I. Introduction
The purpose of this essay will be to explicate various formulations of the verification principle and to analyze their individual strengths and weaknesses. After having done so, I intend on displaying the inadequacy of the principle in ascribing meaning to language. The verification principle was meant to demarcate between what could and could not be meaningfully stated, and was based firmly upon empirical grounds, i.e. all knowledge is a product of experience, namely an individual’s senses. The principle was meant to function as a tool for the deconstruction of metaphysics, theology and ethics. It was hoped, through utilizing said principle, that such philosophic problems could be proven to be linguistic muddles, and thus unworthy of philosophic discourse. While Ayer’s sought to rectify misunderstandings through concept clarification, he was ultimately unable to provide a principle which could be utilized for such purposes, as I shall now show.
II. Aim of Verificationism
Speculative philosophy seeks to conclusively solve numerous philosophical problems through constructing systems which are purported to hold an eternal or immutable truth. Examples of such problems are those unique to the fields of metaphysics, theology and ethics. Metaphysics being a discussion concerning the fundamental nature of reality, theology being the study of God and eternal religious truths and ethics being a systematized normative guide for the inter-personal relations between sentient beings. Medieval theologians and dogmatic metaphysicians each proposed numerous philosophical systems which claimed to hold the answers to such questions. Over time there became an multiplicity of such systems, however, and most could be neither proven nor disproven due to their nature. It was precisely this speculative philosophy which verificationism attempted to discredit. It was hoped this could be accomplished through an empirical principle of meaning which would conclusively prove such propositions as being non-sensical, and thus no more than mere idle speculation. Ergo, rather than seeking to prove or disprove such systems, the focus became discrediting such systems by showing them to be addressed towards problems which were not problems at all, but which were linguistic muddles, or nothing more than an abuse of language.