A. J. AyerRecensioni

CUPRINS

1. Prefata - pag. 5
2. Viata si personalitatea lui Hume - pag. 7
3. Scopuri si metode - pag. 21
4. Corpuri si euri - pag. 41
5. Cauza si efect - pag. 61
6. Morala, politica si religie - pag. 82

7. Lecturi recomandate - pag. 105
8. Index - pag. 106

12/12/21

12/6/21

12/2/21

12/3/21

12/3/21

Famously criticized by fellow Oxonian J. L. Austin in Sense and Sensibilia

FG-6

After a short introductory chapter on Hume's life, the book consists of transcripts of 4 lectures Ayer gave on Hume and it shows. It is very much Ayer's assessment of Hume and where he agrees and disagrees philosophically with him rather than an introduction to Hume.½

This historical overview covers philosophy from the advent of Bertrand Russell to the coming of Quine and Dummett. Good introduction to Pragmatism, Analytical, and linguistic philosophy.

I read the "squashed" version of the book and I can agree that while it is not "wrong", the content of the book is incomplete. But mostly, it is very intriguing and thought-provoking and it's a good start for enquiring about language and it's relationship with philosophy.

"But it must be understood from the outset that we are not concerned to vindicate any one set of philosophers at the expense of any other, but simply to settle certain questions which have played a part in the history of philosophy out of all proportion to their difficulty or their importance." (134)

Language, Truth and Logic is a brief and charmingly audacious effort to retire metaphysics and its related issues. Ayer is a mid-20th-century exponent of the Anglo-American analytical tradition in philosophy (including the work of Bertrand Russell and others) which seeks to reduce the discipline to applications of logic. His arguments are sympathetic to the earlier empiricists and positivists, but show more sophistication in pointing out and sometimes surmounting their shortfalls. I am most in accord with his "emotive theory of values" as a method of dispensing with the philosophical concern over ethics.

Ayers' professed opposition to "schools" in philosophical discourse reminds me of the ultra-Protestant Plymouth Brethren "coming out of sect" in 19th-century England: they paradoxically insist on a narrowing of their field while claiming to transcend distinctions within it.

The 1946 introduction to the second edition consists of Ayers reconsidering and fine-tuning many of the details in the body of the text. Accordingly, I saved it to read until finishing the original eight chapters. In retrospect, however, because of the intricacies of the arguments, a reader would be better advised to read the 1946 remarks in sequence after each individual chapter.

Although mystics (and magicians, to a lesser degree) are unlikely to find this book easy or pleasant, it would be an invaluable supplement to their intellectual diets. After passing through this crucible, they might proceed to the more congenial offerings of a thinker like Gregory Bateson.

As is evident from the title, this book is on the the philosophy of knowledge or epistemology.
Though it is quite suitable for the general reader, in that a knowledge of philosophy is not really presumed, it is the sort of book that must be concentrated upon when reading, as the arguments are many-sided and the logic quite expert. Despite its short length though, (220 pages), this book covers an impressive range of ideas, which is made possible by the density of the prose. This isn't to say though that the book is hard going, for what it is, as the style is quite readable and even enjoyable, providing that one can concentrate on it, as the ideas and arguments themselves require a bit of thought to appreciate.
The first chapter discusses knowledge, what it is, and what it isn't. The second chapter deals with certainty and scepticism, and outlines of the four main ways to address scepticism: Naive realism, Reductionism, the Scientific Approach, and Descriptive Analysis. What I found interesting in this chapter was the defence he put forward for Naive Realism, which is an approach that I hadn't seriously considered before. Arguments are presented in favour and against of each of the four approaches though, and none of them are yet decided upon.
The third chapter deals with perception, and I found this to be the dullest chapter as there was less that seemed new here. The fourth chapter deals with Memory, and I enjoyed reading this one. The thoughts on reverse causation and precognition seemed to me to be quite new, and stimulating, and stood out among many of the other views which seemed at least in part derived from previous thinkers (though this cannot be avoided in any comprehensive philosophical discussion).
The next chapter was on personal identity and continuity of self, and I couldn't quite see how all of this was relevant to the original question. But the final few pages did give support to the overall direction in which he has been heading in throughout the book, to give an answer on what knowledge is and how it is attained. As I interpret it, he says that the sceptic defines knowledge, and it is defined logically, in a way that prevents us of being sure of knowing things (except mathematical and logical truths), but that this is logically unavoidable given the definition of knowledge, so we should rely on the next best thing - empiricism. I don't recall falsification being mentioned at all, which is a very important part of the scientific method, but this is perhaps not within the scope of the book.

