Language, Truth and Logic (Dover Books on Western Philosophy)

Analytic philosophy was introduced to me by this book, and it’s great. I dig how theoretical it was sometimes; strangely, some people presented as if it was a negative point or a ‘con’. I like the way the book is written as well. The only thing that I didn’t like, in my opinion, is how counter intuitive the solution to moral issues was. Great book if you are willing to throw metaphysics out of the window, literally.

Just as described

There is no better single source of doing philosophy via the logical positivism method than by reading this book. It's really two books in one. The Introduction is a rather thorough reply to his critics of the book's original lengthier substance, and if nothing else is read, the Introduction provides an excellent example of what logical positivism is, why it is regarded highly or poorly depending on the reader, and why some people think this kind of analysis defeats the whole purpose of philosophy. The book does try to end metaphysics as we know it, but in the course of establishing new principles (i.e., verifiability), it itself becomes indefensible against the accusation of itself relying on its own premises to prove its own conclusions (a charge Ayer coyly ignores), otherwise known as circularity.The fact that many Anglo-American philosophers still do philosophy in this manner -- after Ayer's style -- is reason alone to study this book thoroughly. It is concisely written, clear and unambiguious (if not a tad bit too analytical), and exemplary of Anglo-American style of doing philosophy. I don't think too many philosophers subscribe to its own circular metaphysics, but many, if not most, current philosophers adopt its principles as a "method" -- something which Ayer later (in "The Meaning of Life") claims was his aim all along.What is disappointing to me, at least in the body of Ayer's works read thus far, is his failure to address "verifiability" in light of Popper's "falsification" doctrine. What exactly constitutes "verifiability" or empirical truth? And, how does the verification of empirical truth differ from the "empirical falsification" of Popper? Perhaps Ayer addresses this problem somewhere, but I've not found it. It would be an interesting problem to see solved.

This a wonderful book, personally I had to read it Around 3 times to kind of comprehend it. It is a lot to take in, but eye opening and a most efficient way to put into words the thoughts that were always bugging me about the function of language it’s limitations and our idea of true.

I'll give 5 stars to any book that profoundly changes the way I think, and this one did.For one, I interpret the "meaningfulness" of statements differently now. I believe that a lot of what people say, myself included, is "literally senseless."I'm just a casual philosopher, and I know Ayer's ideas were disputed and refuted, but I think they have some value. How much, I cannot say. It's a fun book to read casually and feel all philosophically cocky, because that's the way it seems to be written: arrogantly yet audaciously.

This book looks at logic from a positivist/sensical perspective as regards the usefulness of a given proposition. It’s explanation of the role of intuition in establishing knowledge is clumsy. It’s take on as regards spiritual cognition is rather sparse and dismissive as declaring it to be non-sensical (i.e. non-testable/verifiable) and thus not useful is establishing knowledge.

Bought as a gift for my son. He enjoyed it very much.

So you want to know how smart AJ Ayer is. He once made world boxing champion Mike Tyson back down by telling him that he, AJ Ayer, was the world champion philosopher. You have to be smart and love language to want this book. It seems hard at first but it's liberating. Once you understand it you you will have ways of seeing and understanding things that are beyond most people.