What is your answer?
According to Ayer, "A material thing cannot be in two places at once"
{ 1 } - is true because of how we use language.
{ 2 } - is false, because we can conceive of the opposite being true.
{ 3 } - is a metaphysical truth about material things.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
1 is correct!
According to Ayer, "A material thing cannot be in two places at once"
{ 1 } - is true because of how we use language.
{ 2 } - is false, because we can conceive of the opposite being true.
{ 3 } - is a metaphysical truth about material things.
We use "material thing" in such a way that whatever is in two places at once (e.g. Cleveland and Detroit) is not "one" material thing. Thus the statement is analytic -- true by definition.
<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
2 is wrong. Please try again.
According to Ayer, "A material thing cannot be in two places at once"
{ 1 } - is true because of how we use language.
{ 2 } - is false, because we can conceive of the opposite being true.
{ 3 } - is a metaphysical truth about material things.
Ayer doesn't hold this.
<= back | menu | forward =>
3 is wrong. Please try again.
According to Ayer, "A material thing cannot be in two places at once"
{ 1 } - is true because of how we use language.
{ 2 } - is false, because we can conceive of the opposite being true.
{ 3 } - is a metaphysical truth about material things.
It may seem metaphysical, but it's really about language.
<= back | menu | forward =>
the end