The Dark Ocean of Metaphysics

“Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck.” (Kant, 1781.)

As Immanuel Kant noted, metaphysics is a deeply controversial topic in philosophy. Alfred Jules Ayer, better known as A.J. Ayer was particularly critical of metaphysics. One reason was that Ayer was a logical positivist - he argued that most metaphysical topics violate a basic principle of meaningful discussion. This principle is what positivists dubbed the ‘verification principle.’ To summarise, the verification principle states:

“A statement is only meaningful if it is empirically verifiable or completely tautological.”

Or as Waismann puts it:

“A statement which cannot be verified conclusively is not verifiable at all; it is just devoid of any meaning.” (Waismann, 1930.)

One could say that the verification principle is the first and foremost ‘commandment’ of logical positivism. Ayer was at the forefront of the logical positivist school of philosophy for a good chunk of the 20th century. His radical view led to him developing new views on metaphysical questions. For example, Ayer was not just an atheist, but an igtheist (Ayer, 1936, p. 448.) Igtheism is the position that theism is wrong because God(s) existence is an unverifiable hypothesis, and therefore a meaningless hypothesis that has no relation to reality.

With Ayer’s general perspective in mind, he explains why all discussion of metaphysics is meaningless by having us imagine a Goya painting in an art gallery. Imagine two art critics looking at the same painting which appears to be a Goya painting, but neither knows for certain whether it’s an authentic Goya or not. Both art critics are into philosophy and are feeling particularly contentious, so they get distracted and decide to debate the metaphysical nature of the painting in front of them. One critic is an idealist, whereas the other is a realist i.e., one person believes the painting is perceived and construed within the mind, whereas the other believes the painting is actually out there in physical reality.

Ayer points out that there is no way to settle this metaphysical debate whatsoever, because it violates the verification principle. The idealism/realism debate does not make claims that are verifiable or disprovable, so their debate lacks a tangible relation to reality and lacks meaning. Ayer takes this argument one step further and states not only that this debate is meaningless, but that all metaphysical debate is completely meaningless. In his paper ‘Demonstration of the Impossibility of Metaphysics’, the subsection that contains the Goya example is called ‘Meaninglessness of Every Metaphysical Assertion.’ Just before touching on the Goya example, Ayer makes an unequivocal point:

“But what no observation could verify is not a proposition. The fundamental postulate of metaphysics, ‘There is a super- (or hinter-) phenomenal reality’ is itself not a proposition.” (Ayer, 1934.)

In other words, Ayer is denying metaphysics has anything to say, because its fundamental propositions are unprovable, unverifiable and meaningless. With our Goya example, Ayer is starkly contrasting the nature of the critics’ metaphysical debate with the nature of the debate surrounding the authenticity of the painting.

Witches' Flight by Francisco Goya (1798)

With carbon dating, by analysing the materials, observing painting techniques and comparing them to Goya’s, by recording the history of the painting’s locations and lifespan etc. it would be possible to determine whether the painting in front of the two critics is a real Goya painting or a lookalike/forgery. The proposition ‘is this painting an authentic Goya painting or not?’ is provable and verifiable i.e., it does not violate the verification principle. However, when the critics start debating their experience of the painting, whether it is out-there or within-here, it becomes meaningless. From Ayer’s perspective this is because the proposition ‘I experience this painting because my mind constructs it’ is unprovable and unverifiable, thereby meaningless.

Ayer is pointing out this: who is to say that the idealist is right with his proposition, and the realist is wrong, or vice versa? Can someone say yes to realism and no to idealism, or vice versa? Could they prove such a position with evidence? Ayer does not believe such issues can ever be clearly settled. If it is just a matter of opinion or preference then it is not useful to us, because it is not uncovering new knowledge that we can use. He takes it even further in dismissing all metaphysical debate by stating this: if a debate cannot be settled, then it should not even be started! In his words:

“Can either of them indicate any circumstances in which to the question ‘are those colours a collection of ideas?’ or to the question ‘are those colours objective sensibilia?’ the answer " yes " or "no " could be given? If they cannot then no such questions [should] arise.” (Ayer, 1934.)

Ayer’s example of the Goya debate is important because it is one of the first times a philosopher is dismissing all of metaphysics as a viable branch of philosophy. Other philosophers have criticised metaphysics e.g., David Hume criticised metaphysical inquiry when he said metaphysics ‘is not properly a science’ and seeks to ‘penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to the understanding.’ (Hume, 1748.) However, Hume does not dismiss all of metaphysics, since much of his philosophy is concerned with metaphysical issues e.g., the relationship between cause and effect, discerning the limits of human knowledge, comparing deductive to inductive inference, etc.

Ayer is blatantly and unapologetically consigning all of metaphysics to the flames. Ayer attacks the meaninglessness of metaphysical propositions, calling them ‘psuedo-propositions.’ Later in his paper after the Goya passage, Ayer claims metaphysics is incapable of formulating hypotheses. Instead, metaphysics can only formulate assertions i.e., claims that are based on leaps of faith. These claims often have no tangible link to reality because such claims about:

“…the Absolute, the Unconditioned, the Ego, and so forth prove each of them to be meaningless: for it follows from the task metaphysics sets itself that all its assertions must be nonsense. For it is the aim of metaphysics to describe a reality lying beyond experience, and therefore any proposition which would be verified by empirical observation is ipso facto not metaphysical.” (Ayer, 1934.) 

Ayer’s paper, his perspective and logical positivism profoundly influenced 20th century philosophy, particularly analytic philosophy. It has also profoundly influenced other academic disciplines, including psychology and sociology. Logical positivism and its offshoots continue to influence contemporary philosophy today, although positivism has somewhat fallen out of fashion for more modern and wholistic schools of metaphysics, including postpositivism and pragmatism (Friedman, 1999.)

References

Ayer, A.J. (1934) “Demonstration of the Impossibility of Metaphysics,” Mind, XLIII(171), pp. 335–345. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/xliii.171.335. 

Ayer, A.J. (1936) The Aryan Path. Bombay/Mumbai: Theosophy Company India Ltd.

Friedman, M. (1999) “Reconsidering logical positivism.” Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139173193. 

Kant, I. (1781) Critique of Pure Reason. London: Macmillan. 

Waismann, F. (1930) ‘Logische analyse des wahrscheinlichkeitsbegriffs’, Erkenntnis, 1(1), pp. 228–248. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00208618.