Claims of Philosophy by Ayer A. J

Published: October 30, 2024

Paper Title: The Claims of Philosophy
Link to Paper: The Claims of Philosophy on PhilPapers
Date: Sometime in 2000
Paper Type: Ethics, Metaethics, Philosophy of Philosophy, Philosophy of Politics
Short Abstract:
The paper differentiates philosophers into two classes and explores how these two types approach philosophy and their contributions to it, particularly regarding the pursuit of ultimate truth and the meaning of life.

Pontiffs vs. Journeymen

Ayer divides philosophers into two camps:

• Pontiffs
• Journeymen

Pontiffs believe that philosophy competes with natural science. They argue that natural sciences (e.g., physics and chemistry) cannot provide a complete and definitive picture of reality, as they rely on presuppositions that cannot be proven—such as the Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory axioms in mathematics or spatial and temporal homogeneity in physics. Pontiffs view these presuppositions as flaws, rendering natural science fundamentally irrational. Alternatively, they see science as dealing only with appearances, while philosophers attempt to penetrate the true nature of reality (the world of particulars vs. forms, as described in the Platonic theory of forms). Pontiffs strive to construct a metaphysical system (such as religious or Platonic frameworks) to describe the ultimate nature of reality.

Journeymen, in contrast, seek to demonstrate that such constructed “ultimate realities” are fictional and baseless. Ayer cites Hegel and Heidegger as examples of Pontiffs. He further contends that any contemporary Pontiff will inevitably adopt ideas similar to those of Heidegger or comparable metaphysical frameworks, which he dismisses as “deeply significant nonsense.” Since Pontiffs find that rational means fail to uncover ultimate truths, they often turn to mysticism or poetic expression.

The Problems with Pontiffs

Ayer argues that most people in Europe are educated in the tradition of the Pontiffs, while in comparison, the last fifty years in America and England have been dominated by the Journeymen. Journeymen are less concerned with discovering ultimate reality or constructing philosophical systems; instead, they address issues on a case-by-case basis. These issues might be mathematical, scientific, or philosophical—for example, exploring what probability is.

Issues such as the problem of perception, knowledge of other minds, or moral judgment are viewed as primarily semantic—questions of language and meaning. In other words, Journeymen act as technicians. However, they are at a disadvantage due to a lack of philosophical “problems.” Ayer references G. E. Moore, a well-known philosopher who argued that questioning the truth of common-sense statements (e.g., “Is this a sheet of paper?”) is unproductive.

Pontiffs, such as Heidegger and Hegel, are highly concerned with the existence of things and how to prove it, rather than with what these things actually are. A layperson might not think highly of philosophers who spend their lives pondering the existence of a sheet of paper, or they might be momentarily intrigued before dismissing the question.

An important Journeyman is Ludwig Wittgenstein, who argues similarly that philosophy should only discuss what can be meaningfully expressed, thereby rejecting metaphysics and focusing on the natural world. He suggests that we should treat metaphysical skepticism like a mental illness, addressing it by reasoning them out of it.

In Ayer’s view, the ultimate aim for Pontiffs is mysticism, while for Journeymen, it is the reunion of philosophy with natural science.

Meaning of Life

Surely, the business of philosophy is to clarify the meaning of life and show people how they ought to live.

Ayer argues that this question is unanswerable. However, once we understand why it is unanswerable, we can see in what way the question has an answer—not as a proposition that is true or false, but as a rule we can choose to adopt.

So we begin with the question: is it possible for our existence to have a purpose?
Ayer defines purpose as follows: an action has a purpose when it aims to bring about some further situation that we find desirable. For example, why did we turn on the light switch? To make the room brighter so that we can see. We can say that actions have meaning when they fulfill that purpose and are meaningless when they fail to do so.

But how does life, in general, have meaning?
If we assume that all events in a life tend toward a specific, identifiable end, we could say life has meaning in this sense. However, two problems arise here: 1) there is no evidence to support this assumption, and 2) even if we could identify a purpose, this wouldn’t necessarily provide a satisfying answer.

