Part 1

It was Max Weber who remarked how some ideas have changed dramatically the course of events in history. In his Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism he suggested that modern capitalism was brought about by the specific ethical principles of Protestantism, Calvinism in particular. Calvinism, in fact, with its extreme views on predestination, on human beings as a “massa damnata" with over 90% of them ending in hell, fostered a life of austere severity with oneself, of continuous hard work, of flight from amusements and pleasures. Life in Geneva at the time of Calvin was not dissimilar from life in a strict monastery: work and pray, in the hope that the almighty God had indeed predestined you for heaven! For the first time in history, the wealth produced by hard work was not spent on pleasures and good living, but was accumulated, creating vast capitals which in turn were invested back into the business. Weber claims that modern capitalism originated in Calvinist nations as a result of their doctrinal and ethical ideas.

We may disagree with Weber’s specific assessment, but perhaps not with the view that ideas have great power to bring about what Tillich calls a paradigm shift in our conception of the world, a great stride forward, not always necessarily for the better.

The philosophical world of today seems to have embraced the idea that science is the answer to all problems. It is not a new idea, the French philosopher Auguste Comte had already declared two hundred years ago that he was inaugurating the final and most fruitful stage in the history of humanity, the “scientific stage”, having left behind the previous two, the polytheistic stage and the “monotheistic stage”. Early humanity had created “gods” first and then “god” in order to explain the mysterious character of the world; but now we have science, and it will bring humanity to a full and positive understanding of the universe, including the depths of the human being.

The extraordinary success of science has created a paradigm shift in our view of the world and has opened up for us a wider and deeper knowledge of the workings of every aspects of nature and the belief is that what is still obscure will be laid open and made clear by scientific progress. It is not surprising, therefore, that modern philosophy has adopted a scientific” approach to all problems that have been debated over thousands of years with varying degrees of success. One such fundamental problem is the definition of the human being, whether he/she is made up of two substances, a spiritual substance and a physical one, and the relation of the “soul” to the “body”, or whether he/she is an entirely “material” being, like all other things that evolved from the initial ball of gas, galaxies and minerals, trees and animals. The modern scientific interpretation of the human being is that he/she is entirely explicable in terms of the same physical causal connections that hold together the entire fabric of the universe.

The exclusion, however, of the spiritual Soul or Mind brings about new complicated problems: are human beings free? Is morality possible? What is consciousness? What does “understanding” mean? Is there life after death? What are “out of body” experiences? What is the definition of “person”? In what way is a material “human being” more worthy than a material “chair” or a material “cat”? And so on.

In the following pages we will provide an overview of the main current theories in the philosophy of Mind; we will then study Rosmini’s teaching on the human being, a subject, a Soul endowed with intellect and feeling. As it was with the problem of the origin of ideas and of the possibility of truth, we shall learn likewise that Rosmini has produced answers that are of fundamental importance, not only highly critical of any attempt to deny the soul, but accurate and full in the true explanation of what makes a human being uniquely intelligent and open to infinity and a feeling subject capable of experiencing in his/her incommunicable subjectivity the world of real objects.

But first we begin by providing an overview of Logical Positivism, a most influential philosophy of the past 50 years that has laid the foundations for all modern physicalist theories of the Mind.

Chapter 1

Logical Positivism

It is true to say that if Existentialism has been a most influential philosophy over the past decades in the Continent, with Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Sartre, Logical Positivism in a variety of forms has dominated the Anglo-Saxon world over the same period. The early Wittgenstein was a logical positivist, and although he later modified his views he retained nonetheless the general logical positivist outlook. A.J. Ayer contributed to spread the ideas of logical positivism in the English-speaking world with the publication of his book, Language, Truth and Logic written before his 26th birthday and which became an immediate best-seller.  Logical positivists embrace wholeheartedly many of David Hume’s empiricist conclusions and they tend to regard him as the greatest philosopher of the last three hundred years. From the point of view of Rosminian thought, Logical Positivism is an unmitigated disaster, reducing philosophy to a simple branch of logic with the only purpose of clarifying language, according to empirical criteria. According to the Logical Positivists the language used by Metaphysics, Ethics, Theology, Aesthetics is utterly meaningless, and therefore all such disciplines are seen incapable of providing any truth whatsoever.

Logical positivism developed from the work of a group of philosophers known as the Vienna Circle. These philosophers, working in Vienna in the 1920s, included Moritz Schlick and Rudolf Carnap. The philosophical group did not want to understand how we gain knowledge about the external world, but how we use language as the means of conveying knowledge. The fundamental principle of Logical Positivism was that only those propositions that can be verified empirically have meaning. As the leader of the Vienna Circle, Moritz Schlick put it, The meaning of a proposition is the method of verification”.

