Overview:
Flew and Hare were proponents of the verification principle, which is central to logical positivism.
They aimed to establish criteria for determining whether a statement is meaningful or meaningless.
Key Points:
Verification Principle:
Statements are only meaningful if they are empirically verifiable or analytically true (true by definition).
Empirical verifiability implies that a statement can be confirmed or disconfirmed through sensory experience.
Analytical truths are those that are true by the definitions of the terms involved.
Cognitive Meaning vs. Non-Cognitive Meaning:
Statements that are empirically verifiable or analytically true have cognitive meaning; they convey factual information.
Statements that do not meet these criteria are deemed to lack cognitive meaning and are considered nonsensical or meaningless.
Religious Language:
Flew and Hare applied the verification principle to religious language.
They argued that religious statements, being unverifiable through empirical evidence, lack cognitive meaning.
Consequently, they viewed religious language as nonsensical or meaningless.
Criticism:
Flew and Hare's verification principle faced significant criticism, particularly regarding its application to non-empirical statements.
Critics argued that meaningfulness extends beyond empirical verification and analytical truth, encompassing moral, aesthetic, and metaphysical dimensions.
Evaluation:
Flew and Hare's verification principle contributed to discussions on the meaningfulness of language, particularly in the context of religious discourse.
However, its strict criteria for meaning have been challenged, leading to alternative approaches that recognize the complexity of language and meaning.
Key Terms:
Verification Principle
Empirical Verifiability
Analytical Truth
Cognitive Meaning
Non-Cognitive Meaning
Religious Language
Example Questions:
Explain Flew and Hare's verification principle.
Discuss the application of the verification principle to religious language.
Critically evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Flew and Hare's approach to meaningfulness.