In the spirit of metaphysics

 

What is Ayer's theory of meaning?

"… which an utterance is meaningful only if it expresses a proposition the truth or falsehood of which can be verified (at least in principle) through experience"

Diane Gall from what I've investigated upon which Ayer's categorically states he rejects metaphysical values when dealing with philosophically deduced variables.  (Therefore, I proceed in thinking I have  accurately defined his work.)  When surveying the above formal aspect of Ayer, would you be in agreeance... that it is a flawed (double meaning) as the dichotomy (I think) suggests.  I accuse Ayer of using a double meaning to that end, being, a double meaning can be inferred.  The statement registers that both metaphyiscs and philosophy are NOT separated at birth.  My question: is that experience directly quantifies the measure of reality ONLY if it is meaningful, thereby, what qualifies as experience cannot be understood as metaphysical origin?? That in fact negates Ayer entire premise. 

I think I am being fair here in, not saying Ayer's purposefully does it.

What, as if any query might you offer in rebuttals... either to my own personal view or that there's better proof to what Ayer's has written.

Please oblige myself.

Marco

P.S. happy healthy NY to you and yours!! ❤️

○○○○○

Diane Gall di. You know I love you and everything.  But the article's primary function offering its justification (making its own case) flies in the face of Wittgenstein. Which to me (anyway) is completely inflated and therefore counter intuitive a model.

Wittgenstein’s motto “The sense of a proposition is the method

of its verification” misleads substantially. 

How can the article in question passively negate what is so simplies the model itself.

I promise you I will read the article.  I have to go to staples to print it all out.  But quite frankly the article (not you) insults the law of averages.  I think it's a desperate argument. I could be wrong.  But I think I am onto something in rebuttal. In other words I completely agree with Witt~.  It's an obvious case in point.  Yet the reader is checkmated?? Give me a break...

https://jhaponline.org/jhap/article/download/3535/3346

HNY to you are yours as well!

○○○○○

Hi di, 

I have read the article and come to the conclusion.  That ~cognitive meaning vs. (some not 'all') ~emotive inference as an appeal to ignorance which debunks the entire article.

I am not dismissive.

I am clarifying it's trying to debunk something using some form.

There can only be 2 seperate assumptions which characterize meaning when focused on principles, being, verificationism can be mutually exculpatory.  

My findings are that between this obvious tautology.

That what is emotion must be inferred as non meaningful.  Therefore, what is non meaningful is also emotive.  Therefore, not cognitive meaning. (Not empirically valid.)  Which is, if you haven't formulated it, is a fallacy not commited in the article.  But I find it dishonest. 

Yet, in its entirety the article is intellectually sound.

I side with Wittgenstein's model of V-TOM vs V-CRIT as I stated to you about a week ago.

Clarification: what is cognitive meaning vs emotive inference... intuition on a purely philosophical level... qualifies emotion.  Therefore, intuition also serves to suppot my arguement that verification theory uses logic to identify with (but not exclsuive to) what acts as empirically valid statements, terms x words or sentences.

So, as I stated herein - Witt~ "The sense of a proposition is the method of its verification."  Not only holds as true.  It is in fact an absolute in principle.  Carnap rejects all metaphysical on the foundation of verification theory.  (As sides Ayer) It falls apart at the seams.

The author makes numerous vague examples in using his assumptions which come across with mere irony and is less than Persuasion.  It offers in depth analysis.  But historically invalid, for the reasons I have demonstrated.

Fascinating article.

Thank you for it!! 

P.S.  how he debunks Witt~ is for children...

My proof:  reading the pic... I address the problem with verificationism in the article and according to Ayer. It demonstrates both emotive and cognitive meaning.  It is an example. An example of how verificationism is double meaning, therefore, the fallacy is implied and therefore "not verified."  Wittgenstein was right.