\brief[Neurath an Carnap, \ekll{Oxford,} 16.~Juni 1945]%
{Otto Neurath an Rudolf Carnap, 16. Juni 1945}{Juni 1945}\labelcn{1945-06-16-Neurath-an-Carnap}\labelcn{bonzeeins}



\anrede{Dear Carnap,}

\haupttext{
Thanks for letter and the enclosed letter to Morris\IN{\morris} dealing with the FOUNDATIONS case. Let me tell you frankly and freely, that I think this letter to Morris\IN{\morris} is even a more serious thing than your behaviour. And since I think I should inform Morris\IN{\morris} of what I think about this writing of yours, I think the best is I am sending a copy of this letter to Morris\IN{\morris}.

You are -- as far as I can see -- mixing up totally different things, criticism and offence. You see, we human beings very often look at ourselves not in the same way as other people do. Therefore, of course, I am always prepared to re-adjust my opinion about myself. I think that is in harmony with my pretending to promote Epicurean Stoicism, i.\,e., on the one hand to think of people's happiness, on the other hand to think how to behave in harmony with the place in life we want to take. Therefore as far as I decided to go on as a non-conformist I have to take it easy, what comes out of it and as far as I decided to be a good collaborator, I have to behave as such -- and I try. And, as far as I can judge from many examples, not without success. At least I am collaborating with many people, even writing together with others articles etc. That implies much adaptation and preparedness to give way \ldots\ Of course, I have certain defects. My ability to judge rightly, when other people feel bored by me, is not very much evolved. That my attitude towards life irritates many people, particularly conformists, I cannot deny, but that is partly unavoidable, in spite of the fact, that I try to act politely, whenever possible. This I stress, that you see I am aware of the problems involved. I am not so sure of your preparedness to re-adjust your own judgement about your grieving other people at many occasions, partly connected with certain non-conformist habits in your way of life, which leads -- as in my case -- to some intellectual and emotional success, but partly perhaps with some lack in thinking of other people's feelings. Perhaps. To add this: I myself very often grieve other people, I presume, but I think I should be prepared to analyze very carefully their pains.

What did you do? First of all your editorial remarks are absolutely sound, if applied with discretion and one could inform future collaborators of these principles. But, please, do not think that I even for a moment, objected to your criticising me. The idea that I dislike changes in my style or presentation of subjects suggested by other people sounds rather comic to me, since I am rather glad, to get such suggestions. I really have re-written whole papers gladly under such circumstances. I cannot remember any case in which I disliked to alter something for the sake of understandability, as it were etc.

But, how you are going on in the letter to Morris\IN{\morris}, you are writing as follows: ``I understand very well, that you, even if you felt likewise critical, hesitated to write to N\editor{eurath}\inneurath{} first because of the lack of time, and then also because of his sensitivity and violent emotional reactions to criticism and his obstinacy and unwillingness to accept suggestions for improvements from anybody.'' \ldots\ ``I am con\neueseite{} vinced that the monograph will do more harm than good for the Encyclopedia and for the movement of empiricism\index{empiricism!movement of} in general. But I realize that to antagonize and offend \nneurath{}\inneurath{} now could possibly do still more harm'' \ldots\fnE{Rudolf Carnap an Charles W. Morris, 19.~Juni 1944, ON 223.} and so you dropped your name, without contacting me before.

Look, there are so many fine modern inventions, e.\,g. ``CABLE''. You could tell me of that -- even at my expenses -- be sure I would have preferred TO PAY ALL CHANGES SUGGESTED. The dropping of the name has nothing to do with a fair criticism, but is GRIEVING. You cannot compare that with a hard criticism of your semantics by Nagel\index{Nagel, Ernest}\IN{\nagel}, because it is different. I SHOULD BE GLAD TO READ A CRITICISM OF MY POINT OF VIEW BY YOU \ldots\ Believe me that, please.

But, what about your remarks to Morris\index{Morris, Charles}\IN{\morris}. Please, think for a moment, that a third person should read it -- does it not sound like a denouncement? Either Morris\index{Morris, Charles}\IN{\morris} knows me as a man of a violent and obstinate character, why the description? Or, if not, how did you think it suitable to bring forward such a heap of accusations? Tell the words of the sentence and the number of hard names given to me?

