International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Humanities and Social Science. IJHSSI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Humanities and Social Science, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online.
THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING: Esotericism amalgamated to Celestial and Quantum Me...William John Meegan
The spiritual sages of antiquity have already archived in the texts of the sacred scriptures of the world THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING by esoterically amalgamating Celestial and Quantum Mechanic to Esotericism: i.e. The Esoteric Science. The argument that only mathematics can be use to transmit complex conceptual data modules across the epochs of time and space is debunked by the extraordinary complexities that are enshrouded in THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING as envisaged by the ancient esoterists. Mathematics is too limited a branch of science to convey to the human psyche the complexities of the world around it; thus, physics is wrong in believing that THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING can be brought down to a single algebraic equation unless of course physics can convey through it algebraic equation that everything, bar nothing, defines and explains the singularity. Just as modern physics breaks down Einstein equation E=MC², which is a symbolic and alphanumeric algebraic equation denoting that ’Energy equal matter times the square of the speed of light” so too does the sacred scriptures cram pack every indigenous letter of the texts symbolically and alphanumerically for the sole purpose of transmitting to the soul (the lone individual) THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING. In other words the soul: i.e. the MONAD self-defines itself. The singularity can only be defined by everything, for that is its inherent nature. In every sense physicists are unknowingly trying to define God, which cannot be iconically classified by a single algebraic equation; rather, the singularity can only be defined and understood through the mythoi of incalculable esoteric examples for to limit the Theory of Everything to a one or an assortment of examples is to limit conceptually its overall theme.
From the outset of this paper, let me declare that I will be introducing empirical evidence of abstract spiritual laws that literally defy the so-called laws of materialistic physics and it is through these abstract laws that I will prove THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING. It should effectively bring down the house of cards that physics has built for itself under the rubric of Celestial and Quantum Mechanics: i.e. The Theory of the Big and Small. This paper is all about the Theory of the Big and Small; however, this thesis is about the spiritual and the transcendent.
THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING is the main focus of this paper; however, the reader has to be somewhat educated into the sophisticated mathematical and grammatical sciences: i.e. Seven Liberal Arts: Arithmetic, Music/Harmony, Geometry, Astronomy/Astrology, Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic/Dialectics: the Esoteric Science (mystically hidden) symbolically integrated as one unified system of thought into the textual materials of the Judeao Christian Scriptures in order for the reader to have a sense of my theses on this subject matter. I have no intentions of proselytizing anyone into believing in the existence of God and the transcendent; though
History and Philosophy of Contemporary Education. Empiricism versus idealism. With Empiricism and Positivism's etymology, history and proponents and it's different types.
The three styles of research are scientific evidence based, socially constructed (where the knower cannot be seperated from the known) and participatice (where meanng and questions emerge from sharin praxis)
THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING: Esotericism amalgamated to Celestial and Quantum Me...William John Meegan
The spiritual sages of antiquity have already archived in the texts of the sacred scriptures of the world THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING by esoterically amalgamating Celestial and Quantum Mechanic to Esotericism: i.e. The Esoteric Science. The argument that only mathematics can be use to transmit complex conceptual data modules across the epochs of time and space is debunked by the extraordinary complexities that are enshrouded in THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING as envisaged by the ancient esoterists. Mathematics is too limited a branch of science to convey to the human psyche the complexities of the world around it; thus, physics is wrong in believing that THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING can be brought down to a single algebraic equation unless of course physics can convey through it algebraic equation that everything, bar nothing, defines and explains the singularity. Just as modern physics breaks down Einstein equation E=MC², which is a symbolic and alphanumeric algebraic equation denoting that ’Energy equal matter times the square of the speed of light” so too does the sacred scriptures cram pack every indigenous letter of the texts symbolically and alphanumerically for the sole purpose of transmitting to the soul (the lone individual) THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING. In other words the soul: i.e. the MONAD self-defines itself. The singularity can only be defined by everything, for that is its inherent nature. In every sense physicists are unknowingly trying to define God, which cannot be iconically classified by a single algebraic equation; rather, the singularity can only be defined and understood through the mythoi of incalculable esoteric examples for to limit the Theory of Everything to a one or an assortment of examples is to limit conceptually its overall theme.
From the outset of this paper, let me declare that I will be introducing empirical evidence of abstract spiritual laws that literally defy the so-called laws of materialistic physics and it is through these abstract laws that I will prove THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING. It should effectively bring down the house of cards that physics has built for itself under the rubric of Celestial and Quantum Mechanics: i.e. The Theory of the Big and Small. This paper is all about the Theory of the Big and Small; however, this thesis is about the spiritual and the transcendent.
THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING is the main focus of this paper; however, the reader has to be somewhat educated into the sophisticated mathematical and grammatical sciences: i.e. Seven Liberal Arts: Arithmetic, Music/Harmony, Geometry, Astronomy/Astrology, Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic/Dialectics: the Esoteric Science (mystically hidden) symbolically integrated as one unified system of thought into the textual materials of the Judeao Christian Scriptures in order for the reader to have a sense of my theses on this subject matter. I have no intentions of proselytizing anyone into believing in the existence of God and the transcendent; though
History and Philosophy of Contemporary Education. Empiricism versus idealism. With Empiricism and Positivism's etymology, history and proponents and it's different types.
The three styles of research are scientific evidence based, socially constructed (where the knower cannot be seperated from the known) and participatice (where meanng and questions emerge from sharin praxis)
This article aims to show how the scientific method emerged and demonstrate the need for changes in the search for scientific truth due to numerous questions about its effectiveness. There are several questions from great artisans and thinkers of science like Edgar Morin, Karl Popper, Bertrand Russell, Henri Poincaré, Albert Einstein, Pierre Duhem and Paul Feyerabend who contest that the current scientific method provides the search for scientific truth and claim another approach. Our proposal is that a new scientific method be developed that takes these questions into account.
.There are different paths to reality, they are determined by the knower, being instrumental methodological study object, epistemological axis, among others. Reality presents several faces, what is observable and what is perceived sensory empirical data obtained correspond to the visible, the main thing is to discover the hidden side, which is behind the perceptible or data. Epistemology is the whole process of obtaining scientific knowledge, ranging from the pre knowledge to get to know the hidden side, one thing is what is seen and what is not, and one that is not seen, is really it is.
Method of Moral and Social Philosophical Inquiry
- Postulates of Moral and Social Philosophy
- The Nature of Philosophical Inquiry
- The Context and Scope of Inquiry
- Modes of Inquiry
- Method of Ethical Inquiry
Thomas Kuhn criticized falsifiability because it characterized "the entire scientific enterprise in terms that apply only to its occasional revolutionary parts," and it cannot be generalized. In Kuhn's view, a delimitation criterion must refer to the functioning of normal science. Kuhn objects to Popper's entire theory and excludes any possibility of rational reconstruction of the development of science. Imre Lakatos said that if a theory is scientific or non-scientific, it can be determined independently of the facts. He proposed a modification of Popper's criterion, which he called "sophisticated (methodological) falsification".
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30572.82568
Scientism, or the unity of scientific method. The positivist
methodology does not see any difference between the
natural and the social sciences. The adoption however, of
the unity of the scientific method is accepted in tandem
with the notion of the predominant role of the natural
sciences, in which the social sciences see their model.
The outcome is what we call scientism, that is the view
that only the natural sciences can produce the semantic
interpretation of knowledge.
The contemporary philosophy of science (epistemology) featuring K.Popper, T.Kuhn, I.Lakatos, P.Feyerabend, Hanson among others, has exercised a decisive critique to the dominant views of the positivist and neo-positivist model of knowledge and has in fact undermined its credibility.
This article aims to show how the scientific method emerged and demonstrate the need for changes in the search for scientific truth due to numerous questions about its effectiveness. There are several questions from great artisans and thinkers of science like Edgar Morin, Karl Popper, Bertrand Russell, Henri Poincaré, Albert Einstein, Pierre Duhem and Paul Feyerabend who contest that the current scientific method provides the search for scientific truth and claim another approach. Our proposal is that a new scientific method be developed that takes these questions into account.
.There are different paths to reality, they are determined by the knower, being instrumental methodological study object, epistemological axis, among others. Reality presents several faces, what is observable and what is perceived sensory empirical data obtained correspond to the visible, the main thing is to discover the hidden side, which is behind the perceptible or data. Epistemology is the whole process of obtaining scientific knowledge, ranging from the pre knowledge to get to know the hidden side, one thing is what is seen and what is not, and one that is not seen, is really it is.
Method of Moral and Social Philosophical Inquiry
- Postulates of Moral and Social Philosophy
- The Nature of Philosophical Inquiry
- The Context and Scope of Inquiry
- Modes of Inquiry
- Method of Ethical Inquiry
Thomas Kuhn criticized falsifiability because it characterized "the entire scientific enterprise in terms that apply only to its occasional revolutionary parts," and it cannot be generalized. In Kuhn's view, a delimitation criterion must refer to the functioning of normal science. Kuhn objects to Popper's entire theory and excludes any possibility of rational reconstruction of the development of science. Imre Lakatos said that if a theory is scientific or non-scientific, it can be determined independently of the facts. He proposed a modification of Popper's criterion, which he called "sophisticated (methodological) falsification".
