Philosophy in the Twentieth Century

by Alfred Jules Ayer

The founder of the school of Logical Positivism looks back on twentieth-century Western philosophy, idiosyncratically stressing those developments and figures with which he is most in sympathy

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, History

280 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1982

About the author

In 1910, Sir Alfred Jules Ayer was born in London into a wealthy family. His father was a Swiss Calvinist and his mother was of Dutch-Jewish ancestry. Ayer attended Eton College and studied philosophy and Greek at Oxford University. From 1946 to 1959, he taught philosophy at University College London. He then became Wykeham Professor of Logic at the University of Oxford. Ayer was knighted in 1970. Included among his many works are The Foundations of Empirical Knowledge (1940), The Problem of Knowledge (1956), The Origins of Pragmatism (1968), Metaphysics and Common Sense (1969), Bertrand Russell (1972) and Hume (1980), about philosopher David Hume. Later in life, Ayer frequently identified himself as an atheist and became active in humanist causes. He was the first vice president of the British Humanist Association and served as its president from 1965 to 1970. He was an Honorary Associate of the Rationalist Press Association from 1947 until his death. He was also an honorary member of the Bertrand Russell. In 1988, Ayer had a near-death experience in the United States after choking on salmon and subsequently losing consciousness. He wrote of his experience in “That Undiscovered Country” (New Humanist, May 1989): “My recent experiences have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death, which is due fairly soon, will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be. They have not weakened my conviction that there is no god. I trust that my remaining an atheist will allay the anxieties of my fellow supporters of the British Humanist Association, the Rationalist Press Association and the South Place Ethical Society.” He died shortly after at age 78 in London. D. 1989.

More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._Ayer

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayer/

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/AyerbyT...

http://badassphilosophers.tumblr.com/...

http://www.informationphilosopher.com...

Reviews

[Andrew Noselli · Rating 3 out of 5]

Considering the fact that I just read 6 books by A.J. Ayer in a row, I must admit that I am finally up to speed on the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russell and G.E. Moore. It was mildly interesting to read Ayer's dissection to C.I. Lewis, C.D. Broad, D.M. Armstrong and R.G. Collingwood, but it was more revealing to be exposed to his opinions on Sartre, Heidegger and Nelson Goodman. Apparently philosophy has not made much progress since Wittgenstein who, the case can be made, was himself a derivative of David Hume. Towards the end of the book, Ayer laments the fact that language philosophy has assumed such an importance in the modern period that absolute idealism has been repackaged in a way that conforms to our changing scientific methodology. Three stars.

[J.D. Steens · Rating 2 out of 5]

Ayer surveys and critiques major figures of 20th century, Western philosophy, focusing mainly on the analytic philosophers. He begins with Russell and Moore, and he covers Wittgenstein and the Vienna Circle and others. Ayer also discusses Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger and Sartre.

Partially in reaction to the philosophers like Hegel, with grand metaphysical systems and claims, the analytic philosophers (including Ayer himself) were closely aligned with science and a material/empirical basis for truth. In the end, this philosophical approach centered on the use of language and the importance of clarifying meaning and correcting the misuse (“abuse”) of language.

It’s hard not to wonder about what role these philosophers play vis-a-vis science. Scientists, after all, have a good handle on what constitutes the material world (reality), what is valid to say about that world (truth), and the process for getting there (scientific methodology). As for the relevance of analytic philosophy to human affairs, Ayers does not engage this question much other than, possibly, his discussion of freedom in connection with the existentialists. The stuff of human value and the human place within the universe is taken off the table, dismissed as emotive expression and metaphysics, respectively. “Ought questions” are not philosophy because of the naturalistic fallacy that prevents an “ought to be” being derived from “what is the case” (Moore* and Hume’s earlier formulation). Motivation, and deep psychological structures and the philosophical implications thereof, is equally off the table because motivations are subjective phenomena, hidden and removed from empirical treatment.

The book’s content was tedious and unedifying. There’s no soul. Without soul, is there philosophy? Next up, perhaps, is Ayer’s book, “The Meaning of Life.”

*Ayer writes that “Moore himself was guilty of an extension of the naturalistic fallacy when, having satisfied himself that ‘good’ could not stand for any natural quality, he inferred that it stood for a non-natural one.”

[Happy Reader · Rating 5 out of 5]

My favorite logical positivist!

[T. Tokunaga · Rating 5 out of 5]

【Reflecting on Analytic Philosophy / Philosophy in the Twentieth Century / AJ Ayer (1982, Unwin Paperback 1990)】

Analytic philosophy itself seems to be under every single kind of moral censure, and so AJ Ayer is. However, in this later work by him, the scenery of analytic philosophy - until 1980s - has to turn into something quite different from the developments of Rudolf Carnap, Karl Popper, AJ Ayer himself, Kurt Gödel, or even the demigods Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein. It'd be even called an injustice if you criticized Ayer for Language, Logic and Truth without reading this own historical account, or a testimony of his own philosophy reflected on other philosophers' textual studies.

Karl Popper's induction was based on testability, i.e. experiments witnessed by perception, and was "insecure" (p134, Chapter IV). Rudolf Carnap's later theory on semantics is discussed in a favorable way, which focuses on the compatibility of truth about angels (whether to take Michael and Gabriel "examples" of angels' existence by dividing the problem into external - denying category, and internal - categorized), is supposed to be "tenable." (Circa p162, Chapter V). Whereas the likes of Chomsky as a philosopher (not as a grammarian), JL Austin, Gilbert Ryle, Strawson, and even Quine are doubted their theory - mainly on the ground of supplanting their theory with unnecessary things.

The polemic culture of analytic philosophy itself is also largely doubted, even in the case of Wittgenstein's Tractus - it'd show how the historical comprehension of analytic philosophy was already meliorated by the very titan of analytics, AJ Ayer.

[AC · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is something of a philosophical memoir -- a bit disjointed. But a good place to post this marvelous picture (1952):


[image error]

[Craig Bolton]

Philosophy in the Twentieth Century by A.J. Ayer (1983)

[Jake · Rating 2 out of 5]

Made my brain hurt.
Felt the stupidity.
May have to give up on philosophy.

[Pippa · Rating 4 out of 5]

I only read the parts of this that were relevant to my interests, but it was very clear and well written.

[Andrew Corrie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ayer is an entertaining writer and a good prose stylist. He puts across difficult ideas with ease - a great antidote to so much modern academic cobblers.