Essay on A.J. Ayer: The Elimination of Metaphysics

In the Discourse on Metaphysics by Leibniz he suggest that, "we maintain that everything that is to happen to some person is already contained virtually in his nature or notion, as properties of a circle are contained in its definition." This assertion raised a difficulty for Leibniz. This difficulty was that "human freedom will no longer hold, and that an absolute fatality would rule over all our actions as well as over all the rest of what happens in the world." With such a reality there would be no use for free will and whatever fate succumbs an individual is the will of the Most High; in other words, being destined. But for Leibniz, this is not the determined reality of humanity. Leibniz

Ayer was an emotivist and therefore took the non-cognitive approach to meta-ethics. He believed that ethical language is subjective and not objective. He said that ethical statements are merely expressions of liking or disliking a certain action, so if you say that ‘Murder is wrong’, you are simply saying ‘I don’t like murder’. He called this approach the hurrah-boo theory and claimed that any expression of emotion was the same as saying ‘ouch’; it is meaningless. He said that as ethical statements are neither

To him, the framework of argumentation involves the relationship between audience and the speaker and is to be influenced by the argumentation. Adherence is a “sense of allegiance and understanding”, and this type of discourse involves values. In The Realm of Rhetoric, Perelman begins to discuss about the relationship between rhetoric and philosophy, and how dialectic discourse plays a part in the relationship. This is in contrast to the Cartesian Method of scientific discovery. Also, in this section Perelman advocates that rhetoric is subordinated to philosophy, claiming “If dialectic is useful to the philosopher, by allowing himself to settle erroneous opinions, the perception of truth will come through intuitions; rhetoric will serve to communicate these truths and to gain their acceptance. (1379)” Through the use of dialectical reasoning as well as rhetoric, one can influence the minds of the audience and affect their judgement. So, philosophical argumentation calls for a particular field of a theory of argumentation which he has developed as the new rhetoric. “As soon as communication tries to influence one or more persons, to orient their thinking, to excite or calm their emotions, to guide their actions, it belongs to the realm of rhetoric

She begins the article by discussing the disparity between truth and a fact. Sommers would like students to interpret the material for themselves, ergo seeking out their own truth and facts; rather than compiling arguments from existing sources with no correlation to the material or individual’s argument. She taxes the students with the task of becoming the source and using fact to support their own argument. In fact, Sommers purpose of writing the paper is to explain why an individual uses sources, and to identify ways people can view the sources that they use for their

almost polar opposite of reason is showed in the numerous philosophers he references in the

The topic of knowledge and belief has been a subject of investigation and a primary field in philosophical research for centuries. Whether it was Aristotle or Descartes, multiple ideas on knowledge and belief arise, such as the epistemological theories of foundationalism or coherentism, which provide philosophical explanations to this debate. For the sake of this essay, and in my own opinion, knowledge should be distinguished from belief. Everyone is subject to different types of beliefs based on upbringing, however knowledge of basic items is universal, therefore it immediately becomes apparent that there is a clear distinction between the two concepts.

Meta-ethics considers the questions of moral language. Metaethics unlike normative ethics that looks at the act or characteristic of right and wrong, it looks at right and wrong more by implications of what is the nature of good and bad. Metaethics tends to ask the questions of what are the difference

Cahn, Steven M., Patricia Kutcher, George Sher, and Peter J. Markie, eds. Reason at Work: Introductory Readings in Philosophy. 3rd Ed. Florence, KY: Thomson Learning, Inc., 1996.

The last and most notable rhetoric element in this article is logos, which refers to the logical appeal of the argument. In this article, Robinson’s strength lies in her ability to make logical appeal to the readers. Robinson used causes and consequences, analogy, testimony and syllogism to appeal to logics.

In his book, ‘Language, Truth and Logic’ (1936), A.J. Ayer reinforced the verification principle when he noted that since the existence of God cannot be rationally demonstrated, it is not even probable because the term ‘God’ is a metaphysical term referring to a transcendent being that cannot have any literal significance. Interestingly, Ayer also rejected atheistic and agnostic statements since any statement that includes ‘God’ is meaningless. Ayer argued that since claims about God cannot be contradicted, they are not significant propositions, they are neither true of false, but cannot be valid. He writes: “The notion of a being whose essential attributes are non-empirical is not an intelligible notion at all.” In order to understand the verification principle fully, the principle also subsequently rejects all statements that express unverifiable opinions including moral and ethical statements, historical statements, religious statements and emotional statements. Ayer maintained the view that those statements are all meaningless since they cannot be verified. Beliefs about life after death are also problematic because they suggest that we have a soul. This, however, is a metaphysical assertion beyond any form of empirical testing. (Ayer, 1952)

David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion provide conflicting arguments about the nature of the universe, what humans can know about it, and how their knowledge can affect their religious beliefs. The most compelling situation relates to philosophical skepticism and religion; the empiricist character, Cleanthes, strongly defends his position that skepticism is beneficial to religious belief. Under fire from an agnostic skeptic and a rationalist, the empiricist view on skepticism and religion is strongest in it’s defense. This debate is a fundamental part of the study of philosophy: readers must choose their basic understanding of the universe and it’s creator, upon which all other assumptions about the universe will be made.

In the article “ On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a “much more comfortable belief” by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments.

There are a number of universities in the United States that offer a liberal arts education. These particular universities encompass philosophy and theology as a part of their core curriculum. By taking such courses students are enabled to learn and understand more about the world around them and who they are. A question concerning the existence of God and the role of each individual in society gives rise to speculation. In his article “Why Study Philosophy and Theology”, Dr. Peter Kreeft makes a bold claim which indicates that “anyone who is simply not interested in philosophical questions is less than fully human…” He explains this claim by providing a continuous chain of arguments, in which each argument breaks down the proper reasoning behind why an individual should desire to learn about philosophy and theology. These arguments include the Goal of Education, the Big Picture, and Good Philosophy and Theology.

BonJour begins his first part of the dialectical argument by reflecting on the nature of knowledge and experience (4). BonJour holds a broadly foundationalist perspective in which certain beliefs are basic (4). These beliefs

When people hear the term “ethics,” most of their minds turn to dilemmas discussed by figures such as Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham, Aristotle, and other famous philosophers. These men debated what is considered to be morally good and how a person can become ethical. Operating under normative ethics, these philosophers did not question whether or not ethics even existed, but rather if they exist, what are they? The branch of ethics that questions the foundation of ethics and morality is metaethics. There are three standpoints when debating metaethics: moral realism, moral relativism, and moral skepticism. I will be discussing my argument for moral realism and contend that moral relativism and skepticism are inaccurate. I will prove the