A review by jonathanlibrarian
Language, Truth and Logic by A.J. Ayer

4.0

Knowing Popper, I see the scientific flaws in logical positivism. To say that all metaphysics has no meaning is very intriguing to me. If meaning as how Ayer defines it that it's hard to argue against him. Of course this requires agreeing that Kant was wrong about apriori synthetic statement, which I actually do agree that perhaps it is incorrect (having only a small overview of Kant). The problem that comes up then with Ayer and also Wittgenstein (which both realized) that paradox of making such an arguement that is inherently metaphysical. The thing that stick with me is the quote by Nagel that truth, objectivity and reason are non-negotiable, as an arguement against them is self refuting. I have to agree with that too. So either logical positivism is wrong on metaphysics or one must accept a self refuting paradox. Books like these always leave me now shaken on the foundations of meaning and true, justified knowledge. Is everything relative? Art, ethics, physics and metaphysical?