\brief[Neurath an Ina Carnap, Oxford, 24.~September 1945]%
{Otto Neurath an Ina Carnap, 24. September 1945}{September 1945}\labelcn{1945-09-24-Neurath-an-Ina-Carnap}


\anrede{My dear Ina,}

\haupttext{What an extraordinary show -- Ina\IN{\ina}\index{Carnap, Ina!Austrian traditions of} writing a letter to the noisy man. RES AD TRIARIOS VENIT\fnEE{Latein: ,,Die Sache ist bis zu den Triariern gelangt.\grqq\ Die Triarier bildeten als römische Elitesoldaten das letzte Treffen, d.\,h. die dritte Schlachtreihe (daher der Name); sinngemäß heißt das, dass es zum Äußersten gekommen ist, dass die letzten Reserven mobilisiert werden müssen.} -- as we learned as boys in the Grammar School. ES WIRD ERNST. I am very thankful for your kind intervention. I think it is very wise, that you try to bring us together. Impartiality is not needed, only sympathy and interest in our friendship.

I really felt somewhat helpless, when reading Carnap's\incarnap{} kind long letters in which he wanted to explain his and my behaviour, but hardly touching the points, which are important for me. I answered him today and I hope I succeeded in going on in a way more conform with his tendencies. You are particularly helpful, because your Austrian traditions give you a better start.

You are personally prepared to bear Carnap's\incarnap{} attitude, that when he thinks he is in the right that he expects the victim should bear his pain bravely. I have to tell you, that not only as a victim I am against this attitude but in any case. Since I do not think that we can speak of ``right'' properly, I decided all problems to discuss as happiness problems. If I have to isolate a person, because he or she is dangerous, then I should put into account the unhappiness of the person's isolation together with the happiness increase of the others reached by the isolation. That the isolation is a ``right'' -- as some people style that -- should not lead\fnA{\original{led}} people to neglecting the isolated person's unhappiness. You may bear that, I shall not. REASON: not because I want to avoid unhappiness, I should even take that, but because I think this attitude as such is dangerous for my human brethren and Carnap\incarnap{} should try to see that. I tried to analyse human relations and I think that this habit is really dangerous.

Of course I am often unkind, grieving people, but I think I never let other people being unhappy, because I think I am ``right'' (index word in my language). Discussing prison life etc. I often touch this point. And I met many people here who are prepared to look at prison life and everything from this happiness point of view.

I must confess I often wanted to mention to Carnap\incarnap{} this basic difference in our way-of-life attitude, but I hesitated, because it implies the assumption that Carnap's\incarnap{} point of view is partly Platonic\index{Neurath, Otto!on Carnap's Platonism}, Prussian, Puritanic etc. -- i.\,e. preparing the soil for totalitarian persecution, which often leads to terrible things e.\,g. Nazidom\index{Platonic attitude!and Nazism}. Please, do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that Carnap\incarnap{} is politically unsound, not at all, but that this attitude has elements, which very often lead kind people to become gradually merciless, even cruel. In the moment, in which you are leaving the \neueseite\{\}\zzz field of brotherhood and happiness, looking at ``higher'' things, you speak of godlike instances, science, impartiality, justice etc. (describing Carnap's\incarnap{} attitude) you are entering the land of danger. Then people learn to look at these higher principles and disregard the happiness account.

You mention, that I bully people, when arguing -- I am not sure of that, I think I am rather noisy, and mostly interested in creating doubts, weakening the strong positions of some absolutism. SHOULD I BE\fnA{Hsl. Ersetzung von \original{AM}.} BULLYING, I AM PREPARED TO ALTER THAT. That is what I ask from Carnap\incarnap{}, that he should be prepared to alter his attitude (in general, not only as far as I am concerned).

You see I am a little doubtful, about ``coercion'' exerted by me. Reason: when writing in a very conciliatory\fnA{\original{conciliant}} way (no noise, no bullying) e.\,g. in the Plato\IN{\platon} article\index{Neurath, Otto!Plato-article}, the people, who answer, answer exactly in the tone of irritation, I know, in the cases in which people tell me they feel themselves bullied -- interesting, is it not? Secondly there are people, who after a certain ``education'' say to me I should be less noisy etc., but never felt them\editor{selves} coerced or bullied \ldots{}  
How do I explain that? Hypothesis of mine: most differences in life are based on ATTITUDES, not on opinions and not on actions themselves, but on the PATTERN OF ACTIONS. Many people feel that I do not agree with their habits and attitudes. I think Carnap\incarnap{} feels that, too, even when we are peacefully together. Such a fundamental difference creates an atmosphere, which leds sometimes to explosions. I discovered that people of different religion, even atheists and people with faith can go on together as long as they look at love and friendship as something DECISIVE.

