moral codes or conducts. many relativists argument run from premises
about ethics to the conclusion that claims in ethics have relative truth valuesrather then depending
on general claims about nature of truth .the normative relativists about morality agrees with anti-
realist about morality that there is no absolute, completely objective, independent facts about
moral truth or moral justification. The moral messages of relativists is once we relativize things
to frameworks, there are facts about morality, justification truth etc.
Normative relativist first must defend anti-realist claims to the effect that there are no
frame work independent facts about which beliefs, standards are correct. Sometimes the normative
relativist can adopt anti-realist arguments to relativist ends. What is relative (Dependent variable)
Normative relativist must defend realist claims that there are frame work relative or dependant facts about what is right justified or truth.
Taxnomy of Relativism
It is possible to make more distinctions (e.g.by distinguishing various kinds of epistemic relativism)
fewer (e.g. by lumping language and culture together) or to add additional categories (e.g.,
aesthetic relativism). It is also would be possible to have more than two modes of connection
(e.g,. more than one form of normative relativism). And of course schemes that are not variants
of these are possible. The present account aims to distinguish interestingly different views,
including those that appear most often in the literature, without endless proliferation.
A taxonomy of relativism
Y is related to X it can solve 3 things
1-Y the thing that is relative
2-X what is relative to
3-type of connection between X and Y
5 Dependent Variable
Following are dependent Variable
1. Central concept
2. Central Belief
3. Perception
4. Ethics
5. Practices
6. Truth
7. Reality
Central Concepts
Conceptual relativism is the view that different groups, e.g. those with very different
languages or cultures, may have rather different central concepts and that this can lead their
members to rather different conceptions of the world. Conceptual relativism can be quite global
but it also comes in more local versions that apply to more limited domains like ethics or science;
for example, Kuhn tells us that what characterizes scientific revolution is “change in several of
the taxonomic categories prerequisite to scientific descriptions and generalization.
Descriptive Conceptual Relativism is the empirical thesis that members of at least some different
groups, e.g., some cultures, linguistic communities or biological species, have interestingly
different sets of central concepts. For example, it is generally agreed our modern concept of
individual rights did not exist in the Ancient world.
Normative conceptual relativism in the sense we will use here, is the philosophical thesis that
no single set of central concepts is correct in any framework-dependent sense, although a set of
concepts may be correct relative to a framework. The normative conceptual relativist often adds
that our concepts could never be read off from, or even match, the structure of reality, arguing
that instead the notions of structure or similarity or kinds are features of our descriptions and
thoughts, rather than features of some mind- and language-independent reality “in-itself” To be
sure, some schemes of classification strike us as much more natural, simple, or useful than
others. But naturalness, simplicity, and usefulness are our values, not the worlds.
1.5.2 Central belief.
A central belief or to use Kant’s term, principle is one that a person could not abandon
without having to surrender many other beliefs as well. For most of us these include the beliefs
that at least some events have causes and that other people have feelings and emotions. Even if
we could somehow divest ourselves of such beliefs, doing so would leave us with a very different
picture of the world from the one most of us have now. As is often the case in discussions of
relativism a distinction between descriptive and normative considerations is relevant here. We
can distinguish beliefs that a person or group would in fact have great difficulty giving up, those
they should, by their standards.
2.5.4 Ethics
Our ethical lives involve principles, rules, commitments, rights, duties, ideals, virtues,
modes of justifying and criticizing ethical claims, and doubtless other things as well. It is possible
to be a relativist about some of these (e.g, what constitutes a good or worthwhile life) but not
about others (e.g. rights)
The phrases ‘ethical relativism’ and moral relativism are sometimes used interchangeably,
but is useful to distinguish them because morality is often characterized as part of ethics, that
involving obligations, rights and justice, whereas other parts of ethics concern such things as
what constitutes a good life or human flourishing (Aristotle’s eudemonia)
Descriptive ethical relativism is the empirical claim that certain groups differ along one or
more ethical dimensions. For example, it is often said that modern western cultures count
individualism, autonomy, and personal dignity as key values, where certain other cultures see
group solidarity or placating the Gods as more important. Again, one group may view meekness,
humility, and submissiveness to the group as virtues, where another emphasizes heroism and
pride such differences in moral concepts, values and practices could also give rise to difference
in moral perception and moral sensibilities.
Normative ethical relativism is the claim that what is right or just virtuous or good, relative to
particular ethical framework.
2.5.5 Truth
Truth is important because it is major goal of inquiry, a central component of knowledge,
the thing justification is supposed to track, what valid arguments preserve, perhaps (in the form
of truth conditions) a component of linguistic meanings and for many people, a valuable end in
itself. Philosophers call truth and falsity truth values. So it is natural to call relativism about truth
truth-value relativism.
Descriptive truth value relativism is the empirical claim that in some cases the members of
different groups believe different things to be true.
Normative truth-value relativism is the claim that tokens of sentences, beliefs or the like are
only true relative to a framework. Thus Kuhn says “If I am right, then ‘truth may like proof be
a term with only intra-theoretical application” Normative truth-value relativism comes in two
version. The weak version is the claim that there may be things that are true in one framework
that are not true in a second simply because they are not expressible in the world the strong
version on the other hand, claim the one and the same thing.
1.5.6 Reality
In a phrase so arresting it couldn’t help but catch on, Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman
(1966) spoke of the social construction of reality. The term suggests that the world, reality itself,
is in some measure the product of our cognitive activity. Such views have gone by various
names, including metaphysical relativism and constructivism, and they are the most extreme
forms of relativism that there are. I will call the general view reality relativism.
Descriptive reality relativismis the empirical claim that certain groups think about, or experience,
the world as involving certain thing where as other groups thinks or experienced it differently.
This claim overlaps descriptive relativism with respect to concepts, beliefs, and perception, and
so is not of great independent interest.
Normative reality relativism is the view that what is real is somehow relative to a framework.
But what could this mean? Perhaps in some sense we use concepts to construct the world, but no
one supposes that the world is literally composed of concepts. It is tempting, an often best, to
regard talk of social construction as a metaphor that is meant to suggest some less hyperbolic
doctrine, e.g, that people with quite different concepts will think about things in different ways.
2.6 Independent variables: Relative to what ?
Language religion and culture are important variable for relativism. Greak philosopher
Protagoras declared that man is the measure of all things. Plato interpreted that each truth is
relative to each individual’s belief. The independent is relative to each individual’s belief. The
independent variables are
a) Language
b) Culture
c) Historical period
d) Innate cognitive Architecture
e) Religion
f) Scientific frameworks.
Language
This independent variables are always influenced modes of though and perception. The
language affects one’s experiences and thinks about the world is known as linguistic relativism.
It is typically descriptive in nature. The linguistic relativity hypothesis causually influences the
perception, classification or memory. The difference in language actually lead to differences in
thought. This is a problem that arises for most of the independent variable we will consider.
2.6.2 Culture
Culture is the most central theoretical concept in anthropology and other social science.
Culture is socially transmitted from one generation to the next generation it includes ideal about
how are should live, customs, common knowledge, rites, rituals religion, myth, taboos sexual
practices, marriage, kinship structure, sports, same art, architecture, language.
