Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Philosophy > ✅20th Century Perspective > Flashcards

✅20th Century Perspective Flashcards

1
Q

Who are the logical positivist

A

Concerned with the relationship between the use of language and knowledge, rejecting it as meaningless if what they saw was non cognitive.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Who were the founders of the Vienna group

A

Moritz schlick and Rudolph Carnap. Influenced by Wittgenstein.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

When did the logical positivist form

A

1920’s

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What did Wittgenstein say in his book to start the logical positivist

A

Suggested that meaningful language is connected with the things we know from our senses. The logical positivist used this to question if religious language is meaningless.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What Wittgenstein’s book called

A

Tractatus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Whereof we cannot know, thereof we cannot speak.

A

Wittgenstein

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What was Ayers role

A

He was influenced by Vienna circle. Educated at oxford and Eton. He developed the verification principle and decided that logical positivist had uncovered significant problems with religious language.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Ayers book

A

Language, truth and logic at the age of 24.

1936

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What did Ayer think of metaphysics

A

Describes any reality that lies beyond our senses. Ayer was only interested in what could be known through the senses, therefore Ayer thought it should be ditched.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Who said: commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion

A

Hume

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Verification principle definition

A

A statement which cannot be conclusively verified, is simply devoid of meaning.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

The 2 types of statements that are meaningful

A

Analytical: 2+2=4 etc.
Synthetical: it’s raining outside etc.

Ayer thought religious claims are non cognitive and impossible to verify so they are meaningless.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the problem with non cognitive facts being meaningless?

A

Problem of history: this would mean all history is meaningless.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Humes fork

A

Ayers philosophy is pinched by humes fork. Hume asserts there are 2 distinct classes of things, rational and empirical. And only the empirical can tell is useful things about the world.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

How did Ayer get around the problem of verification

A

Ayer developer the weak verification protocol, which means things such as history can be meaningful. Instead of checking every bit of knowledge without logic and sense, we only have to say HOW it can be verified and then it is considered meaningful.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is strong verification principle

A

An assertion only has meaning if it can be verified according to empirical information

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is weak verification principle

A

For an assertion to be tru, one simply has to state what kind of evidence ou would verify its contents. Eg, hitler invaded Poland. It is meaningful, fiction would come from eyewitnesses of the tanks rolling in etc.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Strengths of verification principle

A

Clear cut, provides answers. Statements about God fail the test and are hence meaningless.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Weaknesses of verification principle

A

Verification principle in itself is neither analytical or synthetical and therefore is meaningless itself.
Philosophical claims are neither tautologically or empirically verifiable but this doesn’t mean they are completely empty of all cognitive significance.
Weak Would mean the bible is meaningful and therefore god is meaningful and HENCE doesn’t work as itself as a theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Brian Magee on weaknesses of the verification principle

A

People began to realise that this glittering new scalpel was, one operation after another, killing the patient.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Brian Magee book

A

Confessions of a philosopher.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Richard Swinburne criticism of verification principle

A

There are propositions which no one knows how to verify but they are still meaningful. Toys coming out of the cupboard at night and dance around. There is no trace and hence can’t be verified, but the is doesn’t mean they aren’t meaningless.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Hicks criticism on verification

A

Talk of god might be verifiable in principle. There could be evidence in the future. Future possibility: eschatological verification.
Allegory of the celetrial city

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Allegory of the celetrial city

A

Theist and an atheist both walking down the same road. Theist believes there is a destination, atheist believes there isn’t. If they reach the estimation, the theist would be proved right. If they don’t, the atheist would be proved right.
Can be verified after death