I ask you,\index{Neurath, Otto!on Carnap on monograph} please give me verse and line for that. You see we are now friends for two decades, we know very well that we can trust one another, whenever we should be in a position to come to one another's help, but on the other hand throughout our connections appears a certain strain of tension, which does not become softer up to now. I guess we shall be good friends the following decades, and I hope that perhaps with increasing wisdom, we shall be able even to reduce the tension, but how? You see the whole correspondence is a rather ``continental'' one, but we cannot go on in the Anglo-saxon way as long as the tension exists -- unfortunately.

You see, prepared to learn from my friends, whenever possible, I searched my past for examples, which might induce you to formulate so condemning a judgement. I searched in vain -- but that is perhaps my blindness. Please inform me about myself.

Please, tell me of YOUR EXPERIENCE, not of the slander and gossip created by other people within and without our circle.

But to explain to you better, what I see, a few sentences: I am, of course, a man who puts some pep into his utterances, and likes clarifying slogans and expressions. I am sometimes rather noisy and not always restricted in the good Anglo-saxon way during discussions, interrupting other people \ldots\ and so on. But I do not remember any case, where I behaved, as you are describing my CHARACTER, as it were, not only occasionally.

Since I am a sociologist and historian, I ask me, how even other people might have told you ``stories'' about me,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{nein}}.} which should prove such a character. I tried hard to discover cases, were I really angry pressed my case. Let me remember one tension: Hans Hahn\index{Hahn, Hans}\IN{\hahnhans} and I have been friends for many years -- since our Gymnasium time. He, the older, taught me a lot of things. We, Frank\index{Frank, Philipp}\IN{\frankphilipp}, and other\ekl{s} read\index{Neurath, Otto!reading Spinoza with Frank and Hahn} Spinoza\index{Spinoza, Baruch}\IN{\spinoza} together in the ``Rahnhof'' etc.\fnEE{Zu dieser Diskussionsrunde (im Café Rahnhof) siehe die Erinnerungen von Frank, ,,Introduction. Historical Background``, 1f., sowie oben, Anm.~\refcn{1935-05-15-Carnap-an-Neurath-Erster-WK}.} Becoming older he had a certain inclination towards, what we call\labelcn{bonzehahn} ``Bonzentum'', but since I estimated highly his frank attitude within society, his empiricism, etc. I took it easy, even if he kidded me sometimes more, than I did. \neueseite{} 

