I am studying Logical Positivism on my own, and though I get the most of it, I am confused about some points, and I will be really grateful if you can help me here. I am studying it from here.
In the sub-heading Man, the author writes:
Further, Ayer spoke of self-consciousness, but not in the sense that a substantive ego is required. Self-consciousness is just the ability of the self to remember some of its earlier states. What then is the self which is not substantive?
What exactly does substantive ego means here? And finally the last sentence, what then is the self which is not substantive?
Moreover, under the sub-heading God, the last line of second paragraph:
If God is identified with natural objects, not much is being said about God.
What does the author implies here?
Finally in the Criticism sub-heading:
On the other hand, if it is accepted as a first principle, then positivism claims a privileged status for its principles that it denies to other systems of philosophy. It engages in metaphysics although it denies the legitimacy of metaphysics.
Concretely, what first principle is he talking about? If, from what I understand it is being factually correct, how does it imply engaging in metaphysics?
To conclude, the point regarding sense and perception of world Ayer's view of the self also poses problems, essentially the same problems that Hume had. Denying the continuous substantive self, the self is composed of sense-contents. How does one know there are other selves who will listen to me? The ability to reason that there are is not scientifically grounded. Joad asked: "If . . . I never know anything but my own sense-contents, what possible right have I to take their occurrence as indicating or as being caused by or as being equivalent to somebody or something else." Ayer's appeal to intuition for believing these facts make his position diluted.
Well, I am lost here.
I will be absolutely grateful for a response.