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30572.82568
Scientism, or the unity of scientific method. The positivist
methodology does not see any difference between the
natural and the social sciences. The adoption however, of
the unity of the scientific method is accepted in tandem
with the notion of the predominant role of the natural
sciences, in which the social sciences see their model.
The outcome is what we call scientism, that is the view
that only the natural sciences can produce the semantic
interpretation of knowledge.
The contemporary philosophy of science (epistemology) featuring K.Popper, T.Kuhn, I.Lakatos, P.Feyerabend, Hanson among others, has exercised a decisive critique to the dominant views of the positivist and neo-positivist model of knowledge and has in fact undermined its credibility.
The contemporary philosophy of science & the problem of the scientific consciousness.
...The understanding of scientific knowledge requires reflective thinking. The reflective thinking could restore the communication between subject and object, between social sciences and natural sciences. Only then, communication between facts and values can achieved. In other words, communication between reason and myth, science and art, knowledge and wisdom, empirical research and the existential question for the meaning of life.
...the problem of scientific consciousness (liability) requires the transformation of the structures of the same knowledge. The sovereignty of uncontrolled scientism-positivism leads to brutalization and the reaction to it, leads to metaphysical obscurantism and madness. The researcher should be aware of the complex and reciprocal relationships between the scientific, technical, social and political worlds...
This report discusses about Logical Empiricism, or Logical Positivism – from its origins, who founded this "movement", its influences, weaknesses, and its contribution to education in general.
THE SELF CRITICISM OF SCIENCE - ALEXIS KARPOUZOSalexis karpouzos
The neoteric human being is now being cut off from the order of nature and establishes itself as the rationally re- flecting and acting subject which is now posited against the object of its cognitive and practical activity. Civiliza- tion is constituted as the product of human activity, as an artifact and technical construct. iWth this development, human civilization is transformed to a ‘quasi nature’, aim- ing to correct and replace nature, and man assumes the nature of a technical existence. By ‘technical existence’ we mean the prevalence of a one-dimensional image of the human person as the producer of rational hypotheses and interpretations and the downgrading and degrada- tion of the non-rational element of human existence, i.e. the radical imagination as a creative capacity, which forms the a priori condition and prerequisite for social activity. This constitutive element of the modern world (man, as the producer of rational hypotheses) and its ar- ticulation with the ideology of techno-scientific progress and the evolution of the machine that transforms the methods and theories of natural sciences, arming these with new tools and constantly renovating their research and experimental capabilities, finally led to the replace- ment of religious and metaphysical dogmas by the blind faith to the dogma of technical and scientific progress.
Science v Pseudoscience: What’s the Difference? - Kevin KorbAdam Ford
Science has a certain common core, especially a reliance on empirical methods of assessing hypotheses. Pseudosciences have little in common but their negation: they are not science.
They reject meaningful empirical assessment in some way or another. Popper proposed a clear demarcation criterion for Science v Rubbish: Falsifiability. However, his criterion has not stood the test of time. There are no definitive arguments against any pseudoscience, any more than against extreme skepticism in general, but there are clear indicators of phoniness.
Post: http://www.scifuture.org/science-vs-pseudoscience
What is PhilosophyIntroductionDefinition of Philosophy.docxphilipnelson29183
What is Philosophy?
Introduction
Definition of Philosophy
There is no unanimity among philosophers as to the exact meaning or definition of philosophy.
This is so because the nature of philosophical problem is such that philosophers cannot but disagree.
The world itself is one diverse phenomenon exhibiting disorder and perpetual conflict.
Philosophy as an attempt to comprehend reality in its entirety cannot but exhibit varieties of viewpoint because it is not possible for a single philosopher to embody everything that we need to know about the universe.
Philosophy as a Search for reality
Some philosophers see philosophy as the search for reality
This is the attempt to know the basic stuff i.e. reality out of which everything is made.
Thales identified the basic stuff as water
Anaximenes identified reality as air
Anaximanderidentified reality as something that is limitless, boundless and infinite
3
Philosophy as a rational explanation of nature
Philosophy is also regarded as the rational explanation of nature
The Ancient Greek philosophers like Thales, Anaximenes and Anaximander relied heavily on human reason to understand the world
This is rational explanation of nature that is devoid of religious myths, faith and dogmas.