I remember\index{Neurath, Otto!on Hahn} that I reacted sourly and some little clashes started. First as he supported the professorship of Eibl\index{Eibl, Hans}\IN{\eibl}, whose knowledge in scholasticism was above doubt, but whose nationalist propaganda a real danger.\fnEE{Die Berufung von Hans Eibl zum außerordentlichen Professor für Geschichte der Philosophie erfolgte 1924 gegen den Widerstand einiger Professoren, darunter Schlick. Nach dessen Tod bemühte der sich selbst als ,,Brückenbauer`` zwischen Katholizismus und Nationalsozialismus verstehende Eibl um die Nachfolge, kam aber trotz diverser Interventionen letztlich nicht zum Zug; vgl. Stadler, ,,Antisemitismus an der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Wien -- Am Beispiel von Moritz Schlick und seines Wiener Kreises``.} Hahn\index{Hahn, Hans!supporting Eibl}\IN{\hahnhans} thought he should think of the scholar only and swore Eibl\index{Eibl, Hans}\IN{\eibl} would never use his chair for propaganda, such a well educated, fine man etc. I thought that a real danger for our own existence. -- How disappointed was Hahn\index{Hahn, Hans!supporting Eibl}\IN{\hahnhans}, when Eibl\index{Eibl, Hans}\IN{\eibl} became a real propagandist within the faculty. Next. I liked to speak contemptuously -- I do not deny that -- of Innitzer\index{Innitzer, Theodor}\IN{\innitzer} (you know the Heil-Hitler Innitzer\index{Innitzer, Theodor}\IN{\innitzer})\fnEE{Theodor Innitzer, ab 1932 Erzbischof in Wien, sprach sich in der ,,Feierlichen Erklärung der österreichischen Bischöfe`` vom 18.\,März 1938 für den Anschluss Österreichs an das Deutsche Reich aus; das (propagandistisch verwertete) Begleitschreiben dazu enthält Innitzers handschriftlichen Zusatz ,,und Heil Hitler``.}, giving him names (as he deserved as far as his records knew) whereas Hahn\index{Hahn, Hans!supporting Innitzer}\IN{\hahnhans} opposed in a rather irritated way and telling me, what an impossible fellow I am, overstating everything\fnA{\original{every thing}}. And when I warned him, he told me, what a cultured fine man I\ekl{nnitzer}\IN{\innitzer} was, how tolerant, how prepared to see everything from more than one angle etc. whereas I being really obstinate in all such situations and a violent grumbler through and through, not prepared to accept any criticism of my attitude by anybody, even my best friends, in this way I should make difficult contacts etc. and what ``Bonzen'' say at such occasions. I did not give way, I knew my Studentenboy\fnA{\original{Sudentenboy}} sufficiently. I have not necessary to stress, that Hahn\index{Hahn, Hans!supporting Innitzer}\IN{\hahnhans} would be disappointed again by Innitzer\index{Innitzer, Theodor}'s\IN{\innitzer} later deeds; but this tensions coloured partly our contacts in scientific fields and I can realize, that Hahn\index{Hahn, Hans}\IN{\hahnhans} thought my whole attitude an obstinate one. That I should understand very well in connection with such antecedents (there have been many of this kind, as far as I can judge, my sensitiveness was right, his kind of professor-neutrality wrong, as far as later observation-statements prove). And I got the impression, that he liked to tease me, e.\,g. with the permanent repetition of the stale joke ``Einheiz-Wissenschaft\index{Hahn, Hans!Einheiz-Wissenschaft}'' (which is well done once a year, or twice, but not as something permanent). Schlick\IN{\schlick}\index{Schlick, Moritz!on unified science \ekl{Paris}} liked this kind of treating me from above and even he himself, the highly refined man, behaved rather coarsely towards me, as particularly Philipp Frank\IN{\frankphilipp}\index{Frank, Philipp} remembers well and as you can judge from the paper presented in French to the Paris congress, where the ``unesthetic name'' of the Neurath\inneurath{} brand has been mentioned\fnE{Im nicht publizierten Original kritisierte Schlick Neurath dafür ,,das Wort ,Philosophie` [\ldots] durch farblose und unschöne Ausdrücke wie etwa ,Einheitswissenschaft` zu ersetzen.`` Schlick, \textit{Erkenntnistheoretische Schriften}, 479. Die französische Übersetzung zitiert Neurath unten, Brief~\refcn{1945-09-28-Neurath-an-Carnap}.} -- but unfortunately in the French translation, which is not ``unesthetic'' at all. Do you think of stories about me from this source? I do not think that covers your denouncement.

What more? I behaved sometimes noisy and intensely, when speaking of Wittgenstein\IN{\wittgenstein}\index{Wittgenstein, Ludwig}. I regarded him from the start as a mystic and metaphysician of the refined type, as an antiscientific person through and through and I dared to say so as the admiration of Wittgenstein\IN{\wittgenstein}\index{Wittgenstein, Ludwig} was the fashion in the Vienna Circle. I remember in the discussion meetings I made again and again the remark ``metaphysics''. Hahn\index{Hahn, Hans}\IN{\hahnhans} suggested I should reduce my remarks to ``M'' for shortening the interruptions, then finally he suggested I should only tell, when I thought something ``Non-M\index{Neurath, Otto!M and non-M while reading Tractatus}'' to waste less time. He -- that was my feeling -- liked very much to be in harmony, as much as possible, with Schlick\index{Schlick, Moritz}\IN{\schlick}, and Schlick\index{Schlick, Moritz}\IN{\schlick} enjoyed his attacks on me, on ``Einheiz-Wissenschaft'' and my violent remarks on this chap Wittgenstein\IN{\wittgenstein}\index{Wittgenstein, Ludwig}. \neueseite\{\}\zzz I cannot deny that I did not give way to suggestions, I should look at Wittgenstein\IN{\wittgenstein}\index{Wittgenstein, Ludwig} from a different angle etc., BUT NEVERTHELESS AS YOU CAN TESTIFY,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ja}}.} I behaved very collaboratively as we put together the WIENER KREIS pamphlet\index{Neurath, Otto!on Wiener Kreis pamphlet}. Feigl\IN{\feigl}\index{Feigl, Herbert}, at the time fully occupied by Wittgenstein\IN{\wittgenstein}\index{Wittgenstein, Ludwig}'s\index{Wittgenstein, Ludwig} greatness and Waismann\IN{\waismann}\index{Waismann, Friedrich} tried to put into that pamphlet an eulogy on Wittgenstein\IN{\wittgenstein}\index{Wittgenstein, Ludwig} -- and there it stands, supported by you and Hahn\IN{\hahnhans}\index{Hahn, Hans}. Of course I am ``responsible'' for that as one of the three editors, but on the other hand, I got the permission to put the ``EINHEITSWISSENSCHAFT'' into the pamphlet, too. I remember, how Hahn\index{Hahn, Hans}\IN{\hahnhans} disliked such a slogan-word \ldots\ Even you tried to find excuses for Schlick\IN{\schlick}\index{Schlick, Moritz}'s and Waismann\IN{\waismann}\index{Waismann, Friedrich}'s worshipping Wittgenstein\IN{\wittgenstein}\index{Wittgenstein, Ludwig}. At this time in my behaviour evolved a certain sharpness, when Wittgenstein\IN{\wittgenstein}\index{Wittgenstein, Ludwig} and his case have\fnA{\original{has}} been discussed. I do not deny that. Do you think my sensitiveness for empiricism lead me astray? I am sure, that the Wittgensteinians\index{Wittgenstein, Ludwig} gossiped a lot about my obstinacy, my unwillingness to take part in the worship etc. \ldots\ but why you are continuing such stories about me?