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Brummers be verification principle
Treat sentences of faith as if they were scientific sentences.
26
Brummers quote
The effect of this mindset for the way religious faith is understood has been disasterous
27
Dorothy emmets Response against verification principle
They fail to und Rostand the nature of metaphysical thinking. Natural theology should be understood though analogy. Faith isn’t about having a complete explanation, it’s an attempt to express and understand.
28
Who began falsification principle
Karl popper rejected the findings of the logical positivist, and argued it was bad science. Science shouldn’t be looking for a continuous verification of its propositions, but falsification.
29
Who developed poppers points
Flew. VP suggests there will be bright sunshine somewhere tomorrow. FP suggests there will be thundery showers at 3pm in Leicester tomorrow. Latter is better as it puts forward more specifics and unlikely to fail.
30
Flews position
Theological utterances are not assertions, they have no cognitive meaning. Denies reoogicl language is meaningful
31
Hares position.
Flew said it is right to say theological utterances are not assertions, however they are BLIKS and so are meaningful.
32
Mitchell’s position
Theological utterances are many as assertions and they are very meaningful to those who hold onto them. for those who believe
33
FLEW ARGUMENT
Only meaningful if we can conceive of some evidence which migh count against it. Problem with God talk is that it can’t be falsified, can’t be disproved. Dies a death of a thousand qualifications: leaky bucket argument. Scientists make statements and test it to destruction: if all falsified, then hypothesis is real. Parable of the gardener
34
Parable of the gardener
From John Wisdom. But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible. A gardener who has no scent and makes no sound. How does this gardener differ from an imaginary Gardner or even no gardener at all? Religious people WONT accept any challenges, as nothing ca sway their beliefs.
35
What does the death by a thousand qualifications means
Flew mean that when a religious believer is challenged about God, their response is to modify the ay they talk about god to respond to the challenge that they are trying to qualify. By using equally vague and unfalsifiable statements,
36
HARES ARGUMENT
Not on complete same ground as flew. “On the grounds marked our by flew...” hare uses parable of the lunatic. To suggest that flew is standing on the wrong ground to be able to understand religious assertions,
37
Parable of the lunatic
Convinced that all the dons want to murder him. His friends introduce him to all and they’re all nice. But the lunatic says they’re all cunning and lying. He’s really plotting to kill me. His reaction is all the same no matter how many nice dons he meets. This parable shows the non-changing nature of religious people. Doesn’t matter what evidence proves them otherwise, they still believe in God.
38
hares bliks
The lunatics assumptions of the dons differs to that of everyone else’s. Blik describe the way in high people see and interpret the world. A basic, unprovable assumption that gives not explanation to the user. It is no falsifiable and it doesn’t make factual claims about the world.
39
What did flew think about hares bliks
Accepted hares bliks buts adds- Christianity does not rely on bliks as part of their statement of faith setting,.
40
The man who reassure himself with theological arguments for immortality is being as silly as the man who tries to clear his overdraft by writing his bank a cheque on the same account.
Flew about hares bliks.
41
Hicks response to hare
There are reasons behind religious beliefs. Experience and scripture. He also objects that there no way to distinguish between sane or insane bliks.
42
Insane and sane bliks
Lunatic has an insane blik, we may have a sane blik. Both have a blik. For the lunatic to have a wrong blik, there must be a right blik.
43
MITCHELLS ARGUMENT
Flew makes errors in analysis of the religious believer because the Christian attitude is not that of a detached observer, but of a believer. Parable of the stranger.
44
Parable of the stranger
Member of the resistance met a stranger who deeply impressed him. Stranger tells the partisan that he was on the side of the resistance. Ther fore said he must have faith in him no matter what happens. Sometimes he is helping and other times he is seem in the wrong uniform, yet he still says he is on our Side. He would never think differently. Like God and believers.
45
Mitchell vs flew
Mitchell tackles flew dis a death of a thousand qualifications. He does this by using th same example as flew that religious people assert God as loving whilst witnessing acts that seem contradictory.
46
“Experiences in himself the full force of the conflict”
Mitchell , about what he sees into a wider context of the whole of his doctrine and becomes and significant article of faith.
47
Mitchell quote to argue flew
So eroded by qualifications that it was no longer a qualification at all.
48
Swinburne book
The coherence of theism 1977
49
Richard Swinburne on what can be falisified
Factual statements can be falsified. However some existential statements cannot b falsified but this doesn’t stop them from being meaningful. Toy analogy. Neither proven true or false, but it can’t be UNDERSTOOD and hence is meaningful.
50
Denotation definition
Word just stands for something clearly.
51
Connotation definition
Word carries a meaning beyond its literal meaning.
52
Philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday
Wittgenstein
53
Wittgenstein quote on meaning
Don’t ask for meaning, ask for the use
54
Wittgenstein on the aim of philosophy quote
What is your aim in philosophy? To show the fly out of the fly bottle
55
What are language games
Language is used like playing a game with uses and rules. Within the groups, we have agreed rules and how the words work. Wittgenstein observed that RL has different rules and is in itself a game. We cannot say that the statement is true or false, but it fits with the Christian interpretation of the world.
56
Strengths of language games
Religious statements and scientific are recognised d as different types of things that deserve to be treated differently. Recognise meaning is not fixed but changes with the use and context. Recognised that there are beliefs that we have that are groundless, cannot provide reason yet they shape our world.
57
Weaknesses of language games
