1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Philosophy and Logical Positivism

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherDOAJ
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Logical positivists claim that the whole of human knowledge can be reduced to analytic and synthetic sentences, and this means that the only possible knowledge is provided by science. Metaphysics is thus meaningless, because its sentences do not comply with the rules set forth by logical analysis of language. What, then, is the philosopher’s job? The members of the Vienna Circle answer that his task is to clarify the concepts used within empirical and formal sciences, while analytic philosophers stress instead the importance of ordinary language’s analysis. But the outcome is in both cases clear: philosophy is linguistic analysis. Howeber, by reducing the whole of reality to empirical reality, logical positivists do metaphysics. We do not have the “elimination” of metaphysics, but just the proposal of an empiricist brand of metaphysics.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Academicus : International Scientific Journal
          Academicus Journal
          01 March 2019
          : MMXIX
          : 19
          : 32-36
          Article
          0bcf8306155146bea9aa7a9d660580b4
          10.7336/academicus.2019.19.02

          Distributed under the terms of the https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/, which permits noncommercial use and distribution in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited, and the original work is not modified.

          Product
          Categories
          Social Sciences
          H
          Economics as a science
          HB71-74

          Comments

          Comment on this article