In all these and similar cases, I never pressed MY OWN OPINIONS VIOLENTLY,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{doch!}}.} but tried to push away things I thought dangerous. I remember, how I disliked the Popper\IN{\popper}\index{Popper, Karl} admiration, whom I thought as an antiempiricist man with many empiricist arguments, full of clever ideas, but not reliable, when empiricism of the unified science is at stake, he with his ONE WORLD SCHEME AS THE BEST etc. Antipluralist through and through. The defects of his probability arguments I felt strongly, but not being able to reach a real judgement on that, I behaved with restrictions there. I cannot deny, that I did not give way in the case of Popper\IN{\popper}\index{Popper, Karl}, in spite of the friendly judgement you and Hempel\IN{\hempel}\index{Hempel, Carl G.} found appropriate. But I do not remember, that my\fnA{\original{may}} own opinion on something has been at the stake, both of you did not criticize my anti-absolutist attitude (you stress in your letter to me, that you do not know sufficiently how this term should be used, you think the term ``Universal Jargon'' is not sufficiently explained, really?, and ``Encyclopedia'' -- in spite of the fact, that Morris\IN{\morris}\index{Morris, Charles} and I wrote about this in monograph one.\fnEE{Morris, ,,Scientific Empiricism``; Neurath, ,,Unified Science as Encyclopedic Integration``.} I do not grasp your doubt, that one could understand ``aggregational\index{aggregation}'' attitude -- as far as I explained it, it seems to be clear: making a statement on something today implies making a statement on the cosmic aggregatio\index{aggregation}n today. Is that something strange? But that is another chapter, which we shall discuss, I hope so, in public some day or another, if we\fnA{\original{be}} both think it suitable) therefore I could not behave obstinate\ekl{ly} as far as I am concerned. But, perhaps you know better examples for your heap of names given to me.

One point to the subject in question, the FOUNDATIONS, two people read the manuscript very carefully, one for English style, and Morris\index{Morris, Charles}\IN{\morris} has been free to suggest any alteration he liked. He suggested some alterations. I did not object in the least. \neueseite{} 

To a certain extent you are making Morris\index{Morris, Charles}\IN{\morris} responsible,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ja}}.} because he did not suggest more alterations, as he could do. You are trying to suggest, that he did so under the menace of the violent volcano \ldots\ oh boy, oh boy, what a story. Detective novel in the unity of science movement\index{Unity of Science!Movement} \ldots{}  
You speak of\index{Neurath, Otto!on Carnap on monograph} the ``hurry'' under which I worked. I do not think that is the essential point, I wrote the whole manuscript more than once. And you make the remark that my Aristotelian paper is even worse\fnE{Neurath, ,,Universal Jargon and Terminology``; Neurath bezieht sich hier wiederum auf das (später auch ihm zugegangene) Schreiben von Rudolf Carnap an Charles W. Morris vom 19. Juni 1944 (ON 223), wo es heißt: ,,\ekl{\ldots} the weakest thing \nneurath{} has ever written (with possibly one exception, the Aristotelian Society paper).``} -- that I certainly did not write under pressure.

