The Philosophy of A.J. Ayer, with Replies 55 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

The Philosophy of A.J. Ayer, with Replies 55 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS FRONTISPIECE iv INTRODUCTION vii FOUNDER'S GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE LIBRARY OF LIVING PHILOSOPHERS ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xii PREFACE XVll PART ONE: INTELLECTUAL AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A.J. AYER 1 Facsimile of Ayer's Handwriting 2 A.J. Ayer: My Mental Development 3 Still More of My Life 41 PART TWO: DESCRIPTIVE AND CRITICAL ESSAYS ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF A.J. AYER, WITH REPLIES 55 1. Evandro Agazzi: Varieties of Meaning and Truth 57 2. James Campbell: Ayer and Pragmatism 83 REPLY TO JAMES CAMPBELL 105 3. David S. Clarke, Jr.: On Judging Sufficiency of Evidence 109 REPLY TO DAVID S. CLARKE, JR. 125 4. Michael Dummett: The Metaphysics of Verificationism 128 REPLY TO MICHAEL DUMMETT 149 5. Elizabeth R. Eames: A.J. Ayer's Philosophical Method 157 REPLY TO ELIZABETH R. EAMES 175 6. John Foster: The Construction of the Physical World 179 REPLY TO JOHN FOSTER 198 xiv TABLE OF CONTENTS 7. Paul Gochet: On Sir Alfred Ayer's Theory of Truth 201 REPLY TO PAUL GOCHET 220 8. Martin Hollis: Man as a Subject for Social Science 225 REPLY TO MARTIN HOLLIS 237 9. Ted Honderich: Causation: One Thing Just Happens After Another 243 REPLY TO TED HONDERICH 271 lO. Tscha Hung: Ayer and the Vienna Circle 279 REPLY TO TSCHA HUNG 301 1l. Peter Kivy: Oh Boy! You Too!: Aesthetic Emotivism Reexamined 309 REPLY TO PETER KIVY 326 12. Arne Naess: Ayer on Metaphysics, a Critical Commentary by a Kind of Metaphysician 329 REPLY TO ARNE NAESS 341 13. D.J. O'Connor: Ayer on Free Will and Determinism 347 REPLY TO D.J. O'CONNOR 367 14. Desiree Park: Ayerian Qualia and the Empiricist Heritage 375 REPLY TO DESIREE PARK 387 15. David F. Pears: Ayer's Views on Meaning-Rules 393 REPLY TO DAVID F. PEARS 402 16. Azarya Polikarov and Dimitri Ginev: Remarks on Logical Empiricism and Some of A.J. Ayer's Achievements: Some Fifty Years Later 407 REPLY TO AZARYA POLIKAROV AND DIMITRI GINEV 425 17. Hilary Putnam: Is It Necessary that Water is H2O? 429 REPLY TO HILARY PUTNAM 455 18. Francisco Miro Quesada C.: Ayer's Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics 467 REPLY TO FRANCISCO MIRO QUESADA 478 19. Anthony Quinton: Ayer and Ontology 489 REPLY TO LoRD QUINTON 509 20. Emanuele Riverso: Ayer's Treatment of Russell 517 REPLY TO EMANUELE RIVERSO 542 2l. Ernest Sosa: Ayer on Perception and Reality 545 REPLY TO ERNEST SOSA 570 TABLE OF CONTENTS xv 22. T.L.S. Sprigge: Ayer on Other Minds 577 REPLY TO T.L.S. SPRIGGE 598 23. Barry Stroud: Ayer's Hume 609 24. David Wiggins: Ayer on Morality and Feeling: From Subjectivism to Emotivism and Back? 633 PART THREE: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE WRITINGS OF A.J. AYER 661 COMPILED BY MRS. GUIDA CROWLEY INDEX BY S.S. RAMA RAo PAPPU 681 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Barry Stroud 1935-2019
BARRY STROUD 1935-2019 ized in frame of the WISDOM Journal. I am in great grief that we have lost such an important philosopher and member of our Editorial Board. Stroud passed away on Friday, August 9, 2019 of brain cancer1. He earned his B.A. from the University of Toronto and his Ph.D. from Harvard University2. While most popular for his work in epistemology and philosophical incredu- lity - just as his compositions on such logicians as David Hume and Ludwig Wittgenstein - Stroud's general heritage, fellow philosophers state, was his capacity to see the comprehensive view and get to the core of reasoning. Stroud was The loss of Barry Stroud affected the com- a provocative scholar. As a thinker, Stroud be- munity of philosophers in a very harsh way. One came an adult during when the overall Western of the great philosophers of the past half-century frame of mind was that philosophical inquiries was a key member of the editorial board at the could be replied by the sociologies, and he tested WISDOM journal. Stroud‟s cooperation with the those thoughts. WISDOM journal started the day the journal was Stroud's own work indicated another way: found, in 2013, with the help of his strong he connected without a moment's delay with in- friendship with academician Georg Brutian, the quiries in metaphysics, epistemology, the philos- Founder and Chief Editor of the periodi- ophy of our intellect, the hypothesis of signifi- cal WISDOM and founder-president of the Inter- cant worth, and more, declining to offer thought national Research Institute for Metaphilosophy, to any alleged limits between these subjects or to Transformational Logic and Theory of Argumen- concede to the supposed ability of those with a tation at Khachatur Abovian Armenian State specialist‟s command of them.