Believe may reject the idea that RL Statements only have meaning or the individual. They may be seen as truth claims. Language games are circular. Gives words m anoint, yet game its of is a collection of words. Wittgenstein over analyses language.
58
gellner on language games
Takes apart a perfectly working clock, and the W wonders why it doesn’t work.
59
Aquila’s vs Wittgenstein
Aquila’s cognitive analogy, understand you speak cognitively to God and about God. Wittgenstein- only those in the game are able to understand RL. Non Cognitive would take “Jesus rose” as no historical but a way if understanding the world.
60
Wittgenstein history
Jewish family. Attended school with Hitler. Hitlers dislike of Jews sparked from Wittgenstein as they didn’t get along. Prisoner of war as he wrote “tractatus logic philosophicus”. Wrote little about religion- most of the work about religious is just interpretation. Developed by d z Phillips, anscombe and Moore. Have 2 Wittgenstein, the later and early Wittgenstein as he changed his ideas.
61
Wittgensteins comments on religion and philosophy
“Therefore nothing turns on whether the words are true, false or non sensical” Suggests the idea of silence doesn’t indicate that religious sentences are meaningless. Refuses to enter discussing as to whether religious statements are meaningful.
62
Early Wittgenstein
Picture theory
63
Problems with the earl Wittgenstein
Different pictures, to everyone’s minds, therefore he changes his ideas.
64
Anscombe wrote Wittgenstein 2nd book
Philosophical inventions
65
D z Phillips
Applies Wittgenstein theory to religious belief. Religion is s system in itself, the reality of god doesn’t lie in the abstract issue of whether god exists, but is located in the words and practises of religion. We need to be able to understand their language to appreciate religion.
66
Who said “god is reality within the believing community”
Vardy
67
It is not the task of a philosopher to decide whether there is a god or not
D z Phillips,
68
Strengths of d z Phillips interpretation
Highlights non cognitive nature. Distinguishes it from other languages. Provide boundary for right language Believers can be initialised into the rules of the gam
69
Criticisms of d z Phillips interpretation
Controversial Language is objective and scientific, No progress in philosophical debates, which are alll based on the misunderstanding of language, Phillips claims wittgeinsiens arguments support his view of religion, but this leads to irrationalism and blind faith.
70
What is lebensform
Forms of life. Diff r not ate if fergus and John
71
Fergus
Attention to variety. Ref I re to very different ways we can uselanguage.
72
Serle
Wittgenstein has a deep religion hinder, but he says he’s an atheist.
73
What are the forms of life
Refer to some particular activity. Such as playing a game, where we use language in different ways and behave differently. Religious faith would be a form of life. Can be broad or narrow.
74
Literalists
Treat every sentence as true or congintive.
75
Conservatives
Accept general message as from God
76
Liberals
Open approach to scripture.
77
Don culprit
God is not something that exists but simply a reality within the community of faith. Argues Christianity involves a special form of life. With special meaning. Non-realism -belief that God refers to no objective reality but spiritual meaning in our own lives. God exists in us.
78
Peter Donovan book
Religious language 1976
79
Peter Donovan
Wittgeinstins thinking bout language games and emphases that philosophers are not suggesting that religions are games but that this is a useful way of understanding how language of religion had a special meaning.
80
Kai Nielsen
No philosophical or other kind of reasonable criticism, or from that matter defence, is possible for forms of lif, or indeed, any forms of life. Including Hinduism, Christianity and the like. 2000
81
Brian Magee book
Confessions of a philosopher 1997
82
Brian Magee on language games
In a crude at, philosophy’s tragedy in th middle period of the 20th century can be summ d up by saying that profession in general took its lead from Wittgenstein.
83
Fideism
Belief that all that is required in religion is faith. Which has and needs no justification.
84
Gareth Moore
I do not want to deny the reality of god, that god really exists. But it is not yet settled what the reality of god consists of.
85
What are cognitive statements
Truth claims, they assert facts and they are something that can be known is either true or false
86
What are non cognitive statements
Do not describe the facts and cannot be determined as true or false
87
Who were the Vienna circle?
Regularly discussed issues rising in logic, they believed following the work of Auguste Comte, that theological experiences belonged in the past as they were from and age when god was used as a explanation for anything that science had not yet mastered.
88
What is the positivist age?
When the only form of evidence that was useful which was available to the sense or empirical evidence that could be tested through science
89
What is Ayers book
Language truth and logic, 1936
90
What did Ayer put in his book?
Used the ideas from the Vienna circle to set down rules to judge if the language we use means anything
91
Swinburne weakness to the verification principle
People generally accept that “all ravens are black” but there is not way to confirm this stamens or prove it is false yet it is still meaningful. There are sentences that obviously have meaning but that are not verifiable in any way
92
What flew believed in
Statements are not meaningful but to vacuous as the believer will end up with an empty stammer of god. The believer would cling to their original asset on well qualifiying the playtime to death
93
What hare believed in
Agreed with flew to an extent, as the failure of RL. But he suggested that when people use Rl they are not to be interpreted as truth claims in a cognitive sense, but as bliks, an expression of Persian interpretation of the world. They aren’t falsifiable and there’s no evidence that can demonstrate the blik.
94
What does Mitchell believe in
Arguing that religious belief DOES have factual content. Elievers who do no accept weight of evidence against their beliefs are guilty of failure as well as logic.
95
What does C S Evans think about Falisifcation
Hare gives us no way of being able to judge whether a Big is right or wrong. If there are no facts to support religious claims, and they are just expressions, then the whole idea of right and wrong becomes meaningless.

Philosophy (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions