Some philosophers make claims about a reality transcending sense experience. For example, they talk about God, or about immaterial souls, or about objective values.
Logical positivism's chief objection to this is that
Some philosophers make claims about a reality transcending sense experience. For example, they talk about God, or about immaterial souls, or about objective values.
Logical positivism's chief objection to this is that
This historical point suggests that something may be wrong with such claims. Logical positivism tells us more specifically what is wrong.
Some philosophers make claims about a reality transcending sense experience. For example, they talk about God, or about immaterial souls, or about objective values.
Logical positivism's chief objection to this is that
Its criticism goes deeper than that. Logical positivism thinks that there's no truth to be known on such issues.
Some philosophers make claims about a reality transcending sense experience. For example, they talk about God, or about immaterial souls, or about objective values.
Logical positivism's chief objection to this is that
Genuine issues must be capable of being resolved -- by appealing either to sense experience or to how we use language. Whatever can't in principle be resolved in such ways is nonsensical; there's no truth to be known on such issues.