There are many differences in outlooks and belief within the same culture cultural relativism
is the thesis that a person culture strongly influences his/her modes of perception and though.
Culture as a force that was unlimited in its power to shape human being.
2.6.3 Innate cognitive Architecture
The innate biological make up is called nature where as enculturation, socialization and
any form of learning is called nurture. Both nature and nurture are essential for human being.
The empirical question is about the extent of the malleasbilityvs constancy of human nature about
the boundaries of the biologically possible and the degree of biological make up undermines
culture, language and modes of thoughts.
The pioneering linguist Noam Chomsky emphasized innate linguistic universal which led
to a picture of deep commonality beneath surface deference’s in language.
2.6.4 Historical Period
Science and technology and art are products of their times. Historical relativism is the
view that groups from quite different historical epocs will have different modes of though. This
historical relativism advocated by British philosopher R.G. Collingwood. When we attribute to
one historical epoch one intellectual world and to ourselves another one we refer not to the
isolated cases of though content but to fundamentally divergent though system and different modes
of experience and interpretation. Historical period as independent variable has played a key role
in discussion of more local types of relativism, particularly in science.
2.6.5 Religion
Emile Durkhim advocated for formative power of religion which influence our cognitive
and social life. The concept religion as fundamental as genus and species and logic itself. Human
religion were familiar that these concept would be some across the world. But if we combine his
account with a more relativist picture of actual cultures and religions.
Max weber argued that various features of Protestantism had led to an ‘iron cage” of
instrumental rationality. When we consider cultures where religion plays an important role that
it does in amny culture and sub cultures. The impact of religion on modes of experience and
though could be quite powerful.
2.6.6 Scientific frameworks
Many historian and philosophers of science reacted against what they saw as the insufficiently
historical and formalistic approach of philosophy of science.
A persons scientific outlook help to develop one’s own culture language and religions and
so on in his/her writing though and concept as suggested by cultural relativist. The history of
science coved be evaluate without having to go to another cultures or without having to master an exotic language.
2.7 Arguments for Relativism
The various types of relativism are often assumed rather than argued for, and when they
are defended the arguments on their behalf vary greatly in quality. We have touched on several
arguments for various species of relativism above; in this section we consider the most common arguments in more detail.
– 1 Perception is Theory-Laden
– 2 Alternative Frameworks are Incommensurable
2.7.1 Perception is Theory – Laden
We discussed perceptual relativism earlier, so here we only need to recall how arguments
for it typically proceed. The basic claim is that perception is not, contrary to what have supposed,
a neutral physiological process that leads all normal human beings to perceive the same thing in
the same way when they gaze in the same direction. Insteadwhat we see (hear, feel, etc.) in any
particular situation is partially determined by the concepts, beliefs, and expectations we bring to
the situation.
Claims about top-down processing and theory-ladenness are descriptive claims about the
human perceptual system, and by themselves do not entail any normative conclusions. But, various
writers add, the way that observations are colored by our beliefs and expectations makes it
difficult, perhaps even impossible, to adjudicate between competing scientific theories or paradigms, forms of life, or the like.
Many philosophers of science had believed that a theory-neutral observation language
existed which could be used to frame theory-neutral descriptions of scientific observations. Others
spoke of a given, non-conceptual, element in experience. If such claims were correct, then
theory-neutral observations, a sort of perceptual Archimedean point, could be used to adjudicate
competing claims in a way that would not beg the question in favor of one party and to the
detriment of the other.
2.7.2 Alternative Frameworks are Incommensurable
In our discussion of incommensurability and semantic holism incommensurability and
semantic holism we noted the view that the meanings of a person’s words and sentences (or the
contents of her concepts and beliefs) are determined by the overall role the words or concepts
play in her culture, scientific framework, linguistic community, or the like. So, the argument
continues, if two frameworks are substantially different from one another, the concepts and
linguistic meanings of one will not line up well enough with those of the other for the members of
the respective groups to even discuss the same things. For example, we may be told, earlier
concepts of mass, or rights, even logical concepts can differ so much from ours that we cannot
accurately interpret their users as having any phrases or concepts that are genuine counterparts
of our words or concepts or, indeed, as having any beliefs about mass or about rights or logical consequence.
Such arguments turn on claims about the meanings of words and concepts, but they are
sometimes buttressed by claims about perception.
If incommensurability arguments are sound, they support weak normative truth-value
relativism, because they tell us that if the two groups’ concepts and beliefs differ in fundamental
ways, the subject matters they can discuss are so different that they cannot be compared
2.8 Arguments Against Relativism
Different responses are appropriate to different versions of relativism. Although there are
a few a priori, philosophical arguments designed to show that certain sorts of cognitive or evaluative
differences are in fact impossible, most species of descriptive relativism are empirical claims
that must be supported, or discredited, with empirical evidence. Most species of normative
relativism, by contrast, require a more purely philosophical response. The most damning objection
to the more dramatic forms of normative relativism (like truth-value relativism) is that they are
self-refuting, but other objections have been leveled against various versions of relativism, and
in this section we consider some of the more compelling ones.
1 No Facts of the Matter
2 Perception is not Hopelessly Theory-Laden
3 Transcendental Arguments 5.10 “Beyond Relativism”
4 No Facts of the Matter
If there are no concepts or beliefs, then groups cannot differ with respect to their concepts
or beliefs and descriptive claims about the relativity of concepts or beliefs cannot get off the
ground. In such cases it also makes little sense to ask normative questions about whether some
concepts or beliefs are better or more correct than others.
Although he popularized phrases like ‘ontological relativity’, we saw above that Quine
opposes relativism with respect to concepts, beliefs, and meanings precisely because he holds
that there are no facts of the matter about such things. Much of Quine’s skepticism about minds
and meanings and mental representations is based on non-discredited behaviorist assumptions,
but there are more current anti-realist views about the mind that would also nip many versions of
relativism in the bud. The best-known example is eliminative materialism, the view that our
everyday talk of concepts and beliefs and intentions is part of a defective theory that should
disappear as science progresses. But the thoroughgoing anti-realism about concepts, beliefs, and
other representations required to discredit most versions of relativism is very counterintuitive,
and few philosophers find the existing arguments for such views very compelling.
2.8.1 Perception is not Hopelessly Theory-Laden
Descriptive perceptual relativismis an empirical claim about human beings, and a common
response to it is that although human perception is somewhat theory-laden, it is not as theory-
laden as more extreme relativists often maintain. Furthermore, the reply continues, to the extent
that descriptive perceptual relativism has been used to support various types of normative
relativism, the limits of theory-ladenness weakens the case for them.
Controversy persists among vision scientists over the extent to which our concepts and
beliefs and expectations influence the content of our perceptions, but the cumulative force of a
large number of examples and experiments leaves little doubt that they sometimes play an important
role. Still, there are limits; we cannot, on pain of hallucination, see just anything we hope or
expect or are primed to see. Once again, the question is whether there is room between two extremes for an interesting version of relativism.