Note that they cannot engage in rational explanation of nature that will completely get rid of religious and supernatural ideas in their thinking.
Rather, they refuse to accept purely religious as adequate explanations of empirical conditions of things in the universe
Philosophy as the formulation of Metaphysical Systems
Philosophy is also conceived as the formulation of metaphysical systems
This has to do with the understanding of the nature of every distinct object in the world and their relationships to one another
Philosophy as the critical/logical analysis of language
This conception of philosophy started at the beginning of the 20th century
This conception was championed by philosophers in the West, especially in Britain and United States of America.
They complained that philosophy has come into some sort of obscurity because the language in which philosophical theories are formulated make use of spurious entities and expressions
These philosophers see the central task of philosophy as that of explaining, clarifying and marking out the logical as well as the semantic implications of our language
So philosophy lays emphasis on the clarity of terms, on consistency in argument
The belief here is that once our language of expression is clear, unambiguous and systematic, we will be in a better position to know exactly we are talking about.
This clarity greatly enhances the possibility of reaching some consensus on important matters both of everyday life and philosophy
Philosophy as a Search for the Ideal Life
The lead proponent of this conception of philosophy is Socrates
For Socrates, philosophy is the search for the ideal life and how to live it.
Socrates demonstrated this when he was in jail in Athens.
WRI’s brand new “Food Service Playbook for Promoting Sustainable Food Choices” gives food service operators the very latest strategies for creating dining environments that empower consumers to choose sustainable, plant-rich dishes. This research builds off our first guide for food service, now with industry experience and insights from nearly 350 academic trials.
Natural farming @ Dr. Siddhartha S. Jena.pptxsidjena70
A brief about organic farming/ Natural farming/ Zero budget natural farming/ Subash Palekar Natural farming which keeps us and environment safe and healthy. Next gen Agricultural practices of chemical free farming.
"Understanding the Carbon Cycle: Processes, Human Impacts, and Strategies for...MMariSelvam4
The carbon cycle is a critical component of Earth's environmental system, governing the movement and transformation of carbon through various reservoirs, including the atmosphere, oceans, soil, and living organisms. This complex cycle involves several key processes such as photosynthesis, respiration, decomposition, and carbon sequestration, each contributing to the regulation of carbon levels on the planet.
Human activities, particularly fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, have significantly altered the natural carbon cycle, leading to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and driving climate change. Understanding the intricacies of the carbon cycle is essential for assessing the impacts of these changes and developing effective mitigation strategies.
By studying the carbon cycle, scientists can identify carbon sources and sinks, measure carbon fluxes, and predict future trends. This knowledge is crucial for crafting policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions, enhancing carbon storage, and promoting sustainable practices. The carbon cycle's interplay with climate systems, ecosystems, and human activities underscores its importance in maintaining a stable and healthy planet.
In-depth exploration of the carbon cycle reveals the delicate balance required to sustain life and the urgent need to address anthropogenic influences. Through research, education, and policy, we can work towards restoring equilibrium in the carbon cycle and ensuring a sustainable future for generations to come.
Artificial Reefs by Kuddle Life Foundation - May 2024punit537210
Situated in Pondicherry, India, Kuddle Life Foundation is a charitable, non-profit and non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to improving the living standards of coastal communities and simultaneously placing a strong emphasis on the protection of marine ecosystems.
One of the key areas we work in is Artificial Reefs. This presentation captures our journey so far and our learnings. We hope you get as excited about marine conservation and artificial reefs as we are.
Please visit our website: https://kuddlelife.org
Our Instagram channel:
@kuddlelifefoundation
Our Linkedin Page:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/kuddlelifefoundation/
and write to us if you have any questions:
info@kuddlelife.org
UNDERSTANDING WHAT GREEN WASHING IS!.pdfJulietMogola
Many companies today use green washing to lure the public into thinking they are conserving the environment but in real sense they are doing more harm. There have been such several cases from very big companies here in Kenya and also globally. This ranges from various sectors from manufacturing and goes to consumer products. Educating people on greenwashing will enable people to make better choices based on their analysis and not on what they see on marketing sites.
Alert-driven Community-based Forest monitoring: A case of the Peruvian Amazon
Has Logical Positivism Eliminated Metaphysics
1. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention
ISSN (Online): 2319 – 7722, ISSN (Print): 2319 – 7714
www.ijhssi.org Volume 3 Issue 11 ǁ November. 2014 ǁ PP.38-42
www.ijhssi.org 38 | P a g e
Has Logical Positivism Eliminated Metaphysics?
