It was the British philosopher David Hume who was the first philosopher to have maintained that metaphysics was impossible because, its principles were neither tautology nor were based on experience

Taking the empirical foundations laid by Locke and Bekeley to their logical conclusion Hume had argued that here can be no basis for inferring something unseen from the scene. If we observed no causal necessity or regularity in nature, we could not be justified in believing it to be there.

Thus metaphysics is unwarranted because; it has no basis in experience. Kant had also declared that the science of metaphysics is impossible. However, it was left to logical positivist to lead an organized revolt against Metaphysics and to make their viewpoint heard and respected in philosophy circles.

According to A.J. Ayer the futility of metaphysics becomes transparent, if we remember that “The fundamental postulate of metaphysics is that there is super phenomenal reality.” And whatsoever the super-phenomenal reality may or may not be, one thing is quite clear; namely, that the statements pertaining to “this reality” cannot be analyzed into simple propositions or protocol statements.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Such being these are unverifiable. Being unverifiable they make no sense. Like couplets, stanzas or cantos of poetry they may have great impact upon our feelings; they may be highly edifiable; but, seen on the touchstone of meaningful propositions they lack credibility. Thus, metaphysics has no relevance to knowledge.

Though, in his philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein is not uncompromisingly critical of metaphysics, in his earlier work referred to above, he is vehemently opposed to metaphysics.

According to him the metaphysical language is confusing and its problems unreal. The metaphysical problems are due to conscious or unconscious abuse of the language. According to him it is the business of philosophy to remove the veil of secrecy and show that metaphysical problems are unreal.

As a phobic, if he understands the irrationality of his fear, immediately gets rid of his phobia, in the same way, if we see through the subterfuges of linguistic manipulation in the creation of metaphysical problems we would instantly cease to regard them as problems at all.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

As we have observed earlier, Wittgenstein believes that language is invariably linked with some or the other sense-experiential fact. Therefore, if we find that there are certain alleged linguistic expressions which have no connection with empirical facts, then these expressions must be pseudo.

Therefore, Wittgenstein refuses to consider metaphysical statements to be propositions because; these by definition transcend experience and hence, cannot be verified. Though from ages philosophers have been making metaphysical assertions, none of them has ever tried to offer any empirical evidence in their favour as they cannot be subjected to either logical or empirical evidence in their favour. As they cannot be subjected to either logical or empirical proof, these must be rejected as meaningless expressions.

The metaphysicians claim that though metaphysics is not based upon any external experience, it is nonetheless based upon internal experience. Wittgenstein does recognize that there are internal experiences but, these cannot be known unless we express them.

When we express, them they are linked with some objective reality and should therefore, be verifiable. But, the statements of metaphysicians are unverifiable therefore, they cannot be claimed to be based upon any experience whatever.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The basic contention of Wittgenstein is that all logical propositions are correspondent to facts, that is, this stand for some or the other objective fact. The metaphysical statements, on the other hand, are devoid of all objective references and are, therefore, logically sterile. These propositions are not made up of simple propositions but are supposedly based on spiritual experience and facts; therefore, these are unanalyzable and consequently unverifiable.