Transcendental Arguments
Transcendental arguments are often characterized as arguments designed to show that
some obvious feature of experience or knowledge presupposes our having certain concepts and
beliefs. The most famous transcendental arguments were developed by the German philosopher
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) in the Critique of Pure Reason. His aim was to justify our use of the
twelve central concepts he called categories (e.g., causation, substance) and our belief in certain
principles (e.g., that every event has a cause), which are framed in terms of the categories.
Kant’s arguments are designed to do two things. First, they are intended to show that all
finite creatures who experience things as being in space and time must think of the world in
terms of central concepts like object and property, causation, reality, negation, possibility, and
so on (although Kant doesn’t always mean by these exactly what we would mean now).
Furthermore, such creatures must regulate their thought by the principles associated with these
concepts (e.g., they must assume that every event is caused). In short, certain concepts and
beliefs are necessary or indispensable for experience and knowledge.
Second. Kant’s arguments are intended to show that we are correct or justified in using
these concepts and holding these beliefs. Events really do have causes or, as Kant puts it, the
concept of causation has “objective validity.” Kant saw these rwo aspects of his arguments as
inseparable, but it will be useful here to focus on them separately; we may call the first the
indispensability aspect and the second the justificatory aspect.
2.8.3 Beyond Relativism”
It is difficult to denysome of the key premises relativists employ in defending their views.
We are historically and culturally situated creatures who cannot step outside our concepts and
standards and beliefs to appraise their fit with some mind-independent reality of “things-in-
themselves.” Furthermore, although we can justify many of our more central beliefs aid epistemic
standards in a piecemeal way, we cannot justify all of them at once, and perhaps we cannot
justify some of them, like induction, at all.
The challenge is to do justice to such facts without ending up in the quicksand of extreme
relativism, and many writers now advise moving beyond relativism” (many books, chapters,
and articles bear this phrase in the title), counseling us to steer a course between the Scylla of
relativism, on the one side, and the Charybdis of an over-simplified absolutism.
3.1 LOGICAL POSITIVISM
3.1 Historical Revolution
¾ One of the most influential movements in recent philosophy is logical positivism, which
originated in “the Vienna Circle” in the early twenties.
¾ Sometimes also called Logical Empiricism or Scientific or neo-empiricism.
¾ Twentieth-Century Philosophical Movement. The movement gradually spread. In Great
Britain at oxford the movement found an able advocate and strong supporter in A.J. Ayer.
¾ The Vienna Circle founded by moritzSchlick.
¾ The Vienna Circle was positively antagonistic toword most of the history of philosophy,
finding only Hume’s empiricism and Kant’s anti-metaphysical stance worthy of respect.
¾ The Viennese positivists were chiefly interested in the formal and the natural sciences.
They did not identify philosophy with science, but they believed that it ought to contribute in its own way to be advance of scientific knowledge. They therefore condemned metaphysics because it failed to meet this condition.
¾ According to Logical Positivism, a great deal of philosophical talk was held to fall into
nonsensical category: talk about the absolute, or transcendent entities, or substance, or the
destiny of man. Such utterances were said to be metaphysical; and the conclusion drawn
was that if philosophy was to constitute a genuine branch of knowledge it must emancipate itself from metaphysics.
¾ Prominent members__ Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, F. Waismann.
3.2 Objective of Logical Positivism
¾ Influence of mathematics and Logic.
¾ Metaphysics must be eliminated. By ‘metaphysics’ the positivists mean any theory of
reality beyond or behind what can be grasped by experience.
¾ The emphasis on Logical analysis of language distinguishes this movement from earlier
empiricism and positivism. The task of Philosophy is knowledge, especially of science.
A.J. Ayer was the most famous British exponent of logical positivism.
I. Verification Theory of Meaning
II. Elimination of Metaphysics
III. Linguistic Theory of Necessary Proposition
Logical Empiricism Is quite different from traditional philosophy. It help to understand the
new style of viewing philosophy to contrast it with some of the things he have been seeing in other
philosophies. He have been looking at metaphysical issues such as God, Values, man and nature
of reality. There fore many instances these issues are regarded as legitimate. Now we are
involved in a philosophical emphasis that regards all metaphysical issues, particularly God, Values,
Human soul, as meaningless. How did it come about? What are the ingredient in such a position?
Another important movement initiated by logical Empiricism was the study of the role of
language. From the study of language and analysis of syntax, structure, and form, it concluded
that there are 2 basic types of sentences.
One is Tautological sentence
The first owed its definition to Wittgenstein other philosophers called as logically determinate
statement. They included all propositions whose truth or falsity can be determined on the basis of logic for example__“All bachelors are unmarried”
This is a tautology. It is always true by its definition tautologies or logical determinate
statements do have a problem with them. They may or mayn’t refore to any things real in the
world. There may or mayn’t any bachelors in existence at all. But the statement is true even if
non-existence. This type of statement appears to be limited to definitions, mathematics or abstract
ideas without referring to the world of experience.
Second category
Second category of sentences, or propositions that concerns with the real world. The real
world reflects the world of sense experience. The term “factually determinate statements was
used by logical Empiricist. The truth of these statements is only by appealing to fact.
Factually determinate or statements arise out of experience? are many but the problem
arose concerning- how one could know what was really a factually determinate statement. For
example___ God is good is it a logically determinate statement. Is it a factually determinate one
?the answer came in the acceptance of the verification principle. A statement was true it one
could validate it scientifically. But can the verification principle be applied to our statement- God
is good? No one has ever been God or goodness, then such type of statement wasn’t merely false
but literally nonsensical. He metaphysic which included many form of philosophy, religion and
ethics was arbitrarily cut to shreds by virtue of the definition of language. Since philosophy,
religion and values were certainly not logically determinate statement and since neither of the
disciplines could be regarded as an empirical science.
Since philosophy doesn’t contribute take as or meaning but merely has the role of analyzing
to see if meaning are true, false or non sense then it is more different to put together.
3.3 Metaphysic of Logical Empiricism
The idea that there is super sensible world which I the object of inteceutalinvition and is alone wholly real, which was rejected by A.J. Ayer and other logical empiricists. The rejection of metalics based on.
No empirical observation could have the slightest tendency to establish any conclusion
concerning the properties or the existence of super sensible world. Therefore we are entitled to
deny the possibility of such a world and to dismiss as nonsensical.
But Ayer doesn’t completely reject that which is non-sensible. Such things as atoms,
molecules and electrons. Don’t appear as sensible, nor to do the symbols that we use daily things
such as table, chair, wheals etc. although one cant. See these things it is reasonable to use them
it they can be empirically substantiated.
The methodology of A.J.Ayer leads to the conclusion that all most nothing can be asseted
about the reality beyond the sense experience. The philosophical question on whether reality is
one or many is nonsensical issue there is no empirical situation which could have any bearing on
this truth. No empirical situation which could have any bearing on its truth. A.J. Ayer can give
a phenomenalistic view of the world. One can describe what one sees or experiences although sense organ.
Logical positivist must be content with a scientific view of this. Ayer confesses that
philosophy is virtually empty without science . the view of reality found in positivism is another variety of naturalism.
3.3.1 Logical Empiricism’s view about GOD
There is certain sense of fairness about the view of A.J. Ayer concerning “God”.If all
talk about God is nonsensical, it is equally nonsensical for the atheist to assert that God doesn’t
exist. Ayer claimed that all utterances about the natural God are non-sensical.