1,
Dr. Shanjendu Nath , 2,
Miss. Sumana Acharjee,
1,
M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D. , 2,
M.A.
1,
Associate Professor, Rabindrsadan Girls’ College, Karimganj, Assam, India.
2,
Lecturer, Highbrow College, Karimganj, Assam, India
ABSTRACT : The trend of the Refutation of metaphysics is very old in the history of philosophy. In different
periods of time different philosophers eliminated metaphysics on different grounds. Of them Kant clearly stated
that metaphysics as a science is impossible. He said that thing in itself is supersensible and there is no means to
know It. But the ground offered by the logical positivists in rejecting metaphysics is something new. Its
rejection is based on the analysis of language. In this paper we shall try to examine the arguments put forwarded
by the logical positivist, particularly A. J. Ayer, in rejecting metaphysics. To do this we should take different
arguments given by Prof. Ayer in his book Language Truth and Logic. There are ample reasons to think that the
arguments which Ayer himself put forwarded in this book in rejecting metaphysics is sufficient arguments
which can be taken against the logical positivism itself.
KEY WORDS: Experience, Logical Positivism, Metaphysics, Non sense, The Principle of Verifiability.
DISCIPLINE: PHILOSOPHY
SUBJECT CLASSIFICATION: Contemporary Philosophy.
METHOD OF RESEARCH: The method adopted in this research paper is analytic and critical.
I. INTRODUCTION
In the history of western philosophy different philosophers dominated at different times. In the first
half of twentieth century a new trend of philosophy came into existence known as logical positivism. With the
establishment of Vienna Circle in 1928, this trend of philosophy came into existence. With the chairmanship of
Moritz Schlick, a group of philosophers and scientists with a little philosophical knowledge were combined in
Vienna Circle and they expressed their dissatisfaction with the philosophy that were prevalent at that time. They
declared this philosophy as unscientific, speculative and non empirical. Thus based on science and experience
they tried to give a new turn in philosophy and thereby they expressed their reaction against all speculation.
Speculative philosophy in the past, according to them, looked all kinds of truth and validity. So, they wanted to
introduce a new type of philosophy abandoning all speculation in philosophy. It is a difficult task to say what
metaphysics is. But still there are certain conceptions about it. Philosophers of ancient and medieval period
thought that metaphysics has to be defined by its subject matter, as it is found in other disciplines of science.
They thought that metaphysics is a science which studies „being as such‟ or „the first principle of the universe‟
or „things which are unchangeable.‟ But this definition of metaphysics is no longer acceptable because there are
many philosophical problems such as, the problem of free will or the problem of mental and physical, which are
not related to the first principle or unchanging things but still these are now considered as the problems of
metaphysics.
In twentieth century it is generally believed that metaphysics deals with the problems that are beyond
this physical world that transcends the subject matter dealt by Newton, Einstein and Heisenberg. But such
impression is not correct. It is true that in the 1st
century B.C. the term „metaphysics‟ came in to usage to
denote the part of the philosophical heritage of Greek philosopher Aristotle. The most important part of his
philosophical doctrine is called by Aristotle the „First Philosophy‟. The subject matter of this first philosophy,
according to him, is the highest principles amongst all existent things that cannot be known through sense
organs but can be comprehended through reason alone and which is essential for all sciences. In the subsequent
philosophy the term „metaphysics‟ was used in this sense.In the middle ages philosophy we find that
metaphysics was used to validate theology philosophically. From the 16th
century both metaphysics and
ontology were used in the same sense. The 17th
century philosophers like Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz and
others thought that there is a close connection between metaphysics and natural and humanitarian sciences. But
in the 18th
century this connection was broken and this is particularly found in the ontology of Wolff.
2. Has Logical Positivism Eliminated…
www.ijhssi.org 39 | P a g e
In modern philosophy metaphysics is understood as a method of thinking which is wholly anti
dialectical as in cognition it is one sided. It does not believe any internal contradiction which is the source of
development in nature and society and therefore things and phenomena exist independent of one another and as
such these are not mutable. The first philosopher who used the term metaphysics in its anti-dialectical sense was
Hegel.
