What is your answer?

Ayer would say that philosophy

    { 1 } - is the study of a reality that transcends sense experience.
    { 2 } - is an empirical study of people's speech habits.
    { 3 } - is a conceptual study in which we argue on the basis of logical connections.

<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























1 is wrong. Please try again.

Ayer would say that philosophy

You really missed the boat!

Ayer thinks that philosophy is about language analysis -- not about metaphysics.

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























2 is wrong. Please try again.

Ayer would say that philosophy

    { 1 } - is the study of a reality that transcends sense experience.
    { 2 } - is an empirical study of people's speech habits.
    { 3 } - is a conceptual study in which we argue on the basis of logical connections.

Philosophy argues on the basis of logical connections. So we argue that these two are true under the same conditions:

    1. The king of France is bald.
    2. Exactly one person is king of France, and this person is bald.
We argue conceptually, that one can't be true unless the other is. We don't do empirical studies, for example surveys about whether most people regard the two as logically equivalent. So philosophy, like mathematics, is a priori; it depends on logical connections and not on empirical data.

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























3 is correct!

Ayer would say that philosophy

    { 1 } - is the study of a reality that transcends sense experience.
    { 2 } - is an empirical study of people's speech habits.
    { 3 } - is a conceptual study in which we argue on the basis of logical connections.

Philosophy argues on the basis of logical connections. So we argue that these two are true under the same conditions:

    1. The king of France is bald.
    2. Exactly one person is king of France, and this person is bald.
We argue conceptually, that one can't be true unless the other is. We don't do empirical studies, for example surveys about whether most people regard the two as logically equivalent. So philosophy, like mathematics, is a priori; it depends on logical connections and not on empirical data.

<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























the end