I cannot deny that I have difficulties in conveying something I think is new, when applying my phraseology -- of course that is a funny behaviour. Let it that be. But PERHAPS, PERHAPS it is unavoidable in the period of growing up phraseologies and the expressions will be better later on, PERHAPS. I do not feel at ease with my writings. And I know one can use this argument given above for covering any nonsense. How to know, what is the case?

You see looking back at former writings I discovered this: one day I wrote a paper together with a friend, who thought my style could be improved (in German) and I thought it wonderful. I agreed with this booklet,\fnEE{Möglicherweise: Neurath/Heilpern, \textit{Der Kompensationsverkehr im zwischenstaatlichen Warenhandel}.} but when now reading again the papers of mine and this combined paper, I have to confess, that I can accept more or less today my own papers, with all their defects, whereas this book, in spite of its better style, seems to me avoiding certain important arguments and forming even deviations from the main point. But that is no proof\fnA{\original{prove}}, of course. I only tell you of my experiential statements.

You see, you tell me that so many of our friends complain about my style, order of arguments etc. (I know that since my youth) but -- unfortunately, they do not discuss my arguments,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{weil sie unverständlich sind}}.} not even the new ones -- should that not make me a little suspicious. My kind father, when people attacked serious scholars in such a way, was accustomed to say: ``Der Herrgott schaut nicht auf die Orthographie''.

I am seriously thinking over that. Scholars have an inclination to think that other scholars intentionally try to reduce their activities etc. I do not make such a complain\ekl{t} because I think that for a non-conformist I am treated well, even in the field of education, where I am able to earn a living in spite of my being an educational non-conformist. I look at a very startling phenomenon. Take Hempel\index{Hempel, Carl G.!on laws of history}\IN{\hempel}, he is writing on laws of history etc., he quotes a through and through metaphysician\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{wen?}}.} as his choice in discussing problems.\fnEE{Hempel, ,,The Function of General Laws in History``; kritisiert wird dort Maurice Mandelbaum.} Then he continues\index{Neurath, Otto!on Hempel on laws} in explaining the old\ekl{-}fashioned approach. But he does not even mention the fact\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Er hält es nicht für lohnend; das ist sein Urteil}}.} that there does exist another opinion, too, about unpredictability\index{Neurath, Otto!unpredictability in principle} IN PRINCIPLE.

What should I think of that. I selected Hempel\index{Hempel, Carl G.}\IN{\hempel} as an example, because I am so sure of his kindness, his goodwill and his sincerity.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ja}}.} Why did he not even mention my unpredictability approach, not even objecting to it, in spite of the fact that I printed that in my EMPIRISCHE SOZIOLOGIE and repeated it again and again?\fnAmargin{Ksl. am unteren Blattrand \original{\textsp{Hier ist es doch klar! Er meint, die Argumente sind nicht wichtig genug. Was ist Deine Erklärung?}}.}\fnEE{Zu den Grenzen der Prognostizierbarkeit in den Sozialwissenschaften vgl. Neurath, \textit{Empirische Soziologie}, Kap.~10.}~\neueseite{} 

Should I believe the story that I am not understandable\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ja}}.} by an average reader, assumed he reads naively my books? The ``Orthography'', the ``style'' should be so bad \ldots\ What I guess is, that Hempel\index{Hempel, Carl G.}\IN{\hempel} READING my papers LISTENING to my arguments, did not REMEMBER afterwards these points, BECAUSE THEY ARE TO\ekl{O} FOREIGN TO HIM\index{Neurath, Otto!on Hempel on laws}.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Vielleicht; eher: er hielt sie für schwach.}}.}

In analyzing my past, after reading your letter of May and the letter to Morris\index{Morris, Charles}\IN{\morris} of June 19, 44 I discovered a very interesting instance. A friend of mine wrote a fine review of a book of mine. Before printing it he asked me, whether I should be prepared to read it to avoid any misunderstandings. And now look, in this review he had forgotten not only what I wrote positively, he complained also that I did not criticize something etc. Then I have shown him point after point in my book, and he said: strange, everything is here. This I thought a good opportunity to learn something about my style and I asked him, what is difficult to grasp in my paper. And he, without hesitation, answered: everything is expressed fully and clearly \ldots{}  
Is that not interesting. Of course it does not prove my case, but it explains to you, why I am not so sure of the criticism of my ``Orthography''. I shall try to find readers who are relatively naive and ask them to tell of the contents of my FOUNDATIONS.

I further searched my past to find violent anger. Yes, I have sometimes expressed wild emotions, when people used my own ideas, without telling so and deforming them. In the field of Visual Education that is not unusual, but also in our field. But that does not belong to the field of obstinacy.