II. THE AIM OF LOGICAL POSITIVISM
J. Weinberg in his book “An Examination of logical Positivism” has mentioned two principal aims of
Logical Positivism. He said, “The official programme on which the Vienna Circle was first organized had two
principal aims: to provide secure foundation for sciences and to demonstrate the meaninglessness of
metaphysics.” Thus there were two aspects of Logical Positivism, one is positive and another is negative. In its
positive aspect, it tried to make strengthen the foundation of sciences, to make science free from metaphysical
concept, which is pseudo according to them, and to prepare its foundation purely on empirical principle. In its
negative aspect it attempted to refute metaphysics. The traditional philosophy, according to positivist, is futile as
it has no meaning at all. Metaphysics is invalid and it misleads people and thereby they condemned it.
According to positivist, whatever is beyond our empirical proof has no meaning and no sense at all and
therefore, to indulge in speculation is just to sheer waste of time and energy.
III. ELIMINATION OF METAPHYSICS
Logical Positivist‟s elimination of metaphysics can be attacked from different angles. One of them is
the criteria by which metaphysics is eliminated. The method by which positivists reject metaphysics is the
theory of meaning. This theory is also based on the Principle of Verifiability. According to this principle, a
statement is said to be literally meaningful if and only if it is either analytic or empirically verifiable.
Metaphysical statements are neither analytic nor empirically verifiable, so these statements are meaningless and
thereby nonsense. That is why the positivist eliminates metaphysics. But there are many objections against the
theory of meaning and the principle of verifiability. These objections are based on the classification of
proposition into analytic and synthetic. The theory of meaning is undoubtedly arbitrary and narrow in its nature.
Again, metaphysical statements or propositions are very much different from our ordinary empirical statements
and thereby the principle of sense verification cannot be applied to this. This point is admitted by Ayer himself
when he says that metaphysical statements are non sense. Here the term „non sense‟ is taken to mean that which
is not sensory. Moreover, there are critics who remarked that even the principle of verifiability itself is
unverifiable and such remarks cannot be refuted by anybody convincingly.
Centering round the principle of verification there is another point and that is the classification of
statements into analytic and synthetic. Positivists suppose that this classification of statement is exhaustive, but
in fact this is not. Proposition that cannot be brought into any one of the classes are treated as pseudo
propositions and thereby these are non sense. It is only by definition and not by argument that the possibility of
synthetic apriori propositions is excluded. This attitude is undoubtedly dogmatic in nature but in philosophy
dogmatism has no place. Ayer‟s elimination of metaphysics can be refuted by taking some factual evidence.
This can be done by giving an answer to the question, „what is metaphysics?‟ We can compare the idea of
metaphysics that we get from the history of philosophy with that of Ayer‟s conception of it. By doing this task
we can show that Ayer has not really eliminated metaphysics. In this process of comparison if it is possible on
our part to show that in Ayer‟s conception of metaphysics there is some serious omission then we need not
examine the various theories on metaphysics. If the idea of metaphysics that derived from the history of
philosophy is compared with that of Ayer‟s view then we can easily show that Ayer has not eliminated
metaphysics. So in this process, we may take Ayer‟s view first and it can be examined whether this view is same
as that of the concept of metaphysics usually taken. To do this we do not need to examine different theories on
it. If it is possible to find out some serious omission in Ayer‟s conception of metaphysics, this will be sufficient
to show that Ayer has not eliminated metaphysics. What he rejected is only pseudo metaphysics. The thing what
Ayer does is that he assumed the existence of two types of propositions – analytic and synthetic. He also
believes that this classification is true. Apart from these two types of propositions, there is no other type of
proposition. But metaphysical statements, according to him, do not belong to any one of these classes and
thereby these are non sense. He says, “We may accordingly define a metaphysical sentence as a sentence which
purports to express a genuine proposition, but does, in fact, express neither a tautology nor an empirical
hypothesis. And as tautology and empirical hypothesis form the entire class of significant propositions, we are
justified in concluding that all metaphysical assertions are non sensical.” This assertion of Ayer in no way
destroys metaphysics but only eliminate it.
3. Has Logical Positivism Eliminated…
www.ijhssi.org 40 | P a g e
Ayer has put forwarded different assertions in the chapter on „The Elimination of Metaphysics‟ of his
book Language Truth and Logic. From these assertions we can get some idea about the implication of
metaphysics according to him. He holds that the proposition like “There is a non-empirical world of values or
that men have immoral souls, or that there is a transcendental God” is metaphysical. He has written in another
place “we may begin by criticizing the metaphysical thesis that philosophy affords us knowledge of a reality
transcending the world of science and common sense.” Moreover, he thinks that to criticize metaphysics “it is
convenient for us to take the case of those who believe that it is possible to have knowledge of a transcendent
reality as a starting-point for our discussion.”From the above statement it is evident that by metaphysical
statement Ayer means those assertions which concern with transcendental entities and all the arguments that he
put forwarded are against the doctrine of transcendent. His rejection of metaphysics is, in fact, based on the
assumption of transcendent and for which he wants to discard metaphysics from philosophy. Thus Ayer‟s
rejection of metaphysics has justification only if his conception of metaphysics is correct. If anything is totally
beyond the reach of our thought and experience, then none can have a least of ideas about it.
