Ayer's chief objection to metaphysics is this: the human mind is so constituted that, when it goes beyond the limits of what we could experience, it loses itself in contradictions -- so we could just as plausibly prove one thing (e.g. that there is a God) as prove the opposite (e.g. that there is no God).
Ayer's chief objection to metaphysics is this: the human mind is so constituted that, when it goes beyond the limits of what we could experience, it loses itself in contradictions -- so we could just as plausibly prove one thing (e.g. that there is a God) as prove the opposite (e.g. that there is no God).
This was the objection of Immanuel Kant, the great 18th century German philosopher.
Ayer's objection is different. Ayer argues, not from psychological limitations of the human mind, but from logical considerations about the meaningfulness of statements. Ayer claims that non-analytic statements that can't be tested by experience are meaningless -- and hence are neither true nor false.
Ayer's chief objection to metaphysics is this: the human mind is so constituted that, when it goes beyond the limits of what we could experience, it loses itself in contradictions -- so we could just as plausibly prove one thing (e.g. that there is a God) as prove the opposite (e.g. that there is no God).
This was the objection of Immanuel Kant, the great 18th century German philosopher.
Ayer's objection is different. Ayer argues, not from psychological limitations of the human mind, but from logical considerations about the meaningfulness of statements. Ayer claims that non-analytic statements that can't be tested by experience are meaningless -- and hence are neither true nor false.