The logical positivists, following Hume, accepted only two forms of verifiable language:

  • Analytic propositions (a priori), which are logical definitions, tautological, necessarily true because of the logical meaning of the words used: A triangle is a three-sided figure”, “A=A”, “A bachelor is an unmarried man”.
  • Synthetic propositions (a Posteriori) by which knowledge can be proved true or false by some form of sense experience or experiment. Synthetic propositions are based on experience, therefore they can be true or false, and they are always meaningful: The cat is on the mat”, “Ratcliffe is in Leicestershire”, etc.

This distinction of only two types of knowledge, analytic a priori and synthetic a posteriori, is also known as Hume’s Fork: any other type of knowledge is ruled out as meaningless. Let’s see then what happen to knowledge about Metaphysics, Ethics, Aesthetics, Theology when we apply Hume’s Fork or the Logical Positivists’ Principle of Verification. The language used by metaphysicians, ethicists, art writers, and theologians is not “analytic a priori”, tautological, simply an exercise in logic with no reference to any true state of affairs in the real world. It must, then, be of the second type, “synthetic a posteriori” to have any meaning at all, and it must be possible to verify the propositions through experience. But is empirical verification possible?

“This Picasso is a masterpiece!” (example of aesthetic language)
“God loves me” (example of religious language)
 “Time is unreal” (example of metaphysical language)
“Murder is wrong” (example of ethical language)

For A.J. Ayer, all the above statements are “meaningless”, simply because they cannot be verified through experience. How does one verify through experience that the Picasso painting is a masterpiece? What is the “experience” that makes it true to say that it is a masterpiece in reality? Is it not rather a question of “taste”, and we know that “taste” cannot be true or false. “This Picasso is a masterpiece” is therefore a meaningless proposition in the sense that it cannot be true or false, it is not part of knowledge but of taste.

How do you verify through experience that God loves you? Have your senses seen God? What does He look like? In what ways can He love you? You can experience the love of your mother by her attitudes, her behavior, her actions, her words, etc; but how can you ever experience through the senses God’s love for you? Religious language, therefore, cannot be verified through experience, is meaningless in the sense that it does not provide a true or false statement, it does not provide knowledge at all.

All metaphysical statements fail the test of verification: how does one verify through experience that time is unreal, that the world is ascending progressively towards Absolute Reason, that the idea of being is the foundation of all branches of knowledge, that there is a “substance” behind the accidents, that there is an A priori principle of cause and effect, that there are A priori principles of logic, and even that there is a “self” or “mind” or “soul”. Ayer claims that no metaphysical language will ever pass the test of the Principle of Verification, therefore it should be discarded as meaningless.

One might be surprised to see that even ethical statements are declared meaningless. Should it not be true that “rape is wrong”, that “stealing is wrong”, that “honesty is good”, that “telling the truth is good”? For Ayer, all these statements are simply meaningless, there is no question of truth or falsity in them. When we say, “Murder is wrong” we are not proclaiming a truth at all; how can you verify through experience the “wrongness” of murder? For Ayer, all ethical statements are simply expressions of our own emotions, not statements of truth. When one says, “Rape is wrong” he is simply expressing his emotion of revulsion and trying at the same time to evince the same feeling from people around him. The expression, “Helping the poor is good” is again simply an expression of one’s emotions about helping the poor; another person is equally entitled to say, “Helping the poor is bad” since his proposition simply means that he is expressing his own emotions which are different; neither of the two propositions is true or false; they are both meaningless from a cognitive point, they simply express emotions which cannot be true or false. All ethical statements are, therefore, meaningless and they simply express emotions (Ayer’s Emotivism), or prescription (Hare’s Prescriptivism) or taste (Russell’s ethical subjectivism).

The Logical Positivists and Ayer in particular wanted to stress that the only language that can truly pass the Verification test is scientific language; scientific language is the only language that is truly meaningful, because based on experience and on experiments. Ayer realized, however that some scientific and historical propositions have not been verified with certainty. He introduced two forms of the Verification Principle, “strong” and “weak” verification, to deal with this problem.

“Strong” Verification occurs when there is no doubt that a statement is true, as one verifies it using sense experience, observation. An example of the strong form would be the statement, “Brother Nigel wears glasses”, which could be proved true or false by visiting Brother Nigel.

“Weak” Verification is a statement that there are some observations that are relevant to proving a proposition true or false. For example, “Columbus discovered America” is accepted as true because people affirmed the event at the time. Similarly, statements that could be affirmed in the future are meaningful: “A proposition is verifiable in the strong sense of the term, if, and only if, its truth could be conclusively established… But it is verifiable in the weak sense if it is possible for experience to render it probable”.

John Hick claims that verification is possible for religious language, not the ordinary verification in this world, but the “eschatological” verification, a verification which will take place at the end of our life. He uses the parable of two people walking the same road towards the “celestial city”, one of them believing that there is no celestial city at the end of the journey, the other, instead, holding the belief that they will at the end arrive at the celestial city. Their propositions about the celestial city are meaningful, but their truth or falsity will be verified only at the end, at the eschaton.

