Logical Positivism

[GrowingSmaller]

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Wittgenstein. Tractatus Logico-philosophicus.

Does this maxin command any respect in the 21st Century?

 

[Chesterton]

No, because I think we'd have to be silent about everything, wouldn't we?

 

[tucker58]

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Wittgenstein. Tractatus Logico-philosophicus.

Does this maxin command any respect in the 21st Century?

Growing smaller you are fun and I mean that honestly.

What you have created here is a "Catch 22" type of reality. Damned if you do and damned if you don't . My wife is constantly telling me to keep my mouth shut and I keep telling her that sometimes things need to be said.

But do they? Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

love you,

tuck

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No, because I think we'd have to be silent about everything, wouldn't we?

Not all things at all. Wikipedia states it better then me:

Perhaps the view for which the logical positivists are best known is the verifiability criterion of meaning, or verificationism. In one of its earlier and stronger formulations, this is the doctrine that a proposition is "cognitively meaningful" only if there is a finite procedure for conclusively determining whether it is true or false.[8] An intended consequence of this view, for most logical positivists, is that metaphysical, theological, and ethical statements fall short of this criterion, and so are not cognitively meaningful.[9]

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Growing smaller you are fun and I mean that honestly.

What you have created here is a "Catch 22" type of reality. Damned if you do and damned if you don't . My wife is constantly telling me to keep my mouth shut and I keep telling her that sometimes things need to be said.

But do they? Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

love you,

tuck

Amusing.

 

[tucker58]

Amusing.

I know and that is what make you fun.

just love,

tuck

 

[Dark_Lite]

Logical positivism is like philosophical skepticism except worse, which is a pretty hard feat to accomplish.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Logical positivism is like philosophical skepticism except worse, which is a pretty hard feat to accomplish.

Was it not the intellectual predecessor of Popper's falsificationism? From the theory that a term must have verifiable reference to be meaningful, to the theory that science must make falsifiable hypotheses, in order to be scientific.

 

[Chesterton]

Not all things at all. Wikipedia states it better then me:

I can't think of anything which can be conclusively determined.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I can't think of anything which can be conclusively determined.

That was not the purpose. It was to give a criteria by which a statement can be regarded as meaningful or not. The term "sofa" has meaning because it refers to an object which we can verify the existence of. Likewise "chesterton's sofa is brown" can be checked to see if it is true or false, and ought therefore to be thought to be meaningful. Terms like "God" or "goodness" etc were regarded as not to have verifiable reference, and therefore were regarded as nonsensical.

source

Everything that is true—that is, all the facts that constitute the world—can in principle be expressed by atomic sentences. Imagine a comprehensive list of all the true sentences. They would picture all of the facts there are, and this would be an adequate representation of the world as a whole...(snip)

Aesthetic judgments about what is beautiful and ethical judgments about what is good cannot even be expressed within the logical language, since they transcend what can be pictured in thought. They aren't facts. The achievement of a wholly satisfactory description of the way things are would leave unanswered (but also unaskable) all of the most significant questions with which traditional philosophy was concerned.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Logical positivism is like philosophical skepticism except worse, which is a pretty hard feat to accomplish.

I dont see why. Skepticism says that nothing can be known. On the other hand, postivism says that atomic verifiable facts or falsehoods can be known.

 

[Chesterton]

That was not the purpose. It was to give a criteria by which a statement can be regarded as meaningful or not. The term "sofa" has meaning because it refers to an object which we can verify the existence of. Likewise "chesterton's sofa is brown" can be checked to see if it is true or false, and ought therefore to be thought to be meaningful. Terms like "God" or "goodness" etc were regarded as not to have verifiable reference, and therefore were regarded as nonsensical.

One, I don't think anything is necessarily meaningless just because it can't be verified, and two, who is to say what has verifiable reference and what hasn't?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

One, I don't think anything is necessarily meaningless just because it can't be verified, and two, who is to say what has verifiable reference and what hasn't?

1) That was Wittgensteins later view, but earlier he was more of a logical positivist. I think that if we look for the meaning of the term in its extension (eg that cat on the sofa is the menaing of the term "chesterton's cat"), then terms without visible or verifiable extension are meaningless, at least meaninless as far as wee can tell.

2) I think that the burden of proof in on the one who makes the claim. So if you have found verifiable extension for the term "God" themn its up to you to prove it. If I say that I have a "quiziquat" as a pet, and claim it's on my sofa, its up to me to demonstrate there is such a thing as a quiziquat on my sofa.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Does anyone know if Logical Positivism was the eraliest form of philosophical non-cognitivism (if thats what it is:o).

 

[Gracchus]

I can't think of anything which can be conclusively determined.

Spoken like someone who never got a fist in the face!

 

[Chesterton]

Spoken like someone who never got a fist in the face!

But you're Buddhist. Surely that pain would be an illusion.

 

[Gracchus]

But you're Buddhist. Surely that pain would be an illusion.

First Noble Truth: Life is suffering. Second Noble Truth: Suffering arises from craving and clinging.

Life is real. Pain is real, but it needn't make you suffer. Do you not find it the least bit ironic that you, a Christian, accuse me of reacting to illusions, when you cling to all sorts of unreal things, and crave a future life without the concommittent inevitable suffering?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Life is real. Pain is real, but it needn't make you suffer.

Made me think of this:

Life is pain, Highness! Anyone who says differently is selling something. ~The Princess Bride

 

[Chesterton]

First Noble Truth: Life is suffering. Second Noble Truth: Suffering arises from craving and clinging.

Life is real. Pain is real, but it needn't make you suffer. Do you not find it the least bit ironic that you, a Christian, accuse me of reacting to illusions, when you cling to all sorts of unreal things, and crave a future life without the concommittent inevitable suffering?

I wasn't actually accusing you; I was being sarcastic. I think everything's very real; pain, suffering, pleasure, love, goodness, everything. But I crave pretty much the same things Guatama and every person craves.

 

[Gracchus]

I wasn't actually accusing you; I was being sarcastic.

To be sarcastic is, often, to accuse while maintaining "deniability".

I think everything's very real; pain, suffering, pleasure, love, goodness, everything.

I would have to disagree. I believe many commonly used terms denote imaginary things. (e.g. freedom, justice)

But I crave pretty much the same things Guatama and every person craves.

Siddhartha Gautama freed himself from attachments. (Or so we are told.)

Of course, the rabbi Yeshua said much the same thing: "Take no thought for tomorrow, asking 'What shall we eat, what shall we drink, with what shall we be clothed?'"