Arguing for existence of God is rejected because one must take a leap from the argument
to the conclusion that God exists. For eg. One may argue that certain phenomena exists in the
world and this requires one to believe in God. Does a belief in the world’s phenomena express
what is meant by the word God? Is God equivalatant to regularity? No. religious person would
admit that this is all he is claiming for his argument about God’s existence.
Ayer advocated that God is it equivalent of nature and if one is arguing for super sensible
definition of God, one loses again. The supers sensible is not to seen and Ayer concluded that one talking about non-sense. This leads to the mystical approach to God. The mystic Says he knows
God but he can’t discus what he knows since it is ineffable and indescribable. The mystic must
submit his intuitive descriptions to the test of verification. But since he can’t stand by his statement
as they aren’t’ adequate to deserve his experience’s the mystic is only producing unintelligent
statement and his statement would not stand up to verification and we really have from the mystic
is “indirect information about the condition of his own mind.
3.4 Ethics and value education of positive Empiricism
The ethical principles are neither true nor false they are expressions of feeling. Therefore
the theory of ethics is impossible. The question is what is the origin of ethical principles. According
to schlick ethics is a descriptive scientific theory. A person always prefers those conditions that
don’t produce pleasure or pain, good is what ever gives pleasure which is equivalent to beneficial.
A person’s actions are caused by a wish to benefit. So the 1st ethical impulse is an egoistic one but
the motivations to act are n’t static. They are subject to natural evolution and selection. in a
society it is possible that an altruist way of an action is more beneficial than egoist one. There is
a contrast between the very first impulse which suggests an egoistic behavior and the tendency to
act generated by evolution, which suggests a social behavior. This is the origin of ethical principle.
Logical positivism as expressed by A.J. Ayer disposes of value with more sophistication.
He contended that ethical discourse fits in 4 main propositions types.
1. First of all, the propositions which express definition of etc, terms, or judgments about legitimacy of certain definitions.
2. Secondly there are propositions describing the phenomena of moral experiences and their causes.
3. Thirdly, there are exhortation to moral virtue.
4. Fourthly, there are actual ethical judgment.
Only the 1sttype constitute ethical philosophy. The second type are really in the domain of
sociology or psychology. In other words, if we describe the experience of being mugged or
robbed, this is to be studied by psychology or sociology and no judgment are needed in it about its
rightness or wrongness. The third category of exhortation is nothing more than that of a parent
who tells a child, statement such as-Be good to go to school, Don’t lie to me, etc, the last one is
actual ethical- judgments, really don’t belong to ethical philosophy for eg.. it was wrong to gas
the Jews in world war II one may certainly prove to general satisfaction that Jews were gassed
in world war II. But it was wrong can’t be also proven. what does meant by this statement. The
answer is that it was wrong expresses one’s emotional reaction. There is no way of scientifically
verifying it is wrong and for that reason ethics is just another world for non-sense.
Therefore ethical statements are pseudo propositions. They are not saying any sensible
things. Thus logical positivists relegate ethics a traditionally conceived to the discipline of sociology
or psychology where feeling can be studied. Where as science can’t deal with feelings emotion
etc because these can’t be dead with on the basis of verification.
3.5 Verification Theory of Meaning
The Philosophical Movement originated from Vienna Circle (in the early1920s) is called
Logical Positivism. Vienna ,Circle was a group of scholars, which were related to different
fields. Two main aims of the Vienna Circle were:
i) To provide secure foundation for- the sciences
(ii) To demonstrate the meaninglessness of Metaphysics (Elimination of Metaphysics)
The method employed for realizing this double aim was logical analysis, specially language.
The emphasis on logical analysis of language distinguishes this movement from earlier empiricism
(Hume-Psychological analysis of experience) and positivism (Comte. Mach etc.).
Again while earlier positivists objected to metaphysical speculation either because it is
unprofitable or because its truths cannot be proved, the new positivists (Logical positivists) object
to it because logical analysis of metaphysical language convinces them that all metaphysical propositions are meaningless.
To eliminate metaphysics, logical positivists propounded a theory that is called Verification
Theory of Meaning. As the difficulties arose the theory kept on revising by different thinkers.
Therefore, it’s a historical development, gradual modification of theory of meaning.
Schlick:Schlick was the founder of Vienna Circle. Schlick said that we can make distinction between two types of meaning:-
Cognitive meaning : Informative meaning and is important for both science and philosophy.
Verification principle is concerned with only cognitive meaning of words.
(ii) Emotive meaning : Concerned with expression, ‘value -judgement, poetry, not for any use either for science or for metaphysics. Cognitive statements belong to two different kinds of propositions.
(i) Analytic — True/False by virtue of meaning alone.
(ii) Synthetic — Verification principle is concerned with synthetic/factual proposition.
According to Schlick ‘Meaning of proposition is the method of its verification’ that is
whenever a factual proposition is given we may know how to verify and by following which
procedure we can put them under True/False category. It is sense experience which decides
whether proposition is true/false. This principle gives not only a criteria of (1) distinguishing
significant proposition from nonsensical proposition but in addition it also tells us (2) meaning of
proposition, what meaning constitute in itself. Because it says method of verification also decides
the meaning. A single proposition may be verified even in both the ways.
Logical Positivism, like Kant, accepts distinction between analytic and synthetic statements.
Analytic statement has no factual context. Logical Positivism says that analytic statement is a
statement, which is true by virtue of meaning alone as — A bachelor is an unmarried male adult.
One who knows the meaning of all these words also knows that this statement is true. Bachelor
means unmarried male adult. No other proof is required. Synthetic statement — like the Rose is
red. To know its truth or falsity, one has to do empirical verification. Verification principle is concerned with synthetic statement.
Problem :
A proposition may have two or more meaning, if they can-be verified by-different method.
If method is’ meaning. then proposition will be assumption having more than one meaning. Thus,
there is a need to reformulate the theory. A.J. Ayer : Language.
Truth and Logic
A proposition is significant if it is either analytic or verifiable by sense experience. If not
then 4roposition is nonsensical. Since, metaphysical propositions are neither analytical nor verifiable by sense experience, hence metaphysical statements are meaningless statements.
Metaphysical statements are not false • Out nonsensical. Non-sense means it does not contain
any cognitive meaning. For example ‘God exists’ logical Positivism would say this statement is
as nonsensical as to say — “God does not exist”.
3.5.1 Practical Verification and Theoretical Verification
Does verification means verification in practice or we can verify a proposition immediately
by appealing to sense experience (verification in practice).
If a proposition is significant only, if it is verifiable in practice then even most of the
proposition of science will turn out to be nonsensical because at every stage scientist formulate
certain theory which can’t be verified by practice. Example - “There is life on Mars”. (Or the
are living beings in outer space). This statement cannot be verified presently but there is a
possibility for practical verification in future. Logical Positivist is not ready 3 to reject it Because
it is verifiable in theory, so it is a significant proposition. So, according to Logical Positivism, if
a proposition is verifiable in theory though not in practice, the proposition is significant. Though
a proposition may not be-verifiable by the existing technology but in an advancement in technology
in future, if verification is possible. then it is not nonsensical.