Why wouldn’t this answer be satisfying?
People don’t just want to know why things are the way they are, i.e., an explanation. They want a justification. Simply being told, “Your life is moving toward X,” without a personal connection, makes the end feel arbitrary. For example, life leads toward death and procreation, neither answer feel satisfying.

We can differentiate between two types of explanations for why things happen: teleological explanations, which discuss the purpose something serves, and mechanical explanations, which describe things as caused by previous events in a causal chain. Both, however, only describe how things happen, not why they are valuable, making these explanations essentially the same in this context.

The answers aren’t satisfying because, when we ask a “why” question, we often receive a “how” answer—a factual statement of events rather than their purpose.

So, could God or a higher being resolve this question of meaning?
Ayer argues that it does not. To see why, let’s examine the logical sequence, with “X” marking where the argument would end:

1. Does God exist?
   • No → X
   • Yes:
2. Does God have a purpose for us?
   • No → X
   • Yes:
3. Can we discover this purpose?
   • No → X
   • Yes:
4. Is God sovereign, i.e., does everything happen according to His will?
   • Yes → Then there is no need to align our lives with it, as it will happen regardless.
   • No → This implies not everything aligns with God’s will, meaning we ultimately decide whether to follow it or not, making our own judgment the deciding factor.

There are other problems with the idea of God giving us meaning. For instance, why would God choose a particular purpose for us? Either the choice was arbitrary, or there was a cause behind it—but how could there be a cause for God? Even if this entire logic holds up, any purpose would still feel arbitrary if imposed by God without a personal connection.

Thus, invoking God merely pushes the explanation back another level and doesn’t provide a true answer. Those who believe cannot justify why God behaves as He does, while those who do not believe have no justification for why the world is as it is.

So, is our search for meaning hopeless?
No. Ayer argues against THE meaning of life in favor of A meaning of life. There is no single, central objective purpose for all humanity; instead, meaning is personal. Each individual must find and choose it for themselves, much like how ancient philosophers pondered What is a good life?

How Ought Men Live?

Most philosophers who address this question are pontiffs who start from their metaphysical frameworks to determine how people should live. However, they often fall into the naturalistic fallacy, as do scientific ethics frameworks.

For example, someone like Hegel uses history to argue for moral progression in life, but if all of history is meant as this basis, then we are free to live however we want, since any action becomes part of history and is, in that sense, “correct.” However, if only certain parts of history indicate moral progression, then how do we determine which parts they are?

Journeymen philosophers, on the other hand, often highlight the errors of pontiffs but don’t themselves offer a clear answer on how one ought to live. They focus on questions like:

• Whether the rightness of an action depends on its actual consequences or its probable consequences
• Whether one’s duty is to do what is objectively right or merely what one believes to be right

However, these questions are largely academic in nature.

The aim of moral philosophy is not merely knowledge but action. A moral philosopher may show that certain actions have unforeseen consequences, making their audience aware, but they cannot dictate the correct path. What is “correct” depends on one’s values; even trusting a moral system is a moral judgment in itself. Each individual is responsible for their own moral actions, a responsibility that cannot be evaded.

Morality and Politics

Morality and politics are closely intertwined, and some philosophers believe that by establishing the ideal form of political organization, we can deduce how people ought to live. Plato in his Republic or Hegel are examples of such philosophers.

In the Republic, Plato presents an ideal vision of a just society, which he seems to state as fact. However, it is ultimately a value claim that can be disputed. When Plato describes his ideal society as truly just, he does not provide justification for why it should be adopted. Someone could disagree with Plato’s vision and propose a different ideal society. This wouldn’t be a factual disagreement but a clash of values about how society should look.

In this context, words like true, false, and real are often used as rhetorical tools rather than to describe factual characteristics. If we compare two divergent political systems, the question of which is “better” is not about truth or falsehood but about which values one holds.

Conclusion

No more than a scientist does the philosopher have the privilege to dictate the ideal way to live. Philosophers, due to their training, may be more persuasive in arguments, but they hold no greater right in deciding how people ought to live. This question has no authoritative answer; each individual must decide it for themselves.