Some philosophers have rejected the Principle of Verification. The reasons for its rejection include the following:

  • The principle itself is not meaningful because it cannot be verified using the Verification Principle. The principle is not analytical nor is based on experience.
  • The principle makes general scientific statements meaningless because they cannot be verified through experience. How do you verify that water is H2O? You need to analyze all existent water in the universe in order to pass the strong verification test; this applies to all general statements of science with the result that scientific language becomes as meaningless as religious or metaphysical language, the opposite of what the logical positivists had intended.
  • Many philosophers object to the view that human beings have been involved for millennia in using ethical, religious, metaphysical, and aesthetic languages only to be told now by the logical positivists that they had been wasting their time and their efforts. There seem to be great arrogance, without adequate reasons.
  • The principle of verification has been changed over and over again in order to try to cope with the constant waves of criticism; it seems more reasonable to abandon it all together.
  • In the 1950s, Anthony Flew applied the Principle of Falsification to religious language and concluded that religious statements are meaningless. Flew argued that this is because there is nothing that can count against religious statements. Religious statements can neither be proved true (verified) nor false, because religious believers do not accept any evidence to count against (falsify) their beliefs. For example, Flew argued that Christians hold to their belief that “God is good”, whatever evidence is offered against God’s goodness: “Even if God slays me I will still trust in Him” (Job). Hence, for Flew the expression, “God loves me” is meaningless because it cannot be falsified.

Wittgenstein had supported the logical positivists, but he came to reject the verification principle. He decided that the meaning of words is in their use; the function they perform as agreed by the particular group or society using them. Each activity has its own language, and Wittgenstein regarded this rather like a game with its own set of rules.

Language games exist within all forms of human activity and life. People not in the game will be unable to understand the use of the language. If people do not understand the language, then it will seem to be meaningless. Religious belief has its own language. A non-believer will find religious language meaningless because he or she is not in the religious game. But an outsider cannot claim that the language used in a particular “game” is meaningless just because it does not make sense to them.

Logical Positivism and the soul (or mind or I or self)

Descartes believed that he had proved his existence because of his private thoughts, Cogito ergo Sum (I think therefore I am). Wittgenstein argued that individuals could not create a private language: How would individuals know that they were using words correctly? Language is a social product and therefore any thoughts are not in private but in public language, with socially agreed rules on how they are to be used and understood. Wittgenstein denied the first-person certainty that had underlined both rationalist and empiricist approaches to philosophy. He is in agreement with A.J. Ayer who had denied the existence of a “substantive self”: there is no I as a permanent subjective entity:

“Our reasoning on the self, as on so many others, is in conformity with Hume’s. He, too, rejected the notion of a substantive ego on the ground that no such entity was observable. For, he said, whenever he entered most intimately into what he called himself, he always stumbled on some particular perception or other – of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. He never could catch himself at any time without a perception, and never could observe anything but the perception. And this led him to assert that a self was “nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions”.

For Hume, Ayer, Wittgenstein, and G. Ryle there is no “substantive self”, there is no permanent subject or soul occupying our body. What we call the self is nothing more than the fleeting perceptions of an endless number of sense-experiences. “There is no ghost in the machine”, said G. Ryle criticizing Descartes’ view that the Mind is a substance entirely different from the body and yet interacting with the body. For Ryle, your mind, or soul, or I is your behavior. When we say, “He is in pain” it is not the case that there is a mind, a permanent self that experiences in an entirely private way a pain; what we mean is simply the public facts of tears, contortions, jumping about, uttering of cries; there is no one hidden who does all these things, we are entirely public, there is no more to the self than our behavior.

Ryle accuses those who claim that there is a substantive self, or a permanent I, or a Mind, of committing a “category mistake”. If you take a group of visitors to the Vatican, and show them St. Peters’ Basilica, the square, the various shops in the area, the living quarters of the Pope and of the citizens, the Sistine Chapel and the Museum, you would be amazed if they were to tell you, “Very good, you have shown us the Church, and the shops, and the square, etc. but where is the Vatican? You have not shown us the Vatican!” You would be amazed because your visitors are making the mistake of thinking that the Vatican is something above all the things you have shown them. The Vatican is precisely the things they have seen, is not another entity over and above the various things they have seen. They are committing a “category” mistake, they are putting the Vatican into the category of one more thing to be seen. But there is not one more thing to be seen, the Vatican is simply the total of what they have already seen.

There is no Mind over and above your behavior: you are a public object, with no hidden ghost. How can you verify the existence of an entirely private soul, or mind, or self? How can you prove the existence of something “spiritual” over and above your body and its behavior? Human beings have emerged through a long process of evolution from the “primordial soup” of non-organic matter: matter is entirely open to scientific investigation, matter is public. There is no place anywhere in the world for the mysterious spiritual reality we call soul, or mind, or substantive self.

Copyright © Rosmini Centre,
By LinesofCode