If a proposition is verifiable either in practice or in theory then it is significant, if not, the proposition is nonsensical.
Metaphysical propositions are verifiable neither in practice nor in theory, hence they are
nonsensical. God is not object of sense experience. All religions believe that ‘God exist’. This is
a nonsensical statement. When we analyze Bradley’s statement — “Absolute enters into history
but itself has no history”.
We cannot verify it anyway whether it will be today or tomorrow. Therefore, these are nonsensical as can notbe verified.
3.5.2 Strong Verification and Weak Verification
Schilick has formulated verification theory in strong sense. According to strong verification only
those repositions are significant, if we can conclusively determine the truth or falsity of a
proposition on the basis of rise experience. This is called verification in strong sense.
This immediately create a number of difficulties.
What about the universal proposition of the sciences themselves. No universal proposition can be conclusively verified?
Example - All metals expand when heated. 3 - Water is H2O etc.
Conclusive verification requires that every piece of metal anywhere must be separately
verified and then it can be said to be verified. Such universal propositions are not verifiable in
strong sense. It would mean that the universal propositions of sciences would also become
nonsensical, if we accept verification in the strong sense only.
Schlick. Answered it that the universal propositions of science-are nonsensical -yet they are
important and acceptable as they arc necessary. He called-them as ‘important non-sense
Carl Hempels also arised -some difficulties regarding this, e.g. “Everyone.love someone.- It cannot be verified in strong sense.
Ayer : In view’ of these difficulties, Ayer. in-the first edition of ‘Language. ‘Truth and
...Logicrejected the very possibility of verification is strong sense. What is actually required is verifying in weak sense. According to him not only universal but also particular proposition
cannot be verified in strong sense. If the proposition is verifiable in weak sense then proposition is significant.
A proposition is verifiable in the weak sense if the relevant sense experience can make it
probable i.e. either probably true or probably false. Hence, the truth or falsehood is probable
and not in certain sense. So Ayer initially accepted only verification in weak sense. Metaphysical
propositions are not verifiable in weak sense, so they are non-sensual.
Lazerowitz’s criticism of Ayer. Lazerowitz criticized this view of Ayer. According to him,
Weak and strong are relative terms, if we use one of them we must also use the other\one.
Without accepting strong verification, there is no sense of talking of weak verification.
Ayer : In second addition of “Language, Truth and Logic” in 1946 altered (revised) his view
(position). There is a class of proposition, which can be verified, in the strong sense. This class
of proposition is called Basic proposition. It does not describe anything; it only records the currently
available sense experience. Basic Proposition There is pain in my teeth now this time. It is
verifiable in strong sense. Thus. Ayer accepts - A proposition is significant if it is verifiable
either in strong sense or in the-weak sense.
3.5.3 Direct Verification and Indirect Verification
If a proposition is either an observation statement or through senses directly verification.
Example.: It is raining.The wall is red.
But there are propositions, which are not observed directly. To accept only direct verification
then many scientific propositions would become nonsense.
Mere direct verification is not sufficient.it requires indirect verification. Ayer : According
to-Ayer, a proposition will be indirectly verified when adding one or more proposition to it and
from this conjunctive propositions. if we deduce a proposition, which fulfill two conditions.
(i) Deduced proposition must be directly verifiable.
(ii) It should not be deduced from the other proposition alone but with the other related
proposition. As ‘p” is not directly verifiable, ‘q” cannot be deduced alone from “If p then
q”. We combine this with ‘p’ and since ‘q’ is directly verifiable, therefore ‘p’ is indirectly verifiable.
Sir Isaiah Berlin : He criticized this theory. If this form of indirect verification is accepted,
then any proposition whatsoever can be indirectly verified.
Example : Absolute is present everywhere (not directly verifiable)
P?Q : If absolute is present every where then grass is green
P : Absolute is present everywhere
Q : Therefore grass is green
J Ayer : Realizing this problem Ayer in the second edition of Language, Truth and Logic modified his view.
According to Ayer: the other propositions which are conjoined must be either analytic or
directly verifiable or capable of being independently indirectly verifiable. Ayer was convinced
that this modification is able to avoid Berlin’s objection.
Berlin’s example falls in all three criteria.
Alonzo Church: American Philosopher and Mathematician (Book : Introduction to Mathematical
Logic 1949) Criticized this revised formulation of verification theory.
Presented a formula., on the basic of which indirect verification of any proposition is possible
whatever the proposition is. This formula is
(~O1..O2
) v (O3..~S)
O= Observation statement (Here O1, O2,O3
are observation statements and directly verifiable
and independent)
S=any statement either of science of metaphysics.
This can be indirectly verified through this formula.
Church showed that ~ S or S can be indirectly verified.
After this, Ayer himself has accepted that I am unable to present this theory perfectly. There is
some short of problem exist in this theory. It is not possible to give a clear and precise information
of the verification principle.
Logical Positivism: A proposition is significant when
i. Either it is analytic
ii. Or verifiable in the practice
iii. Or verifiable in the theory
iv. Or verifiable in strong sense
v. Or verifiable in weak sense
vi. Or verifiable directly
vii. Or verifiable indirectly.
3.6 CRITICISM
i. Ayer has said that- “only that statement is meaningful which is either analytical or empirically
verified” But the statement of Ayer is not fit upon his own criteria of meaningfulness. His
statement is neither analytical nor empirically verified that why meaningless verification
principle itself is neither analytical nor verifiable by sense experience. The principles of
verification becomes meaningless upon its own criteria.
ii. They have overvalued science and failed to recognize that philosophy is science of sciences.
iii. According to Russell_ there are some scientific statement which are neither analytical nor
empirically verified but they cannot be accepted as meaningless. E.g. —Due to explosion
of a big hydrogen bomb, humanity will he completely destroyed.
iv. On the basis of verification theory of meaning„ to say that — “Metaphysics is non-sense is itself non-sense:
v. Here question is that what is verified? — Sentence or proposition A sentence is either
meaningful or meaningless but it is not true/false. What is true or false is proposition
expressed by sentence. Sentence is not true or false. No doubt proposition can be verified.
But proposition is nothing but meaning of indicative sentence. To say proposition is meaningful
means meaning is meaningful.
vi. If experience means sense experience only then moral experience, aesthetic experience
will become meaningless. But this cannot be accepted. Why only sense experience —
there is no justification within logical positivism. Since logical positivism ignores this, it becomes one sided.
vii. Sometimes it is said that when Ayer has accepted the concept of strong verification, then
his theory leads to solipsism because verification completely depends on the knower.
viii. To Wittgenstein, verification theory can be applied only to factual proposition but factual.
propositions are not the only function of language. Language has many sort of function; we
cannot decide their meaning on the basis of verification principle. Even if this principle, is
admitted, it is a principle of a part of language. This is the reason that this principle was
later on rejected and other principle were advanced.
ix. According to Latter Wittgenstein, work of language is not only confined to description.
Language is multi-functional. So there is a possibility to accept meaningfulness of other
statements too, which are not describing any fact. Even descriptive parts not always require
verification. Verification requires if there is doubt.
x. In place of verification theory of meaning Later Wittgenstein has accepted use theory of
meaning. It is clear that verification principle is not a satisfactory theory of meaning.
