Logical Positivism
Logical Positivism essentially
combines empiricism (the belief that knowledge is only truly derived from
experience) and rationalism. It is a type of analytic philosophy.
In 1929 Wittgenstein travelled to
Cambridge and the ‘Vienna Circle’ was formed. The ‘Vienna Circle’ was a
discussion group of philosophers who raised various propositions such as the
idea that metaphysics is an out-dated system. The ‘Vienna Circle’ also led to the creation
of Logical Positivism. The members of the ‘Vienna Circle’ believed that a
scientific perspective of the world was more suitable. The philosophers, on the
whole believed in the same philosophy and one of their common beliefs was the
‘Verification Principle’ which was used as a device to attack the issue of
metaphysics. The ‘Verification Principle’ means that if something cannot be
verified, it is therefore meaningless. For example, metaphysical statements
have no meaning because they cannot be verified. We cannot prove notions that
help us understand the world such as existence, cause and effect.
The creation of the ‘Verification
Principle’ led to disputes because people argued about the formulation of the
‘Verification Principle’. Not even Science could provide a satisfactory answer
to these disputes. Wittgenstein was
amongst those who opposed the ‘Verification Principle,’ however, he was still
against metaphysics.
Karl Popper did not support the
Logical Positivists either and was therefore given the name ‘The Official Opposition’.
His book ‘Logic of Scientific Discovery’ attacks the ideas of Empiricism and as
I previously mentioned, Logical Positivists. He believed that the ‘Verification
Principle’ could not be verified and nor could scientific theories be proven to
be true because of the Theory of Induction. The thing that marked out all
science is its potential to be falsified. Induction cannot be a reliable source
because according to Hume’s ‘Rising Sun’ just because things have happened in
the past doesn’t mean that the same will definitely happen again in the future.
Popper realised that everything in the world is potentially untrue and this is
why he disagreed with the Logical Positivists.
The philosophers of the ‘Vienna
Circle’ believed the method of clarification showed how empirical statements
were truths derived from protocol statements. Protocol Statements are statements
that report the results of observations and provide the basis for scientific
confirmation. Experiences recorded by
protocol appear to be private to each individual, but this caused people to
question how can we can ever begin to understand everyone else’s own meaning? This
is because meaning depends on verification. Verification is a private process
and therefore no one else has access to this. Schlick responded to this
argument by insisting that a distinction must be made between form and content.
Content of experience is what you enjoy or live through life. For example, to
see something a certain way such as the grass is green. This is private. However,
the form of experience may be common to many of us. For example, many people
can experience the same sunset although we can’t be certain it’s the same thing
we’re experiencing but as long as
everyone agrees that what they are witnessing is the same then everyone is able
to communicate with each other and construct the language of science. Wittgenstein didn’t agree with this solution
and so he distanced himself from the ‘Vienna Circle’.
In the 1930s Wittgenstein became
a very influential teacher. Descartes and Schlick had striven to show how
knowledge of the external public world could be built up from immediate private
data of experience. Wittgenstein however, showed that private experience is
something that itself presupposed a shared public world. He also believed that
we do justice to the private within a social context rather than the public to
be constructed from the private.
After his return to philosophy,
Wittgenstein ceased to believe in logical atoms and he also chose to not
believe in a connection between language and the world. This contradicts with
what Wittgenstein stated in his work ‘Tractus’. Wittgenstein reassessed his
beliefs and established that he now believes that language is interwoven with
the world in many different ways which he expressed as ‘language games’.
The Language games are a point of
speaking whether it is expressing sensations or reporting an event etc. He
doesn’t mean it’s trivial, they are simply linguistic activities. The meaning
of the word is its use in a language game, if you want to give an explanation
for the meaning of a word we must look for the part it plays in our life. For
example, the meaning of a table.
Wittgenstein never abandoned his
view that philosophy is an activity, not a theory. We need philosophy if we are
to avoid being entrapped by our language.
After
Wittgenstein’s death in 1951 at the age of 62, many considered Quine, to be the
most respected English speaking philosopher. Quine spent time with the ‘Vienna
Circle’, his aim was to provide a framework for a naturalistic explanation of
the world in terms of science and physical science. All the theories that we
use to explain the world are based on our sense receptors. Sense receptors
account for our ability to
see, hear, taste, smell, touch, sense pain and temperature.
Wittgenstein and
Quine despite being considered two leading analytic philosophers had very
contrasting views. On the whole they disagreed about the nature of philosophy.
Wittgenstein firmly believed until his death that philosophy is not one of the
natural sciences.
The Open Society and Its
Enemies
During the Second World War
Popper developed the idea of political philosophy in his book ‘The Open Society
and its Enemies’. Popper explained that in order for a political organisation
to flourish, its institutions must leave maximum room for self-correction. The
two things that Popper believed are important for an Open Society to exist are:
1.
That the ruled should have ample freedom to
discuss and criticise policies proposed by rulers.
2.
That it should be possible without violence to
change the rulers if they fail to promote citizen welfare.
Popper didn’t rule out a
government as he believed that we need a government that worries about trying
to protect their state from the economically strong. A Utilitarian view, the greatest good for the
greatest amount of people.
Popper attacked Marx and Plato
because he considered these two philosophers to be enemies of the Open Society.
In an Open Society there would be no
secrets just an authoritive figure with supreme knowledge of all and all
citizens would also have equal rights and be trusted with knowledge too.