[Show full text]
An Anthology of Philosophical Studies
Introduction AN ANTHOLOGY OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES Edited by PATRICIA HANNA ADRIANNE L. MCEVOY PENELOPE VOUTSINA ATINER 2006 1 An Anthology of Philosophical Studies 2 Introduction Athens Institute for Education and Research 2006 An Anthology of Philosophical Studies Edited by Patricia Hanna Adrianne L. McEvoy Penelope Voutsina 3 An Anthology of Philosophical Studies PUBLISHED BY ATHENS INSTITUTE FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH 14 Solomou Street, 10683 Athens, Greece Tel. +30 210 36.34.210 Fax +30 210.36.34.209 Email: [email protected] URL: www.atiner.gr This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of the Athens Institute for Education and Research. First Published: 2006 ISBN: 978-960-6672-11-8 Typeset, printed and binding by Theta Co. 4 Introduction Table of Contents List of Contributors i Introduction 1 Voutsina, P. PART I EPISTEMOLOGY 1. Imagination in Descartes’ Skepticism 7 Scholl, A. 2. Descartes on Sensations and Ideas of Sensations 17 Cunning, D. 3. The Myth of Hume’s Compatibilism 33 Morris, E.W. 4. From Contextualism to Skepticism 43 Wilburn, R. 5. The Puzzle of Self-Knowledge 51 Voutsina, P. 6. Unconfined Rationality: A Normative yet Realistic Model of 59 Inference Morado, R. and Savion, L. PART II METAPHYSICS AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 7. Language as Community Property: What’s Wrong with 75 Chomsky’s Individualism? Hanna, P. 8. What do Concepts Consist of? The Role of Geometric and 93 Proprioceptive Information in Categorization Dellantonio, S. and Pastore, L.
[Show full text]
SAKAE KUBO Honderich, Ted. How Free Are You? the Determinism
BOOK REVIEWS 123 set forth his own view of the "center" without giving equal space to others. An article which sets forth differing views should not be written by a person who represents one of these views. Or if the author is a protagonist for one of the views under discussion, he or she should at least avoid setting forth hidher own view as unquestionably the best. In light of the editors' remarks in the preface, it is difficult to understand how P. W. Barnett could write his article on the "Opponents of Paul" without any reference to Sanders's view. Sanders is neither mentioned in the article nor listed in the bibliography. Whether Sanders is correct or not is not the issue. There is nothing wrong with Barnett's view that most of Paul's opponents were Judaizers, but at least he should state why he takes this position in light of Sanders's challenge to this view. The cross-referencing of all the articles is a welcome feature that considerably heightens the volume's usefulness. The work also includes a Pauline letter index, a subject index, and an article index. On format, it would have been much easier to locate the end of each article if the word BIBLIOGRAPHY had been laced in bold print with space between it and the cross references. A few typographical errors were noted. The word "human" is repeated (877, col. 2, para. I), and "Moreover" (673) and "condemns" (942) are misspelled. Especially because of the timeliness of the volume it will serve as a handy reference to check where evangelicals stand with regard to recent Pauline studies.
[Show full text]
Making Reality Bite: a Peircean Approach to Epistemology
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Commons@Waikato Letting Reality Bite: A Peircean Approach to Teaching Undergraduate Epistemology Catherine Legg, University of Waikato 1) Introduction: Academic philosophers who have a research passion for Peirce and who suspect that he has the potential to revolutionize philosophy sometimes wonder how they might bring his ideas more into the teaching of undergraduates − where he frequently doesn’t feature at all, except in the US where a token coverage of his early papers seems to result largely from patriotism. Much could be said about specific Peircean ideas and theories which, if included in philosophy curricula, would expand and complicate the vision of philosophy to which students are exposed, and would most likely be greatly appreciated by many who feel troubled and undermined by a sense of narrowness in the current curriculum which they lack the resources to articulate.1 Just a few examples are Peirce’s understanding of pragmatism as a faith in the capacity of experimentation to deliver stable answers to our questions which − in ironic contrast to an understanding of pragmatism as a claim of ‘anything-goes’ − is in fact the most complete form of realism, his belief in final causes and its potential to resurrect ethical realism against positivism’s lingering nihilist onslaught, his distinctive objective idealism, so illuminatingly intermingled with his vision of (mathematical, logical and metaphysical) ‘continuity’, his belief in real chance, and his most elegant and ambitious theory of signs. Having said all this, however, in my opinion the most valuable legacy Peirce has given me as a teacher of undergraduate philosophy is not any of his theories but one of his instructions.
[Show full text]
Nkrumah and Hountondji on Ethno-Philosophy a Critical Appraisal
NKRUMAH AND HOUNTONDJI ON ETHNO-PHILOSOPHY A CRITICAL APPRAISAL Martin Odei Ajei (Ghana) 1. Introduction Today, ‘African philosophy’ is well understood as a culturally determined specifi cation of philosophy comprising both oral and written traditions of speculative and analytical thought1. Th is consensus on the nature and pos- sibility conditions of this type of philosophy was achieved by considerable debate in which the term ‘ethno-philosophy’ was a most contested notion. Th e term was introduced to philosophical vocabulary by Kwame Nkrumah in the title of an uncompleted2 thesis entitled Mind and Th ought in primi- tive Society: A Study in Ethno-philosophy, which was intended for partial fulfi llment of the award of a PhD degree3. Henceforth, this work will be rendered as ‘the thesis’. 1 Wiredu, K. 1995, “African Philosophy”, in Ted Honderich (ed.), Th e Oxford Companion to Philoso- phy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 17-18. 2 Professor Hountondji, in an email correspondence with me dated 22 August 2010, expressed the opinion that the thesis is perhaps not well described as “uncompleted” because “it seems to be quite complete as it is”. Although this is a fair judgment of the state of the work, I maintain the description as uncompleted for this reason: as mentioned in the footnote above, Nkrumah confi rms going to England with the aim of completing his thesis in ethno-philosophy. He does not indicate elsewhere that the work was actually completed. Th erefore I consider it is safer to describe it as “uncompleted”. 3 Th e most probable period for the composition of this work is between 1943 and 1945, at the earliest.
[Show full text]
Alfred Jules Ayer (1910-1989) Ambition
A.J. Ayer (1910-1989) 83 ing, gave Richard Wollheim space on its front page to praise Ayer as a ehituarp philosopherand intellectual. After calling him "one ofthe foremost philos ophers ofhis day" he proceeded to describe the sort ofphilosopher he was: As significant as Ayer's philosophy was the kind of philosopher that he was. Fundamentally he believed that philosophy was a profound part of human culture. In this way he was an intellectual in the European sense. But he thought that the diffusion ofphilosophy did not require a diminution either in rigour or in Alfred Jules Ayer (1910-1989) ambition. No philosophical view, he always thought, was worth more than the by John G. Slater arguments that could be brought fOlWard in its favour. And no philosophical view could beofinterest unless it could be generalized into a principle. In his obituary in the same newspaper John Foster led off by saying that A.I. Ayer was the most important British philosopher ofhis generation. Indeed, I HAPPENED TO bein London on 27 June 1989 when A.J. Ayerdied, and among twentieth-century British philosophers, he ranks second only to Russell. I made a point of collecting the obituaries that were published in the newspapers.· As I expected, there was quite a splash of publicity: BBC That remark would have pleased Ayer, since he ended the first volume of Radio assembled a panel of his friends to discuss his life and work, and his autobiography, Part ofMy Life, which took him up to his thirty-fifth most of the serious newspapers announced his death on their front pages.
[Show full text]
A Weakly Pragmatic Defense of Authoritatively Normative Reasons
NIHILISM AND ARGUMENTATION: A WEAKLY PRAGMATIC DEFENSE OF AUTHORITATIVELY NORMATIVE REASONS Scott Simmons A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2020 Committee: Michael Weber, Advisor Verner Bingman Graduate Faculty Representative Christian Coons Molly Gardner Sara Worley ii ABSTRACT Michael Weber, Advisor Global normative error theorists argue that there are no authoritative normative reasons of any kind. Thus, according to the error theory, the normative demands of law, prudence, morality, etc. are of no greater normative significance than the most absurd standards we can conceive of. Because the error theory is a radically revisionary view, theorists who accept it only do so because they maintain the view is supported by the best available arguments. In this dissertation, I argue that error theory entails that it is impossible that there are successful arguments for anything, thus defenses of error theory are in tension with the view, itself. My argument begins with the observation that it is natural to think a successful argument is one that gives us an authoritative normative reason to believe its conclusion. Error theory entails that there are no authoritative reasons to believe anything. What are arguments for error theory even supposed to accomplish? Error theorists may respond that their arguments are solely intended to get at the truth. I argue that this reply fails. One problem is that it cannot make sense of why in practice even error theorists still want evidence for the premises of sound arguments. Error theorists may try to capture the importance of evidence by appeal to our social norms or goals.
[Show full text]
1 Skepticism and Beyond
Skepticism and Beyond Skepticism and beyond: A primer on Stroud’s later epistemology In Sképsis VII.14: 76-99. October 2016 Jason Bridges University of Chicago 1. Understanding the skeptical challenge A. The initial reflections in Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy purport to reveal that we are incapable of acquiring knowledge of the world around us. How is such an extraordinarily sweeping, and devastating, result supposed to be reached? Whatever we make of the details, the general strategy, at least, seems straightforward. In the course of his reflections, Descartes raises a question that we might express as follows, “How is it possible for us to have knowledge, by means of the senses, of things located outside us?” He then brings to bear an array of related considerations on this question, and on their basis arrives at an answer that can be put as follows: “Sorry to say, but it’s not in fact possible for us to have any knowledge, by means of the senses, of things located outside us.” The assessment, then, seems to be reached in an eminently familiar way: by argument. If we don’t like the assessment, it falls to us to find some error in the arguments for it. Central to Barry Stroud’s approach to skepticism is a suspicion of this straightforward accounting of the skeptic’s progress. Certainly it appears as if the skeptic raises a general question about our capacity for knowledge, and then argues toward a negative answer to that question. But are things as they appear? 1 Skepticism and Beyond B.
[Show full text]
The Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy: Program History
The Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy: Program History 1960 FIRST COLLOQUIUM Wilfrid Sellars, "On Looking at Something and Seeing it" Ronald Hepburn, "God and Ambiguity" Comments: Dennis O'Brien Kurt Baier, "Itching and Scratching" Comments: David Falk/Bruce Aune Annette Baier, "Motives" Comments: Jerome Schneewind 1961 SECOND COLLOQUIUM W.D. Falk, "Hegel, Hare and the Existential Malady" Richard Cartwright, "Propositions" Comments: Ruth Barcan Marcus D.A.T. Casking, "Avowals" Comments: Martin Lean Zeno Vendler, "Consequences, Effects and Results" Comments: William Dray/Sylvan Bromberger PUBLISHED: Analytical Philosophy, First Series, R.J. Butler (ed.), Oxford, Blackwell's, 1962. 1962 THIRD COLLOQUIUM C.J. Warnock, "Truth" Arthur Prior, "Some Exercises in Epistemic Logic" Newton Garver, "Criteria" Comments: Carl Ginet/Paul Ziff Hector-Neri Castenada, "The Private Language Argument" Comments: Vere Chappell/James Thomson John Searle, "Meaning and Speech Acts" Comments: Paul Benacerraf/Zeno Vendler PUBLISHED: Knowledge and Experience, C.D. Rollins (ed.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964. 1963 FOURTH COLLOQUIUM Michael Scriven, "Insanity" Frederick Will, "The Preferability of Probable Beliefs" Norman Malcolm, "Criteria" Comments: Peter Geach/George Pitcher Terrence Penelhum, "Pleasure and Falsity" Comments: William Kennick/Arnold Isenberg 1964 FIFTH COLLOQUIUM Stephen Korner, "Some Remarks on Deductivism" J.J.C. Smart, "Nonsense" Joel Feinberg, "Causing Voluntary Actions" Comments: Keith Donnellan/Keith Lehrer Nicholas Rescher, "Evaluative Metaphysics" Comments: Lewis W. Beck/Thomas E. Patton Herbert Hochberg, "Qualities" Comments: Richard Severens/J.M. Shorter PUBLISHED: Metaphysics and Explanation, W.H. Capitan and D.D. Merrill (eds.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966. 1965 SIXTH COLLOQUIUM Patrick Nowell-Smith, "Acts and Locutions" George Nakhnikian, "St. Anselm's Four Ontological Arguments" Hilary Putnam, "Psychological Predicates" Comments: Bruce Aune/U.T.