But if it can be shown that the subject matter of metaphysics is not necessarily transcendental entities then it
would be sufficient to prove that Ayer‟s elimination of metaphysics is not correct. Now we examine whether
metaphysics deals with transcendental entities or not and for doing this we must be clear about the meaning of
the term „transcendent‟. The term „transcendent‟ itself does not carry any precise meaning, and as such it is
relative. For example, when someone utters the statement that „X transcends‟ or „X is transcendent‟, he is not
precisely asserting anything. In this connection an obvious question springs up – X transcends what? The
statement will certainly carry a precise meaning if it is said that X transcends our sense experience. Similarly,
when it is said that metaphysical entities are transcendental, the statement does not state anything clearly. Here it
must be specified as to what metaphysics transcends. This can be answered by analyzing three possible sources
of knowledge – sense experience, reasoning and intuition.Metaphysical entities certainly cannot be known
through sense organs and as such these entities transcends sense experience. All the metaphysicians as well as
the logical positivist will agree with this view although their rejection is on different grounds. The logical
positivists believe that there is no reality beyond our sense perception. As the metaphysical entities cannot be
perceived through sense perception, so these are not real. The metaphysicians also believe that metaphysical
entities are beyond our sense perception. Metaphysical entities cannot be acquired by reasoning and as such
these transcend our thought. The metaphysicians will accept this view partially. They believe that metaphysics is
a genuine study and thought or reasoning alone cannot explain it because thought is discursive and it can
comprehend its own concept only. They hold the view that the knowledge of metaphysical entities is derived
through intuitive experience. They believe that apart from sense experience and reasoning, intuition is an
independent source of knowledge. Thus metaphysician claims that metaphysical entities, although transcendent
to sense experience and reasoning are not transcendent to intuitive experience. Thus intuition validates
metaphysics.
But Prof. Ayer is firm in his conclusion. According to him, metaphysical entities are also beyond
intuition. But we should maintain that such a view of Ayer cannot be accepted. He is not clear about the
conception of intuition. By intuition metaphysician means a kind of direct and immediate experience. But for
Ayer, the meaning of intuition is something different. His conception of intuition is very much similar to sense
intuition and thereby narrower in its meaning. Thus Ayer‟s concept of intuition is in no way equal to that of the
intuition of mystics. Ayer thinks that with the help of intuition scientific hypothesis are derived. Thus if by
intuition he means sense intuition, then it is totally impossible to have metaphysical entities with the help of this
weapon. Certainly metaphysical entities are not within the reach of intuition. Thus according to Ayer, valid
knowledge about metaphysical entities cannot be attained by intuition. But if it can be shown that the two types
of intuition, namely, sense intuition and mystic intuition are different then it will be helpful to establish that
different from sense intuition, mystic intuition is an independent source of knowledge. Finally, we will be able
to establish that metaphysical entities are there although these are not within the reach of sense experience.
Prof. Ayer puts forward arguments in order to show that metaphysical entities cannot be validated by
intuition. He says that if mystic claims that valid knowledge can be attained by intuition then they must have to
explain it in an understandable way. In this connection he says “if a mystic admits that the object of his vision is
something which cannot be described, then he must also admit that he is bound to talk nonsense when he
describe it”. But the argument that Ayer extended cannot be accepted. Because the mystical experience of
mystic are not indescribable. The mystic also describe their experiences to other and the other people are
convinced by the mystics and that is why mystic‟s description bear meaning to others. Sometimes it may happen
that a mystic is unable to describe his experience by ordinary language. But it does not mean that such an
experience is indescribable.
4. Has Logical Positivism Eliminated…
www.ijhssi.org 41 | P a g e
Rather it means that for the description of mystic experience requires a revised form of language as we
find in the case of expressing scientific theories. Ordinary language is not sufficient for expressing scientific
theories as is realized by the scientists but for this it would not mean that they should eliminate it. They rather
revised their language so that they can express their theories with full satisfaction. As long as metaphysician and
mystic attempt to explain their experiences with the help of ordinary language, there is every chance of
confusion, even it may be unintelligible to many others. But this does not mean that intuition fails to reveal
mystical experiences and thereby metaphysics is nonsense. Further Ayer holds that intuitive findings cannot be
validated by itself. In this connection he refers scientific laws, which although often given through intuition are
also tested by actual experience and that is why these are acceptable. He identified the concept of „actual
experience‟ with empirical observation. This is evident from his assertion “we do not deny apriori that the
mystic is able to discover truths by his own special methods. We wait to hear what are the propositions which
embody his discoveries, in order to see whether they are verified or confuted by our empirical observations”.