But perhaps, when I stressed certain names, as e.\,g. LOGICAL EMPIRICISM\index{Neurath, Otto!suggesting logical empiricism}. I remember very well, how in a coffeehouse where we met\fnA{\original{meet}}, Schlick\IN{\schlick}\index{Schlick, Moritz!suggesting radical empiricism} wanted me to use the term RADICAL EMPIRICISM, thinking of James\IN{\james}\index{James, William}, and I stressed the point, that a James\IN{\james}\index{Neurath, Otto!on James} term is not advisable, because James\IN{\james}\index{James, William!Bergsonianism} whom we have to admire for so many things is full of BERGSONIANISM and to a certain extent a highly skilled obscurant, more or less. And I remember, that many of our circle did not like LOGICAL EMPIRICISM -- I was the only one who tried to push \editor{it forward}\fnA{Original \original{forward it}.}. The other argument of mine was, that we should not speak of Logical Positivism\index{Neurath, Otto!on logical positivism}, because Comte\index{Comte, August}\IN{\comte} was such a metaphysician, full of antiscientific approaches, later on full of religious phantasy and the positivist church here is not a real bargain for positivism. But later on, that is fate, people do not remember, why I promoted LOGICAL EMPIRICISM\index{Neurath, Otto!suggesting logical empiricism}, they are even accepting the term, but NEVERTHELESS REMEMBER PERHAPS THAT THERE IS SUCH A VOLCANIC FELLOW, VIOLENT, OBSTINATE etc., who always wants to promote funny names, nobody wants to accept etc. \ldots\ rather comic, sometimes depressing, not as far as I am concerned, I am living happily on our hill, surrounded by flowers, birds and many kind people, but as far as other people's happiness is concerned, who are putting their whole personalities in such details, and then have to face such fate. \neueseite{} 

You think my FOUNDATIONS\index{Neurath, Otto!on Carnap on monograph}\fnAmargin{Ksl. am oberen Blattrand \original{\textsp{Nicht wegen des Inhalts! Sondern wegen der Form!}}.} will do not good for our empiricist movement. Oh my dear, how cautiously one should make such judgements \ldots\ Looking back into history, it is strange how things are going on. You see, I am thinking that the FORMALIST strain, combined with ARISTOTELIAN\IN{\aristoteles} duplication\index{duplication} which seems to me now prevalent in many members of our movement, are real dangers, but I am very reluctant to bring that forward, because tensions between us might reduce the chances of the movement even more. You see every movement is based on TOLERANCE and COMPROMISE, and the ORCHESTRATION of the multiplicity of activities is just the point \ldots\ I have the feeling, that you are now on a not so good way. A kind of ``popery'' speaks to me, when I am reading your letter, a certain tendency to reduce other people's status, etc \ldots\ but I am not so sure of that I ask you only to think of that if you are analyzing yourself.

When I am trying to stress: Protocol-statements, Logical Empiricism, Terminological Empiricism, Unity of Science\index{Unity of Science}, Pluralism of approach, Unpredictability\index{Neurath, Otto!unpredictability in principle} as a basic item, economics-theory as a kind of organized folklore, etc. I am not ``fighting'' calculus-absolutism, etc.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{doch!}}.} but I try to find a way of ``orchestration'', otherwise we cannot build up something of importance. I get the impression, that PLURALISM, UNPREDICTABILITY\index{Neurath, Otto!unpredictability in principle} etc. are something strange to you, in spite of the fact that you stress your harmony with my main arguments, when despising my style and expressions. You see your ``degrees of confirmation'' do not fit into the pluralistic and non-predictability scheme etc. Partial schematizations ARE NOT FORERUNNERS OF AN INCREASING TOTAL SCHEMATIZATION \ldots\ that is just my point of view, but that both might be expressed is important, not the concealing of the difference.

I assume that some day one of our members will find the time to discuss my FOUNDATIONS not only from \editor{the} point of view of higher orthography and well-order of arguments, but also from the point of view of EMPIRICISM.

You see I have to make pleas for myself because nobody is prepared to do it for me \ldots\ at the moment, it could be could be, perhaps, perhaps, that the order of arguments is not so strange to people with a similar start \ldots\ there exist such examples in history.