Importance - Promotes humanism accepts the potentiality of human beings to solve their problems.
Although verification theory cannot be accepted completely or non-erroneously.but it has its own
importance. Due—to this, glory and importance of metaphysics reduced in the field of philosophy
and epistemology dominated.
They have tried to separat philosophy from imaginary world.
3.7 Elimination of Metaphysics
Metaphysical thinking is found in Philosophy from the very beginning. By Meta,physics, the
positivists mean theory of reality lying beyond experience. The ‘fundamental postulate of
metaphysics’ is that there is ‘a super (or hinter) phenomenal reality’ or ‘trans-empirical entity’
(Reality transcending the world of science and common sense, the study of what is beyond the senses—like God).
3.7.1 Main Questions of Metaphysics
i) What is the nature of ultimate reality?
ii) Is it one or two or many?
While science tried to study different aspects of reality, metaphysics tries to study reality
of as such as a whole, search (done principle, highest truth, and first universal principle.
iii) Whether it is physical or spiritual, how the world we know is related to the reality? How
man himself- is related to reality and how can we know it.
Critics are as follows:-
Saphists- rejected the Possibility of metaphysics
Hume – Rejected metaphysics
“When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles. what have must we make? If
we take in our ,and any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does
it contain any abstract reasoning concerning warily or number? No, Does it contain any
experimental reasoning concerning matter .of fact. and existence?
No: Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.this
quotation is taken from David Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. It is an excellent
.statement of the ‘positivist’s position. In the case of the logical positivists, the epithet “logical”
was added clase they wished to annex the discoveries of modern logic; they believed, in particular,
that the logical ,symbolies which had been developed by Frege, Peano and Russell would be
serviceable to them. But their general outlook was very much the same as. Hume’s.a Like him,
they divided..significantpropositions into two classes; formal propositions, like those of logic r
pure mathematics, which they held to be tautological, in a sense that I shall presently explain,
and factual propositions of which it was-required that they should be empirically verifiable. Kant
: rejected the possibility of transcendental metaphysics though accepted metaphysics of experience.
ejected metaphysical knowledge of self, world and God. Criticized natural cosmology, natural theology.
Possibility of knowledge is limited, it’s joint Product of sensibility and understanding as we
do not obtain any sense there. We cannot apply concept of understanding to these ideas. Kant also
condemned transcendent metal Physics, he did so on different grounds. For he said that the
Truman understanding was so constituted that it lost itself in contradictions when it ventured out
beyond the .limits of possible experience and attempted to deal with things in themselves. Thus
he made the impossibility of a transcendent metaphysics not, as we do, a matter of logic, but a
matter of fact. He asserted, not that our minds could not conceivably have had the power of
penetrating beyond the phenomenal world, but merely that lies were in fact devoid of it. And-this
leads the critic to ask how, if it is possible to know only what lies within the bounds of sense-
experience, the author can be justified in asserting that real things do exist beyond, and how le
can tell what are the boundaries beyond which the human understanding may not venture, unless
he succeeds passing them himself .As Wittgenstein says, “in order to draw a limit to thinking,
we should have to think both sides of this-limit,” a truth to which Bradley give a special twist in
maintaining that the man who is ready /b prove that metaphysics is impossible is a brother
metaphysician with a rival theory of his own great deal of philosophical talk was held to fall into
nonsensical category: talk about the absolute, or transcendent entities, Or substance, or the
destiny of man. Such utterances were said to be metaphysical; and .the conclusion drawn was
that if philosophy was to constitute a genuine branch of knowledge it must 2mancipate itselffrom metaphysics.
Hegel : Rejected Kant and developed his own theory of knowledge and established metaphysics.
Ayer : Metaphysic, theory is the result of misunderstanding of the logic of language.’they failed
to understand the logic and theyformulated metaphysics. Taking help of verification theory of
meaning. Ayer his tried to eliminate metaphysics from the field philosophy.
Carnap : There are two chief sources that give rise to meaningless sentences.
i) Either the component words of a sentence lack meaning. and the sentence. as a whole. becomes nonsensical.
ii) Or it may be that the constituent words are all individually capable of expressing meanings
in other contexts, but in the particular context the words taken together do not yield any
sense. According loCarnap all significant propositions are ultimately reducible to protocol
statements. that is. simple propositions which are immediately derived from. and verifiable
in experience. No proposition which is not to reducible to empirically verifiable protocol
propositions can possess any significance. But metaphysical propositions by their very
nature ultimately rest upon some propositions which purport to assert the existence of unverifiable, trans-empirical entities. They do not. Therefore. possess any sense Such
propositions are really not propositions at all. They constitute a body of nonsensical expressions.
3.7.2 Criticism
i) J. Passmore : ‘’Throw metaphysics in ‘fire and science goes with it”, and try to retain
science metaphysics enters through the-back door”. It is clear that metaphysics cannot be rejected merely on the basis of the theory of verification.
ii) Weismann — to say. metaphysics is non-sense is non- sense
iii) To Wittgenstein verification principle can be applied only to factual proposition but factual
propositions are not the only function of language. Language has many sort of function.
We cannot decide the meaning of a proposition on the basis of its verification but meaning is decided according to its use.
iv) Anyone who verify, verify on the basisof hisownsense experience. But a person’s sense
experiences a private experience. So this Will lead to solipsism.
v) Why talk of sense experience and why limited to ‘sense experience only. People
haveacceptedmoral experienceaesthetic experience.etc.
But because of this, metaphysics lost its glory though got revived again.
3.7.3 Conclusion : However the impact of logical positivism was such that even though
metaphysics was not successfully refuted, it was generally ignored.
However in some form metaphysics was revived.
Ex -Strawson has defended a sort of descriptive metaphysics. Quine : There is no difference
between science and metaphysics, they are different only in matter of scope i.e. generality. The
scope metaphysics is more general than science. Metaphysics is a continual of sciences.
3.8 Linguistic Theory of Necessary Proposition
Logical positivism is an empiricist’s theory, which tries to explain all knowledge in term
of experience. in this context necessary proposition creates problems for a logical positivist. Our
knowledge is based on tense experience, but whatever is known on the basis of sense experience
can never be necessary. Here problem is how necessary proposition can be accommodated
within the framework of empiricism?
Thereareonly two possible solutions, to this problem empiricism.
(1) The first solution is that the so-called necessary propositions are also based on sense experience.
(2) The second solution is that necessary proposition is based on language and nothing to do
with the empirical object. “They have nothing to do with sense control and matter of fact.
Ayer says if both alternative fails then the solution given by the rationalists is the only viable solution.
The first solution was accepted by J.S. Mill. Mill viewed that mathematical and Logical
propositions are also based on experience. They are inductive generalization based on sense
experience. Then why they are called necessary? Mill says;that these statements are accepted
as necessary because we do not find any exception in this. But logical positivists do not accept
this solution of Mill. In this context, Logical positivist agree. with “aKant’s dictum — “knowledge does not arise out of experience.” Like Kant, they also make distinction between origin and
validity of knowledge. So far origin is concerned, there is no knowledge prior to experience.