[Show full text]
1 Practical Reasoning, the First Person and Impartialism About
1 Practical Reasoning, the First Person and Impartialism about Reasons Alan Thomas Tilburg University Abstract This paper considers the problem posed for impartialism about reasons by the claim that practical reasoning is essentially first personal. This argument, first put forward by Bernard Williams, has an obscure rationale. Barry Stroud has suggested that in the only sense in which it is true it is misrepresents the issue. The issue is that substituting a particular identity into a conclusion true of anyone can change the degree of support for a practical conclusion. This paper develops a complementary line of argument. Developing Stroud’s point and interpreting it as highlighting the non-monotonicity of practical reasoning, it is argued that the distinguishing feature of practical reasoning is that it terminates in an action as its conclusion. Actions are the expression of one’s all things considered judgement and the expression of intentional states in action. The obvious rejoinders to this view are canvassed and deflected. This Aristotelian thesis is independently motivated as making best sense of the fact that practical questions may “turn out variously”. This paper evaluates Bernard Williams’s claim that practical reasoning is “essentially first personal” in a way that ethical impartialism cannot accommodate.1 [Williams, 1985, pp. 67-68] Williams’s target is reasons impartialism, a view that can naturally be formulated as a thesis about an informational restriction on moral judgement. [Sen, 1979] This view claims that the content of reasoning, taking the standard patterns of inference for granted, can be fully accurately represented as reasoning by anyone in a way that excludes information about any particular individual.
[Show full text]
Ted Honderich's Determinism
278 Free Will: The Scandal in Philosophy Determinism Indeterminism Hard Determinism Compatibilism Libertarianism Soft Determinism Hard Incompatibilism Soft Compatibilism Event-Causal Agent-Causal Chapter 23 Chapter Ted Honderich’s Illusionism DeterminismSemicompatibilism Incompatibilism SFA Non-Causal Impossibilism Narrow Incompatibilism Broad Incompatibilism Soft Causality Valerian Model Soft Incompatibilism Modest Libertarianism Soft Libertarianism Source Incompatibilism Leeway Incompatibilism Cogito Daring Soft Libertarianism (Actual Sequence) (Alternative Sequences) informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/honderichTwo-Stage Model with Limited Determinism and Limited Indeterminism This chapter on the web Ted Honderich 279 Indeterminism Ted Honderich’s Determinism DeterminismLibertarianism Ted Honderich is the principal spokesman for strict physical causality and “hard determinism.” Agent-Causal He has written more widely (with excursions into quantum Compatibilism mechanics,Event-Causal neuroscience, and consciousness), more deeply, and Soft Determinism certainly more extensively than most of his colleagues on the Hard Determinism problem of free will. Unlike most of his determinist colleagues specializingNon-Causal in free will, Honderich has notSFA succumbed to the easy path of Soft Compatibilism compatibilism by simply declaring that the free will we have (and should want, says Daniel Dennett) is completely consistent Hard Incompatibilism Incompatibilismwith determinism, namely a HumeanSoft “voluntarism” Causality or “freedom
[Show full text]
Ted Honderich
2 also published by OXFORD UNIVerSITY PreSS The Opacity of Mind An Integrative Theory of Self-Knowledge Peter Carruthers Explaining the Brain Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience What is it for you to be conscious? There is no agreement whatever in philosophy or science: Carl F. Craver it has remained a hard problem, a mystery. Is this partly or mainly owed to the existing honderich theories not even having the same subject, not answering the same question? In Actual TED HONDERICH, Grote Professor The Character of Consciousness Consciousness, Ted Honderich sets out to supersede dualisms, objective physicalisms, abstract Emeritus of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic David J. Chalmers functionalism, externalisms, and all other theories. He argues that the theory of Actualism, at University College London, past chairman of right or wrong, is unprecedented, in nine ways. (1) It begins from a gathered database and the Royal Institute of Philosophy, and visiting Subjective Consciousness proceeds to an adequate initial clarification of consciousness in the primary ordinary sense. professor at Yale and the CUNY Graduate A Self-Representational Theory This consciousness is summed up as something’s being actual. (2) Like basic science, Actualism Centre, came to England from Canada as a Uriah Kriegel proceeds from this metaphorical or figurative beginning to what is wholly literal and explicit— graduate student. He has lived in London for Actual Actual constructed answers to the questions of what is actual and what it is for it to be actual. (3) In most of his life, and lectured in much of Europe so doing, the theory respects the differences of consciousness within perception, consciousness and the East.
[Show full text]