display all the ideas for this combination of texts
4 ideas
5208 | A person with non-empirical attributes is unintelligible. [Ayer] |
Full Idea: The notion of a person whose essential attributes are non-empirical is not an intelligible notion at all. | |
From: A.J. Ayer (Language,Truth and Logic [1936], Ch.6) | |
A reaction: Non-empirical and non-causal are not quite the same thing. A being which never had any effects is a bizarre, and probably pointless, fantasy. A being which affected our world (through ideas, say) but is unobservable is a perfectly good theory. |
234 | We couldn't discuss the non-existence of the One without knowledge of it [Plato] |
Full Idea: There must be knowledge of the one, or else not even the meaning of the words 'if the one does not exist' would be known. | |
From: Plato (Parmenides [c.364 BCE], 160d) |
5187 | When we ascribe an attribute to a thing, we covertly assert that it exists [Ayer] |
Full Idea: When we ascribe an attribute to a thing, we covertly assert that it exists. | |
From: A.J. Ayer (Language,Truth and Logic [1936], Ch.1) | |
A reaction: This is an unsurprising endorsement from logical positivism that Kant's claim that the ontological argument is probably tautological is correct. We could of course say "Imagine a non-existent being with dirty toenails". |
5207 | If theism is non-sensical, then so is atheism. [Ayer] |
Full Idea: If the assertion that there is a god is non-sensical, then the atheist's assertion that there is no god is equally non-sensical. | |
From: A.J. Ayer (Language,Truth and Logic [1936], Ch.6) | |
A reaction: Ayer urgently needs the concept of 'best explanation'. If we observe only footprints, we infer creatures; if there are no footprints, lack of creatures looks like a good theory. The design argument is perfectly meaningful. |