Some knowledge is based on experience for its validity, some is independent of experience.
Necessary proposition -ore those propositions, which do not depend on sense experience for their
validity. They accept Kant’s distinction of two judgments — analytic proposition and synthetic
proposition. But the way Kant has made distinction is not entirely valid. Kant’s criteria applied
only to subject predicate proposition and not all proposition like relational proposition etc. Secondly
Kant has used ‘a term contained is’, which is a psychological metaphor, with no sense. Ayer
days that instead of giving one clearly formulated criterion, Kant has given two criteria: (1)
Logical (2) Psychological Logical criteria suggests that if the judgment cannot be denied by self-
contradiction, it is analytic and if denied then synthetic. Psychological criteria says that if the
predicate concept is contained in the subject ontent the judgment is analytic, and if the predicate
concept lies outside the subject content it is synthetic. It is so said because the subject is nothing
but intention. To say that predicate is contained in the subject is to lay that the subject intention of
the predicate term is the part of the subject intention of the subject term. .Kant believes that
logical and psychological criteria are identical but are not. He took mathematical proposition to
be synthetic, because he applies psychological criteria and not logical. If we analyze the ,-,,)
concept of 7 -4- 5, we can say that 5 units are added to 7 units; the actual result is not included in
this concept 12. By applying logical criteria, we can clearly say that the negation of the proposition
is self-contradiction. We cannot say that 7 + 5 `”12. Logical positivist believes that the laws of
logic are themselves 3instituted of linguistic usage or consequences of usage of words. To logical
positivist we can accept only the logical criterion and only analytic proposition can be a priori and
all ‘synthetic propositions are a posteriori: There is no proposition of a priori synthetic proposition.
It means that according to logical positivist only analytic propositions are necessary proposition.
Logical positivist have analyzed analytical proposition is terms of meaning of word to them if the
truth jf a proposition is determined on the basis of the meaning of term in which proposition is
expressed, proposition is analytic. If its truth is not determine by meaning of term but sense
experience is used to decide Istruthfullness then it is synthetic. Only analytic proposition are
necessary. The necessity of proposition has been explained in terms of language. Analytic
proposition has no factual content. Their necessity is based on meaning. That is why it is ailed the
linguistic theory of necessary proposition. Ayer says that if a proposition is true merely on the
basis of the meaning of terms which are used to “formulate or express the proposition, the
proposition is analytic. A proposition can be shown to be true or false on the basis of the meaning
of the words/symbols. A proposition is analytic, if and only if it is proved to by virtue of meaning
alone, if not then synthetic. For example, ‘All bachelors are unmarried male adults’. If we know
the meaning of words used to formulate this proposition. we also know that the proposition is
true.. There is no need of extra linguistic proof, language itself is sufficient to express the meaning.
But in The board is white’; empirical verification is required, hence it is synthetic.
3.8.1 Quine’s Refuted this Theory of Logical Positivism
In his famous article -Two Dogmas of Empiricism” (1951), Quine rejected the distinction
between analytic and synthetic proposition and secondly reductionism (object statement can be
reduced into sense data statements –reductionalism).
To Quine, there are two main defects in the linguistic theory
1. The concepts, in which analyticity is defined, are either themselves not clear or they involve circularity.
Logical empiricists reduce object statement into sense data statement. But reduction is not
sufficient.
What is meaning? To Quine, often it is held that meaning is neither a sentence which is
using for the object neither it is circumstance for which sentence is used, it is a third thing. There
is no clear meaning of meaning. If meaning itself is not clear, how can it explicate necessary and
analytic proposition. A proposition is analytic if it is shown be true on the basis of definition of its
terms. An oculist is an eye doctor - Synonymous. Two terms are necessary if they are used in
the same statement then the statement becomes necessary. The whole explanation, to Quine
becomes circular.
3.8.2 P. Strawson’s Refutation of Quine’s Criticism
“In defense of a -dogma” is the articles where Straw son criticized Quine. This articles is
written by Straw son and Grice. Straw son shows that the high standard that demands for explaining
analyticity is not easy to fulfill. But there is no need of such a high standard. According to Quine,
while explaining the nature of analyticity reference should not be made to a concept, which:is
related to analyticity. Strawson’s view is that on this ground very few concepts can be explained,
other concepts remain unexplained. Due to this reason, any concept is explained in terms of
some other but a related concept. For example, if the color red is to be explained a reference
must be made to other colors. The same applies to analyticity also. Strawson says that the
distinction between synthetic and analytics is made not only in philosophy but other subjects also.
The majority of people defend the dichotomy of analytic and synthetic sentences. All those who
accept the distinction generally agree as to which statements are analytic, which are synthetic
and which are doubtful. Thirdly, Strawson holds that though there are difficulties regarding the
formal distinction between synthetic and analytic, but this distinction can be used in an informal
manner. He gives two examples for t!-is purpose. One - My neighbours’s three year old child
understands Russell’s mathematical logic. Second - My neighbour’s three year old child is adult.
The first statement is false on the basis of general experience. The second statement is conceptually
false and it does not require any empirical proof. Similarly, cognitive synonymy can be explained
in an informal manner. If we do not admit synonymy, then two sentences cannot be said to be
synonymous_ If two sentences is not synonymous, the very idea of meaning will be senseless.
Thus, an informal distinction can be drown between analytic and synthetic sentence
3.9 New interpretation of Logical Positivism
In recent year, the scholars of Logical positivism are considerably grown day by day.
New interpretations of Logical Positivism Philosophy have been advocated by Michael Friedman.
The central Philosophical innovation of Logical Positivism isn’t a new version of radical empiricism
but rather a new conception of a priori knowledge and its role in empirical knowledge.
Kantian Philosophy exerted on the origin and development of Logical positivism. According
to Friedman, logical positivism recognized the necessity of non-empirical a priori principles by
means of which scientific theories can receive an empirical interpretation and therefore can be
tested. Friedman calls there principles relatives a priori principles. The necessity of a priori
principles is explicitly recognized by Hansreichenboch. He formulated the well known distinction
between axioms of connection and axioms of coordination. The former are empirical laws,
which formulated using concepts which are empirically well defined. The latter are non-empirical
principles which gives an empirical interpretation to the theory. Every scientific theory requires
a set of axioms of coordination. With respect to a given theory the axioms of coordination, the theory has non-empirical meaning. For edge, in classical mechanizes and in special relativity
the metric of the space time is an axiom of coordination, that is called Euclidean Structure of the
geometry. In the general relativity, on the contrary, the space time metric is empirically verifiable
which is assumed a priori statement.
The main difference between Kantia Synthetic a priori and Reichenbach’s axioms of
coordination is that Kantian Synthetic apriori Principles are necessarily valid while Reichenbach’s
axioms of coordination are subjected to modifications with the evolution of scientific knowledge.
For eg-Euclidean geometry is a priori relatively to Newtonian mechanics while it is an empirical
false theory in general relativity. In Kantian philosophy, Synthetic a priori knowledge has 2 main
features
First: it is necessarily and univesally valid
Second: It is transcendental knowledge (beyond sense experience).
Keichenbach accepted the presence of a priori principles which are constitutive of the
empirical objects. But he denied that these principles are unreliable. According to friedman. In
carnap’s Logical syntax of language we find a revival of the relativised a prior in something very
like Keichenbach’s original sense. Friedman suggests that carnap’s L- rule or analytic sentences
can be profitably viewed as a precise explication of Reichenman notion of the constitutive or relativized a priori.
EDUCATIONAL IMPORTANCE OF THE MAIN IDEAS OF LOGICAL POSITIVISM
Main Ideas of Logical Positivism
Although there is sufficient difference of opinion in the representatives of logical positivism,
even then their view-points may be expressed in the following form:
(1) The focal point of logical positivism is to use verification or reliability as a measure so that
‘meaning’ may be proved true or false. Only that statement is important and meaningful
which is perceptual. The statement which can be verified is worth experience.
(2) According to verification principle of logical positivism, if some statement is meaningful,
it would certainly be verified and become a part of experience directly.
Logical positivism searches formal and empirical knowledge. From formal view-point,
this knowledge adopts the techniques based on mathematics and language-analysis. From
empirical point of view, all statements of knowledge are to be verified directly.
(3) Logical perceptualism which is a result of unity of logical positivism, scientific empiricism
and scientific revolution, is not a traditional philosophy. Its important contribution is seen in the following classification:
1) Basic (Assumption) knowledge.
2) Hypotheses in the field of evolution.
3) Procedure
This philosophical thought makes it clear how basic ideas, hypotheses and procedures can
be verified in the field of knowledge and evolution and how they can be classified.
Logical positivism does not make any positive contribution to education, but this thought
has made an important contribution in the field of scientific humanism. This scientific humanism
has improved thinking of logical positivism considerably.
Logically positivism is a kind of scientific method. So it can be utilized in education indirectly.
We can take educational advantage by utilizing of the following two methods :
1) Some educational aims and ideals can be formulated by it, because in
evoution,educational aims and ideals can be tested by taking advantage of scientific empiricism.
2) If the knowledge of relationship between end and means is established scientifically,
this philosophy can give us an understanding of educational methods and agencies of eduction.
Educational Importance of Logical Positivism
Logical positivism can be employed in education in the following fields:
1) In the field of language-philosophy, this philosophy can particularly contribute in language-grammar.
2) In the field of science, it can give empirical view-point to the tendency of logic (reasoning).
End and Means of Education
in the field of education, the ends and means are enalysed as follows :
1) The scientific view-point that has been propounded by logical positivism leaves no
place, for absolute values in philosophy. Only those relative values can be included
in it which are worth verification.
2) According to the scientific knowledge of our times, the logical positivism gives a
new form to our emotional and ethical ideas.
3) The idea of scientific humanism is the reformed form of logical positivism. It does
not consider the search of absolute truth as its aim. It tries to find out that relative
truth which can be verified experimentally.
4) This philosophy makes it dear that ideas given by education should be quite distinct.
Distinct ideas will be those that have been verifIed.
5) In education, capacity for uniformity and determination of conclusion shuld be created
through intelligence and reasoning. In other words, argument should not be for
arguments sake, rather is should be to arrive at some conclusion.
6) Logical positivism lays more emphasis on factual feasibility and reliability of
knowledge. So in the field of education only those facts should be found out which
are proper. They should find out reliable knowledge. In the education-system, the
students should be given only reliable and verified knowledge.
7) Logical positivism lays emphasis on objective knowledge. It ignores subjectivity. So
provision should be made for objective knowledge by adopting empirical attitude.
The sudents should obtain scientific and practical knowledge of things.
8) Purposeful behaviour should be developed in children. They should be taught only
that behaviour which serves one purpose or the other in daily life.
9) Logical positivism also emphasizes moral impartiality. It considers that conduct
moral which is relative and objective. Education should inclucate a tendency of such a conduct in the students.
Education should endeavour to bring perfection in man. The students should be
provided such an environment that they may move towards their own perfection.
11) Constructive and useful expression should be created in students. Constructive
Imagination should be developed in them.
12) If somebody tries to realise his ideal subjectively, there is likehood of his nervous
mal-adjustment. So logical positivism does not give any importance to those ideals
which do not coincide with the present and are difficult and which have no use in physical life.
13) In the educational system, children should be given minimum opportunities for self-
criticism. Logical positivism rejects it altogether, because self-criticism creates
symptoms of mental sickness as mental tension, unrest, fear and frustration in future.
Generally teachers and parents neglects this. They should be attentive to this truth.
14) Most part of education should be spent in creating scientific interest in children so
that they may find such scientific solutions to their present day problems, as are in
the interest of the nation, society and others. Their research work may be theoretical and practical both.
15) The training of analysis of language work is very valuable from educational point of
view because it provides means for the following:
a) It gives recognition to propaganda work.
b) It determines those definitions which are acceptable to others.
c) It makes understanding of difference between knowledge and evaluation easy.
d) It is useful in manifestation of secret word interpretation and expressing its factual hollowness.
e) It gives a sort of strength in accepting a good thing.
16) Logical positivism lays emphasis on the fact that we should test scientific hypotheses and daily assumptions.
17) Logical positivism is a grammar of science. It emphasizes analysis of language and
denies traditional philosophical ideas. It makes scientific statement logical on the
basis of language analysis, so power of reasoning should be developed by laying
emphasis on scientific attitude in education. The problems that the children create
by wrong use of language, should be solved through language analysis.
18) It does not give any place to ethics, religion and metaphysics in philosophy. So it
opposes religious, moral and spiritual education.
19) According to it, the philosophical thought of ‘Scientific Humanism’ is the art of
living. Language-practice is such a laboratory work which makes the scientific
statement logical. So language analysis should be emphasized in education.
20) Logical positivism gives a scientific base to our expression, whether it is oral or
written. It provides scientifc styles and means for expression of scientific ideas.
This enables us to find solution of our daily problems.
GLOSSARY
Realism: The view point which accords to things which are known or perceived an existence or
nature which is independent which is independent of whether anyone thinking about or perceiving them
Idealism: Metaphysical and epistemological doctrine that ideas or thought make up fundamental reality
Metaphysic: Study about reality
Aesthetic: Set of principles concerned with nature and appreciation of beauty
Relativism: is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only
relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and considerations.
Ethics: Moral principles of society
Truth: is accord with fact or reality
Culture: that complex which include knowledge, belief, law, custom and any other capabilities
and habits acquired by man as a member of society.
Religion: is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural system concerning cause, nature and
purpose of universe
Epistemology: Branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature method and limits of
human knowledge.
Education: A process of individual development includes physical, mental, aesthetic, moral,
social and spiritual development of individual
Logical positivism: scientific knowledge about metaphysical language
Proposition: Sentence having truth value
Tautology: Truth by its definition
Analytic: Truth/false by virtue of meaning done
Synthetic: Verification principle is concerned with factual proposition
Curriculum: Totality of experiences that a pupil receives through the manifold activities that go on inside and outside of the class room.
ALSO READ: Relationship between philosophy and education| Objectives and scope of educational philosophy
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Please do not spam the inbox