I personally always fear that I do queer things and therefore I like people like Frank\index{Frank, Philipp}\IN{\frankphilipp} who try to reduce my overestimating protocol-statements etc. without grieving me. And you see, that is the point. My letters dealt with YOUR UNKINDNESS. That is the main point. One has no ``right'' to ask for kindness, but one can object to unkindness. Look at the letter to Morri\index{Neurath, Otto!on Carnap's letter to Morris}s\IN{\morris}\index{Morris, Charles}. You only tell of my bad qualities and that you drop ONLY your name, -- as a concession -- because he is such a violent boy \ldots\ No kind word about me in this letter. You see, it could e.\,g. come into your wise brain, that even strong elephants sometimes need much of their energies to overcome the obstacles of life. You see, to reach the shores in shoes only is not just the best start for a new life in a foreign country and an internment is also not the best introduction. \neueseite\{\}\zzz If you were kind, you could write e.\,g. ``and then we should not grieve Neurath\inneurath{}, he has a difficult life ahead'' etc., no, only the fear, I could become violent \ldots\ oh boy, oh boy, what a world, a sad world. Full of unkindness.

I do not want to analyze you, as you suggest, because it is not always useful to do that with friends. I learned that principle from a good writer and behaviourist \ldots\ But I shall read SHELDON'S\index{Sheldon, William}\IN{\sheldon} THE VARIETIES OF TEMPERAMENT. I am rather suspicious of this business. Of course there is scientific research possible, but we have not reached sufficient results for practical purposes. I like Morris\IN{\morris}\index{Morris, Charles!Paths of Life}' idea to treat Paths of Life,\fnE{\blockade{wie oben}Morris, \textit{Paths of Life}.} but I am doubtful whether it is useful to connect them with characterological types. The Nazis like characterology, and all kinds of physiognomics etc. \ldots\ of course that is no real counter-argument, I am only sensitive in this field. NOT TOO MUCH OF THAT STUFF.

And what can we do with the knowledge? I remember, tested before the first world war by a psychologist I got such a pure visual type, that it is usually only with idiotic children -- that is perhaps the reason why I am so adapted to visual judgement, perhaps, but how can one discover that? What implies having a certain mixture? Overcompensation seems to be important, the stutterer\fnA{\original{stotterer}} has more chance\ekl{s} to become a great orator, than the non-stutterer\fnA{\original{non-stotterer}} -- but I do not want to criticize a very important branch of science, I only tell you of my doubts. Often such analysis is FIXING your activities, because you think you e.\,g. in agreement with your ``type'' or ``fate'' etc., whereas the Epicurean Stoicism\index{Epicure!Stoicism} tries to FORM EVERY LIFE WHATEVER THE BASIC FACTS MIGHT BE \ldots\ strange, is it not? In Vienna we learned scepticism and used Freudian\IN{\freudsigmund} analysis, which we estimated highly, for so many jokes, that we never became addicts of Freudianism, we -- that is people of the Epicurean Stoicism\index{Epicure!Stoicism}~\ldots{}  
Nice, what you tell about the ``Herr Sohn''. I also think he has a well prepared future before him. I should like to meet him, and you and all the others and to talk about cows and calves, tricks and tracks, to kid one another \ldots{}  
The world situation is bad, but the Hitleri\index{Hitler, Adolf}tes are away. Now we get some good news from people who lived through the hell and bad news of people who died. What about Grelling\IN{\grelling}\index{Grelling, Kurt}?\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{nichts bekannt}}.}

I am lecturing sometimes, even brain\ekl{-}trusting and making jokes to local groups, I have something to do with education, here and there, Mary\IN{\reidemeistermarie}\index{Neurath, Marie \ekl{Mieze}} is very industrious in Isotype\index{Isotype} work and as housewife. We shall now get a bigger house, everything goes on well. Please remember us to all friends, particularly to Ina\IN{\ina}\index{Carnap, Ina}. We should like to get a vivid letter from her about you and your health. How you are now?

Thanks for the newspaper clippings, I should like to get more of that stuff. Via Paris we get sometimes unpleasant news, about behaviour of people during the occupation, we cannot discover what happened really. A long story.

With kind regards, good wishes, greetings etc.
}

\grussformel{Every yours,\\ON}

\ebericht{Brief, msl., 8 Seiten, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/846793}{RC 102-55-11 (Dsl. ON 223)}; Briefkopf: msl. \original{16\textsuperscript{th} June, 45}, ksl. \original{Luftpost bekommen S.\,F., 5.\,7.\,45}.}