You see there are many ways of life, let me select two of them. The one the ``PLATONIC''\index{Platonic attitude!way of life} one thinks in terms of a pyramid of principles, rules, rights, order, everything has its proper place, fixed by some structure, you can predict what will happen, rational arguing is decisive in life etc. This habit is dangerous\index{Platonic attitude!way of life} in itself, the persecution of the Albigenses, Huguenots, Jews etc. is possible within such a framework.

There is another way of life\index{Neurath, Otto!on the friendly attitude}, where happiness and friendship are in the foreground. Why order? Love and happiness, -- sometimes supported by order, justice and suchlike things, but they are not always applicable, when one wants to be kind. Of course not only to the next neighbour or relative but also to mankind. There are many loyalties you have to bear in mind, not only one. Happiness here, happiness there, pain here, pain there. Result: much muddle\index{muddle}. And when thinking of human happiness one has to bear muddle, which is also essential for any evolved democracy\index{democracy!happiness and muddle} \ldots{}  
I think I am entitled to discuss this matter, since you indicated that Carnap\incarnap{} is a zealous Prussian Lutheran (I should not think of Lutheran, but of Sectarian, but I know, what you want to indicate) -- that implies not of the second type but rather of the former type.

I shall tell a story which illustrates the matter, I think. Arriving with Carnap\incarnap{} from Bruxelles, the ticketcollector \neueseite\{\}\zzz in Paris, tells me my ticket is the Belgian one. I tell her, I did get this back from the Belgian official and I do not have the other part. She asked the man with the red cap to decide, what should be done, he needed a few seconds for his decision: ``OK'' he said.

Now we left the station and tried to get a taxi. In this moment I feel in my pocket the French ticket; polite as I am I return and give the ticket to the collector. She is very impressed by that and expresses her thanks vividly.

CARNAP\incarnap{}: ``Now I do not understand anything. She looks at the ticket, she asks the official in charge, he permits you to pass, and now the ticket was wrong. What was the intention in asking the official at all?'' I: ``You see, he looked at me, and thought: that is not the attitude of a swindler and instead of bringing a form, calling witnesses, making a fuss, as in Germany it would be the rule, he made his decision.'' Carnap\incarnap{} moved calmly his wise head and did not understand the Western world.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Das glaube ich nicht! (Ich erinnere die Geschichte nicht.)}}.} I did. Perhaps the story was a little different, but Carnap\incarnap{} will tell it to you. In principle, that was the central point.

Dr. Eisenmenger\IN{\eisenmenger}\index{Eisenmenger, Viktor} the physician Franz Ferdinand's\IN{\franzferdinand}\index{Ferdinand, Franz}\fnE{Gemeint ist der österreichische Thronfolger Franz Ferdinand von Habsburg. Eisenmenger war auch Leibarzt von Kaiser Franz Josef und Kaiser Karl.} tells a story:\fnEE{Eisenmenger, \textit{Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand}, 54f.} Egypt, Cook Office. A German complains intensely that he put his luggage into the ship or carriage and did not get a receipt (you know that is English custom) and now it disappeared. Long statements etc. The official thinks one moment, then asks: ``how much value?'' The German wholly abashed answered: ``200 pounds''. ``You will get the money, should the luggage not be here within an hour'' said the official calmly and asked the next passenger, what he wants. Eisenmenger\IN{\eisenmenger}\index{Eisenmenger, Viktor} says, he was much impressed, thinking how such a problem would be solved in Germany, with oath, declarations, dozens of letters and counter-letters, etc. perhaps even court of law. Whereas this Englishman less interested in order and justice, just wanted to go on in some friendly way with a minimum of time designed to that business.

Or. The commander of one of the internment camps saw how much depressed some of the people were by being not permitted to write frankly and freely to their wives etc. He said to them, ``give me your letters, I shall put them into my covers and post them as mine.'' He did it openly, all other officers and the soldiers knew it. Imagine a German officer, separating ``professional'' and ``personal'' life, he would either not do it, or if, do it in a concealed way, fearing, he could reduce obedience, authority etc. ashamed that he was not able to ``bekämpfen den inneren Schweinehund'' which wants mercy and such nonsense, when ``professional'' duty is in question etc.

I think Carnap\incarnap{} belongs more to the people, who sympathize with the Platonic-Prussian attitude\index{Neurath, Otto!on Carnap's Platonism}. I like to be in a country where the difference between personal and professional attitude is very small. One thinks of other people's happiness and tries not to forget of course public happiness, but also to think of the neighbours' happiness, who is just in contact with the respective official.

What do you think about all that. I am now promoting muddle\index{muddle}, democracy\index{democracy} and brotherhood and I try to weaken all tendencies which go into the Platonic direction. You can realize how much it touches me, when I \neueseite\{\}\zzz see how friends are supporting the other group with order, justice, pyramid of rules etc. (I know very well, that arbitrary administration is bad and that the poor are often interested in written, well defined law, but nevertheless it is dangerous this rigidity) with ecstasy\fnA{\original{ecstacy}}, enthusiasm, etc.