Such an explanation of Ayer is due to his idea that mystic statement and scientific hypothesis are same. It is
found that in many cases scientific hypothesis are given in intuition but subsequently by empirical observation
these hypotheses are validated. So, Ayer expects that like scientific hypothesis the metaphysical statements are
also to be validated by empirical observation. He thereby makes an analogy between scientific hypothesis and
metaphysical statements. Bu this analogy cannot be taken as true because both differ in many respects.
Firstly, the most important respect in which metaphysical statements differ from scientific hypothesis is
that while the former is intuited but the latter is imagined. In explaining certain phenomena a subject may
imagine in different way and afterwards he can explain the phenomena with the help of a particular hypothesis.
Thus a scientist must have to verify his imagination in experience. The hypothesis of the scientist is tentative
and it needs verification and as such it is not assumed as true. Secondly, the main concern of scientific
hypothesis is relations of objects that are given in experience. But in the case of mystic experience there is no
reference to objects rather there is a direct and immediate contact between mystic and something else. The
mystic experience is as like as sense experience on the ground that as the sense experience is validated by
another sense experience so the mystic intuition, if requires, can be validated only by another intuition. Thirdly,
in the case of scientific hypothesis there is a possibility of suspension. If by empirical verification one
hypothesis is found to be false then the scientist are bound to reject it. But in the case mystic intuition there is
scope of rejection. The intuitive experience once acquired is taken as true and there is no scope of doubt in it.
Thus intuition cannot be rejected on the plea that empirical observation cannot validate it. It is rather the
suggestion of the mystic or metaphysician that it is mystic experience in which their statements are validated.
There is a possibility of argument on the part of Prof. Ayer that he does not have any intuition of
transcendent. He may even claim that the explanation given by the natural sciences is sufficient to explain
phenomena and thus there is no need of intuition. But this criticism of Prof. Ayer is very weak. Because there is
no justification in claiming that nobody has intuition as because Prof. Ayer does not have it. Metaphysics is
certainly meaningful to those persons who possess intuition. Prof. Ayer may not get any sense out of
metaphysics but for this he cannot eliminate it. It is as like as the rejection of a particular colour by a colour
blind person. The colour blind person has no vision of a particular colour but for this it does not mean that there
is no colour of this particular type. The colour blind person even has no right to claim that there does not exist
the particular colour which he fails to perceive.
IV. CONCLUSION
Thus in rejecting metaphysics the initial blunder which Prof. Ayer committed is the assumption that
experience means only sense experience. This assumption is undoubtedly a dogmatic attitude in his theory.
Ayer‟s rejection of metaphysics reminds us the rejection of substance, causality etc. in Hume‟s philosophy.
From the above analysis it is evident that Prof. Ayer extends his utmost effort to eliminate metaphysics. But the
arguments which he tries to establish are very weak and as such are not convincing. All these prove that in
eliminating metaphysics the logical positivism has not succeeded.
Acknowledgement
It is my great opportunity and privilege to express my deep sense of gratitude and respect to my
teacher and guide Dr. Shanjendu Nath, Associate Professor of Rabindrasadan Girls‟ College under whose care
and guidance I could complete my present paper entitled “Has Logical Positivism Eliminated Metaphysics”. I
am really grateful to him.
Sumana Acharjee
Co-author
5. Has Logical Positivism Eliminated…
www.ijhssi.org 42 | P a g e
REFERENCES:
[1] Ayer, A. J., (1936): Language Truth and Logic, Penguin Books (1st
Edition).
[2] Hume, David (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
[3] Loux, M. J. (2006). Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
[4] "Metaphysics" (1913). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company..
[5] Pears, D. F. (1965): The Nature of Metaphysics, Macmillan, New York,.
[6] Stace, W. T. (article in Mind, 1935): Metaphysics and Meaning,.
[7] Weinberg, J. (1936) : An Examination of logical Positivism, Routledge & Kegan Paul,.
[8] Wittgenstein, L. ., (1922): Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, New York, London: Kegan Paul, Trench trubner &Co. Ltd.