A. J. Ayer - What has Become of Philosophy? (1978)

[@Khuno2]

The magisterial musings of Sir Ayer! Alternatively, philosophy's main aim is to show the fly the way under the fly swatter.

[@arlieferguson3990]

Ayer is always a treat

[@Don-James]

"To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts or even to found school, but so to love wisdom (truth, not your own truth...) that one lives according to it's dictates, a life of simplicency, indepenence, anonymity, magnanimity and trust."

[@JoshuaMiller-rw3sj]

❤

[@johngulino2651]

Simplicency?!?

[@davetaitt1528]

The fly escapes when it calms down and magically discovers the opening.

[@bcmcnally01]

Thank you.

[@iMaDeMoN2012]

I always pair my philosophy lectures with "the bootleg boy." So exquisite!

[@endkafe4576]

This guy calling Hegel a villain has me so much more excited about getting deeper into Hegel

[@davidcsercsics6933]

Fascinating lecture!First of his I’ve heard, thank you for the upload.

[@mler]

Nice . J. Ayer!

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Nothing could be more absurd than to ask oneself whether or not the love of wisdom is nonsense. For in asking oneself this question, one is already taking a philosophical attitude. Those who truly believe philosophy is nonsense never ask such a question, for they already quite certain that they know the answer -- 'of course, it is !'. But the philosopher already takes the attitude that the love of wisdom is the only truly sensible attitude, that only by examining life, and, thereby acquiring some profound level of understanding about life, the universe, and ourselves, can we men hope to live truly good and meaningful lives -- as in, 'the unexamined life is not worth living !' Therefore, for one to turn-around and ask oneself whether or not this is the right attitude is surely absurd. For the very asking of the question presupposes the value of philosophy in reaching true conclusions about what makes for a truly good and meaningful life. In other words, philosophy cannot be unbiased here. It cannot neutrally justify itself. Nor can it refute itself without contradiction. In short, to be a philosopher is to have a fundamental faith in the love of wisdom ! Make no mistake, philosophy is no less a faith than is religion -- it is ultimately a faith in reason.

[@richardatkinson4710]

I have studied, read and often admired Ayer, though well aware of his ego. This lecture is very witty, very enjoyable, but philosophically arrogant. Wittgenstein brilliantly examined - in two stages - some previously unrecognised problems of language. Ayer seems not to have noticed.

[@firstal3799]

Agreee

[@inthemomenttomoment]

The 'Sound Reasoning' of philosophy, the True Tone of IT all, is obscured by mere words that need more words to define the words that precede IT. Live in Love & ❤️ Truth Now! 🎯🤺⚖️ 👂

[@davetaitt1528]

What is imagination?

[@user_user1337]

Ayer rulez!

[@Top_Lad]

What terrible questions after the lecture! You get the opportunity to have one of the most brilliant minds alive at the time in your midst who knew and worked with just about every important philosopher of the 20th century, and you ask him jokey nonsense...

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

The belief that sufficient reason is the foundation of truth is surely misguided, for what then is the sufficient reason for this belief ?

[@ruskinyruskiny1611]

We are all Mystics because we are all mystified. ❤

[@G.G.C.]

This cannot be the same voice in the video interviews. Something is definitely wrong.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

There is surely something absurd in attempting to use language to show the limits of language, -- as if one were to use only a map to show the limits of the map one is using. No, one must compare the map to what it is supposed to represent, in order to show its limitations. And, likewise, one must compare language with what it is supposed to represent in order to show its limitations. But how could we possibly refer to what language is supposed to represent without employing language ? If you only had the map as your guide, and no actual view of the land or terrain it represents, you could never know the limitations of the map ! As far as you could tell, it might be completely accurate or completely erroneous ! In other words, the whole attempt to show the limits of language, knowledge, and/or the mind is absurd.

[@phucle475]

Heart a circle

[@evinnra2779]

Was in agreement with Ayers until he started making snide remarks on Hegel. :(

[@duhface8066]

In agreement about what? Can you not disagree and agree with the same person. Can we not speculate together? Is Hegel your god?

[@alexandergrabar6533]

analytic philosophers usually have beef with Hegel lol

[@firstal3799]

Good.altgough trivial

[@RubenSampieriCabal]

Even his pose in the picture is arrogant.

[@phucle475]

Why philosophizing english, why not empower knowledge, ideas and tools for the sake of tribes by english

[@inthemomenttomoment]

This type of Neanderthal philosophy is too dry and prosaic to reach the higher levels of poetic reasoning. Philosophy isn't meant to be understood with mere words, only furniture 2 True Beauty in the romance of the King & Queen of the Nameless as we feel our 'Los "Sophie" 'feeling' over what the Archons have been only 'touching' on Self Realization of Love❤️Compassion 🧭 & T'ruth!🤺