I am so frustrated right now. I just don't fekkin get Ayer man. I feel like I'm dyslexic or autistic when I read him. Why can't he just say what he wants to say in simple language. What really pisses me off about some philosophers is how they really try their hardest to make their works as unreadable as possible. What gets me more is these books have become quite popular, and it is the basic reading for my course at uni, which means a lot of people read these books and understand them, which reinforces my suspicion that I have some serious comprehension problem.
Just been reading Ayer's language truth and logic for about 15mins. Afterwards I put the book down and just said to myself, "Admit it, you haven't learnt anything in the last 15 minutes because you don't know what the hell the guy is going on about."
For example, he says:
"This is however no more than a terminological difficulty, and there are various ways in which it might be met. One of them would be to make the criterion of verifiability apply directly to sentences, and so eliminate the reference to propositions altogether. This would, indeed, run counter to ordinary usage, since one would not normally say of a sentence, as opposed to a proposition, that it was capable of being verified, or, for that matter, that is was either true or false; but it might be argued that such a departure from ordinary usage was justified, if it could be shown to have some practical advantage. The fact is, however, that the practical advantage seems to lie on the other side. For while it is true that the use of the word "proposition" does not enable us to say anything we could not, in principle, say without it, it does fulfil an important function; for it makes it possible to express what is valid not merely for a particular sentence s but for any sentence to which s is logically equivalent."
My long list of problems with this:
1. So we are going to try and apply the criterion of verifiability to all sentences, and forget the fact that some sentences are propositions. That's what he is saying right? But then he says we wouldn't normally say that a sentence can be verified. Really? I can think of many sentences that can be verified. Maybe he means a sentence which is not a proposition when he says, "as opposed to a proposition". Wtf, why would you use that word "opposed" in that context?! So what he means is a sentence that is not a proposition?
2. Maybe thinking of sentences that are not propositions as being verifiable is justified if there are practical advantages. I get that. But the practical advantages lie on the other side? Wtf does it mean to say the advantages "lie on the other side"?
3. "The use of the word "proposition" does not enable us to say anything we could not, in principle, say without it"...Wtf? What's the point in saying that? So it's useless... Oh no wait, the next sentence he says is "it has an important function"
4. It's important because it makes it possible to express what is valid not merely for a particular sentence s but for any sentence to which s is logically equivalent? Wth does that mean? So if we use the word "proposition" we can express what is valid... is he still talking about using the word "proposition" in language or is he talking about the content of a proposition now? If he is still talking about using the word proposition in language then look, I can express something valid without using the word proposition: socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore socrates is mortal. Done. Wth is Ayer on about?
5. "not merely for a particular sentence s but for any sentence to which s is logically equivalent"? LOL wth is he trying to add here?
Is it just late or something?
I'm really really frustrated. Some philosophers I just find impossible to read.
Topic: Reading List