Online research in philosophy

This paper discusses the views of Moritz Schlick connecting aesthetics with the meaning of life. The fundamental question that Schlick asks is how anything appears beautiful. The discussion of the beautiful comes down to a discussion of aesthetic pleasure. Aesthetic pleasure has the characteristic of having no use defined in survival terms of self-preservation and propagation. Art, for Schlick, is seen as essentially play. Schlick addressed how his view that connects aesthetic pleasure and play essentially to the non-useful, can be explained in light of the theory of natural selection. Then this is related to the meaning of life as play or youth.

Uebel has recently claimed that, contrary to popular opinion, none of the philosophers of the Vienna Circle of Logical Positivists were proponents of epistemological foundationalism. According to the considerations of the current discussion, however, Uebel's conclusion is erroneous, especially with respect to the work of Moritz Schlick. The chief reason Uebel offers to support his conclusion is that current attempts to portray Schlick's epistemology as foundationalist fail to overcome its ‘ultimate incoherence’. In contrast, it is argued that current interpretations, based on the unpublished as well as the published record, provide understandings of Schlick's foundationalist epistemology as not only coherent, but plausible. In closing, Uebel's own treatment of Schlick's work, which purports to show that the most feasible candidates for foundational statements are ‘meaning-theoretic’ clarifications of the content of expressions, itself fails to accurately represent Schlick's own characterizations, and pictures Schlick's epistemology as a confused mix of epistemic and semantic insights.

I think that one of the main objections to be made to Ayer's verifiability criterion is simply the mechanical way in which it is designed to work: supposedly, a philosopher need not study, for example, how religious assertions are used, nor what sorts of illumination their users take themselves to be shedding on the human condition; instead, Ayer imagines that we can test them in a simple way that requires us to do no exploration whatever. This, surely, is hubris; and that accounts for much of the very angry and passionate reaction which Ayer's criterion provoked.

David Hume has traditionally been assumed to be a soft determinist or compatibilist,1 at least in the 'reconciling project' that he presents in Section 8 of the first Enquiry, entitled 'Of liberty and necessity.'2 Indeed, in encyclopedias and textbooks of Philosophy he is standardly taken to be one of the paradigm compatibilists, rivalled in significance only by Hobbes within the tradition passed down through Locke, Mill, Schlick and Ayer to recent writers such as Dennett and Frankfurt.3 Many Hume scholars also concur in viewing him as a determinist, for example (in date order) Norman Kemp Smith, Barry Stroud, A. J. Ayer, Paul Russell, Don Garrett, Terence Penelhum, George Botterill, John Bricke, and John Wright.4 ..

It is not well known that Moritz Schlick, whose name is inseparable from the development of logical positivism, was extremely critical of positivism prior to the 1920's. Understanding Schlick's early criticisms of positivism not only puts Schlick's transition from his early realist to his later positivist views in better perspective, but clearly shows the role of relativity theory in turning Schlick's attention to a positivist concern with empirical verification. It also can be seen that Schlick spent the second part of his philosophical career struggling to find solutions to the very problems he had criticized so vehemently in his early work.