Language, Truth and Logic

Despite its sundry philosophical flaws and its status as a work parasitic on the intellectual labor of others, this book, I think, is a philosophical masterpiece of the first rank. And by that I mean that it's a book that should be read by any serious student of philosophy and that should be interesting to anyone with some interest in the subject. If you've ever heard murmurings about the pernicious doctrine of logical positivism and wondered just what it could be, this is the book for you. But don't be misled: this book isn't of only historical interest--though it is, of course, an important historical document. While its central doctrines aren't currently in fashion and aren't in fashion for good reason, this book, like all historically important work in philosophy that's worth reading today, isn't of interest only to historians of the subject. If you want to understand the contemporary scene in English-language philosophy, you're going to need to understand the positivism Ayer and likeminded philosophers espoused since many major currents in contemporary philosophy can be fully understood only as reactions to their views. Ayer's project here is the project of all young philosophical radicals--solving all the problems of philosopher, or at least showing that there were no real problems that needed to be solved. In less than two hundred pages of lucid prose Ayer gives you a brief statement of the central assumptions of the doctrine and a demonstration of how it can be applied to problems in nearly every area of philosophy. Needless to say, in Ayer's hands it appears to work wonders wherever it's put to work. Ayer's positivism, as he himself admitted, was really an updated version of Hume's radical empiricism. But Ayer wasn't as a gifted a philosopher as Hume, and consequently, the strengths of this book aren't a matter of the truth of its conclusions (they're probably false), or the cogency of its arguments (they rarely convince), or the originality of its insights (they're really nothing new). Instead, the greatness of this work resides in its ability to inspire. This is a young man's book, and it's one written with the verve and self-assurance of a recent convert who's sure he's got all the answers and just needs to get them out there for the world to see. Ayer doesn't pause to consider objections; he doesn't draw back from his more eye-opening conclusions; and he certainly isn't worried about offending his readers' more delicate sensibilities. The central tenets of Ayer's positivism can be stated in but a few sentences. (I'll ignore the niceties here and try to get the main ideas across.) The central component of positivism is a test for meaningfulness. A sentence, Ayer claims, is meaningful if it means either of two conditions: (i) its truth (or falsity) is analytic, or (ii) it is possible to acquire some empirical evidence pertaining to its truth (or falsity). If neither of these conditions is met, the sentence is liter

I agree with much that has been said by other reviewers, but I disagree with some of the reviewers who think this is just the logical positivism written by an English person. As it is easy to see that Ayer disagrees with Carnap and others who apply rules which are too stringent to prove almost anything. Ayer's view of verifiability is not that we must 'necessarily' have first hand experience of the truth or falsity of the thing we are trying to discover, but that there must be premisses that must be 'empirically verifiable'- things that make the statement true.One area where I think Ayer is not as clear as he makes out is the difference between analytical and synthetic statements. He uses the example of 'all men are mortal' as an example of a synthetic statement, because it has only been proved by experience. But, I am inclined to think that many people would view that statement as analytic because 'mortality' is built in the very idea of man. This to me shows that perhaps our universals such as 'man', lend themselves to making synthetic statements into analytic statements linguistically. Ayer does not address this point.What most impressed me about this book were the linguistic comments. Personally, it has eradicated a lot of muddled thinking. The statement that I was especially impressed by was that thinkers, dating back from Parmenides, have thought qualities - or things that can be distinguished as part of objects - are objects themselves because they are syntactically nouns.I agree with Russell though, that the argument that all philosophy is 'syntactical' investigation is an overstatement. Philosophers like Heidegger who are the punch bags of the logical positivists still have very important things to say on the human condition, and I agree essentially with Karl Jaspers comment that we have an intuitive grasp that there is more to existence than the objects directly in front of us.

If you are tired of reading summaries and general introductions to philosophy and would like to start reading original works, "Language, Truth and Logic" is a great place to start. The book is clear and concise, and is the classic presentation of logical positivism in English. The concept underlying Ayer's discussion is the "principle of verifiability," which defines a statement as being "literally meaningful" only if it either is logically necessary ("analytical") or can be empirically verified as being either true or false. Under this definition, metaphysical statements are not literally meaningful, and so are properly part of theology rather than philosophy.Ayer believes that many philosophical debates (such as those about ethics or about the nature of the soul) stem from arguing about metaphysical statements as if they were literally meaningful. He believes that once metaphysics has been eliminated from philosophy, these debates will seem silly and the questions that underlie them will be recognized as theological rather than philosophical. So once he has established the principle of verifiability and explained how he identifies statements as either verifiable or analytical, Ayer spends the rest of the book applying this principle to various "philosophical" questions. Of course, the place of metaphysics in philosophy is itself debatable. Ayer's conception of philosophy is relatively narrow, and many readers will prefer a wider definition of philosophy that includes some (or all) of the metaphysical statements that he banishes. Others will be thrilled to finally read a philosophical work that cuts through the mystical goo spread so liberally and destructively by other thinkers. Whether or not one agrees with Ayer's approach and conclusions, one has to appreciate his clear presentation of an important philosophical viewpoint.

This book is the single most valuable must-read on human knowledge you will ever find. It's clear, well-written and to-the-point. It will make you aware of the tricks even the most educated people can play on themselves and others. It is the single best antidote to the foggy-brained drivel churned out by religionists, philosophers, and postmodernists.