Ethics and Morals, class questions. Please help?
Which two principles of logical positivism, which grew out of empiricism as developed by the philosophers of the Vienna Circle, had a profound effect on public administration?
a.Logical atomism and the verification principle (or the verifiable theory of meaning).
b.The verification principle and the analytic character of a priori knowledge.
c.The verification principle and the emotive theory of value.
d.Logical atomism and the rationalist theory of value.
I have a feeling it's A or D but not sure.
- j153eLv 74 weeks ago
LP denies synthetic a priori of Kant; also, the emotive theory of value (albeit LP propounders were repressively emotive vis a vis not having emotions in "science"). Logical atomism is more of the Frege-Russell-early Whitehead-early Wittgenstein orientation, and, while it, via "Tractatus" influenced Vienna Circle LP, was infamously misunderstood by the "repressively emotive" drive for pure mentation typically found in early LP circles.
So, depending on your instructor's take, LP and LA may or may not go together. LP later morphed into the less-virulent Logical Empiricism (much as early Rawls, early Heidegger, and early Wittgenstein later changed their respective tunes, per informed, constructive criticism). In either LP or LE, verification is the point: for atom-based scientism, verification = replicability of 5-sense data in theoretic and experimental schema.
As your question frames the discussion of LP within its effects on "public administration," which for your instructor may include Gadamer and Habermas (as contrasting types of current thinking about hermeneutics and positivism). If so, then Habermas' hypothesis that language is both an empowerment (or arrogating of power of articulation of ideation) and necessarily expressive of various monistic theories of motivation (e.g., Freud's sex and death, Marx' economic) that are subvenient or foundational subtexts of language may be important for your instructor. If so, then Gadamer's "Truth and Method" as promoting Dilthey and Heidegger's intersubjective and even intersectional concerns would be a potential contrast, as Gadamer emphasizes, as did his teacher, later Heidegger, that all truth is intersubjective. Habermas' "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society," his first major work re communism/socialism and democracy, is more "positivist" than Gadamer's more hermeneutic or logically fuzzy intersubjectivity.
With respect to "public administration," including Habermas' communistic positivism, would suggest that LP, valuing analytic a priori second only to verificability, would indicate "B" as the more correct choice. "D" may be ruled out as it does not include the verification principle, the axiomized (and generally applied) bedrock of LP. LA, found in "A" (and "D"), is arguably an influence in LP and LE, but the latter two are more atom-based, and LA is more a function of early Wittgenstein and Russell (as influenced by his student, Wittgenstein) re "Truth and Method (qua language values)". So the two real choices, "A" and "B," reduce to LA vs analytic a priori; if one's class-based frame includes Habermas, then "B"; if one is more historical, "A" might be the better choice, due to LA influencing Gadamer's hermeneutics. Therefore, depending on how your instructor has elected to define "public administration" (and am assuming he or she is aware of Habermas' "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere" and Gadamer's "Truth and Method"), then "B" due to Habermas' emphasis on practical analytics, as contrasted with Gadamer's non-LA intersubjective fuzziness. So, depending on what the instructor's curriculum has valued, "A" or "B".