Sir Alfred Jules "Freddie" Ayer (10/29/1910, London – 6/27/1989, London), British philosopher known for promoting logical positivism, particularly in Language, Truth, and Logic (1936) and The Problem of Knowledge (1956) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._Ayer

This is the excellent tourist guide to Wittenstein,Popper and Pragmatism

The British Empirical Tradition in all its Scottish glory.

I know this is a seminal text but I'm finding it a tough read. The writing style is dense, reflecting its origin in the 1930's. It's a challenging book, posing the question of how we judge what truth is. Do we work purely from empirical observation, only accepting propositions that can be logically proven? Or is truth something else, wider, deeper? Perhaps truth value or meaning can be found outside or apart from language, and does not only reside within it? This book proposed that metaphysical and religious language was meaningless, as it could not be empirically verified. Ayer himself, later in life, acknowledged that his verification theory, proposed within this book, is false. However, it had great influence when it first came out which ensures its place on reading lists and bibliographies to this day.

Ayer is a very very under-rated philosopher, some people find logical positivism a little silly but personally i love it, basically the intellagent way of saying 'prove it' or 'why' to everything, and no one does it better than Ayer.½

Logical Positivism is/was silly, but AJ Ayer is still the best writer in town. Too bad he's dead.

B.S.-dissolving acid.
E.g.:
Random person: "Reality is essentially static."
Ayer: "By what set of observations could we confirm or refute this sentence?"
Random person: "Umm..."
Ayer: "Good-bye, thanks for playing."

NBD|Biblion:
De gezaghebbende Britse filosoof Ayer opent met een uitgebreide opsomming van de levensloop van zijn grote voorganger Hume (1711-1776), en maakt vervolgens duidelijk dat Hume beweert dat de menselijke rede niet bij machte is om te bewijzen dat er een wereld buiten onze geest bestaat of dat er een God is. Terecht veel aandacht krijgt Humes opvatting over causaliteit: een noodzakelijke band tussen oorzaak en gevolg is niet aan te tonen. Alles wat bestaat is opeenvolging, de rest is gewenning. In een te kort hoofdstuk worden dan Humes opvattingen over moraal besproken. Ayer voelt zich erg verwant met Humes standpunten. Dat is goed te merken. Hij verdedigt Hume, soms tegen beter weten in. Het boek is duidelijk geschreven. Bedoeld als inleiding lijkt het me toch iets te gecomprimeerd. Deel uit een reeks van vijf inleidingen tot belangrijke filosofen (Plato, Marx, Hume, Montaigne, Wittgenstein), die ook als set te koop zijn*.

Ik moet het er mee eens zijn, er zijn beter inleidingen verkrijgbaar, maar dit lijkt ook onder critici de consensus te zijn. Als je echt een beeld van hume wil hebben zul ej toch naar de iets zwaardere lectuur moeten.

The British Empirical Tradition in all its Scottish glory.

This is the excellent tourist guide to Wittenstein,Popper and Pragmatism

When you want to quote a philosopher but don't remember the exact words, this book is an excellent source.

Ayer writes in the tradition of Hume, Wittgenstein and Russell, rejecting synthetic a priori knowledge, and avoiding definitions which depend upon inductive inference for credence.

This work introduces a Theory of Knowledge, compatibilist concepts of Freedom, and an emotivist theory of Ethics (which was never widely accepted).

The detailed Table of Contents is buried at page 27. A classic--in more than 12 printings--of communication theory. Sets up tests for the truth of statements. Applications for the Principle of Verification.½