I have no idea what kind of ``rights'' and ``duties'' of an editor pressed Carnap\incarnap{} to drop his name from my monograph\index{Neurath, Otto!on Carnap on monograph}. I asked him, that he the ``correct'' man should at least tell me that, not only in vague generalities. But I cannot see that it is increasing human happiness when \textkritik{someone is}\fnA{Hsl. Einschub.} not thinking of the pain inflicted by executing some imagined ``duty''. Of course I understand an argument, which runs so: when I, Carnap\incarnap{} have my name there, unhappy things will come out. Readers believing in me will take this monograph too seriously will make bad research etc. or will become bad parents or bad teachers; this unhappiness is so serious that I have to inflict pain on my friend Neurath\inneurath{} \ldots\ or something like that. WHAT HAPPINESS WAS ENDANGERED BY HAVING HIS NAME ON THE MONOGRAPH. I am really inquisitive; how he will explain that?

You say, I think, you regard it as a kind of exculpation: he is a zealous Lutheran etc. But you apparently overlook, that that would imply to object to that attitude in principle. It is not only some manner like another, it is some danger in that. Luther\IN{\luther} preached one should persecute the Jews, one should burn their synagogues, etc. he suggested one should massacre the peasants, some more some less does not matter, etc. You see it does not reduce my resistance against Carnap's\incarnap{} attitude and behaviour when you tell me, that it belongs to the Luther\IN{\luther} group. ``Eh scho wissen''.

Please, realize my difficult situation. I have talks with German friends, who almost without exception do not realize to what extent the ``good'' German attitude prepared Nazidom\index{Neurath, Otto!German attitude preparing Nazidom} together with other items. I try to induce them to drop certain peculiarities and to accept more the Anglo-Saxon peculiarities. I want they should drop the interest in order as such, in stressing ``rights'' more than peace and happiness, in stressing ``ideals'' (ecstasy\fnA{\original{ecstacy}}, enthusiasm, arts, etc. science etc. impartiality, etc.) more than the daily happiness of the neighbours, the own happiness, the happiness of people more far away. As you say Carnap\incarnap{} is inflicting pain in the name of ``science, impartiality and suchlike gods'', that is just, what I try to fight, and what my German friends usually try to defend, whereas my English friends in most cases agree with my attitude, which is based on compromise, muddle, happiness and not on some unhuman ``principles''. I should like to know from where Carnap\incarnap{} got his statute book about the duties of an editor \ldots\ You see, when this kind of Platonic ideology comes into the picture I become rather embittered. My friends and son and others in concentration camps etc \ldots\ for so many years, some died. And the KIND GERMAN BOYS who performed cruel things, inflicted pain, came from an environment, in which Platonic ideals count higher than human brotherhood, where performing some ``duty'' implies inflicting pain as something normal. THAT IS, I THINK ONE OF THE DEEPER SOURCES OF OUR DIFFERENCE \ldots\ The Moraltheologists and Talmudists stressed the point of the law, and then they sometimes reduced \neueseite\{\}\zzz its hardship. Carnap\incarnap{} first creates a law according to which he is forced to withdraw his name and then he reduces this action, by\fnA{Hsl. Ersetzung von \original{to}.} making a slight remark somewhere, not too obvious. You see I should think, when he thought that it is creating unhappiness, when people believe in the authority of Carnap\incarnap{}, when reading my book, then he should do more, not less, than he did \ldots{} It sounds now, as if some legal performance should be in principle executed but with some restrictions \ldots\ Please, realize, that without being angry I look at that with not much joy and find it in its best rather comic \ldots{}  
I hope you will not become impatient, when reading my long description of my attitude and why it is not a question of good will, \textkritik{as long as}\fnA{Hsl. Ersetzung von \original{when}.} Carnap\incarnap{} IN PRINCIPLE tries to perform, what I think is dangerous. Of course I shall try to be with him at good terms, even when he does not alter his attitude, but it is hard for me, to think of a friend, who does not think of brotherhood, happiness, humanity as more important than some godlike phantoms \ldots\ Sorry. But perhaps he will understand a little the danger \ldots{} Let us hope. You see this inflicting pain remains, what it is, even when Carnap\incarnap{} does it under tears \ldots\  The Kurfürst killing his son under tears \ldots\ Prinz von Homburg. Prinz von Homburg and Goethe\index{Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von}'s\IN{\goethe} Iphigenie\fnEE{Kleist, \textit{Prinz Friedrich von Homburg}; Goethe, \textit{Iphigenie auf Tauris}.} are my examples of real German lack of brotherhood and of the mercilessness which appears to be heroic or something like that. For me dangerous through and through~\ldots{}  
Jørgensen\IN{\joergensen}\index{Jørgensen, Jørgen} and Næss\IN{\naess}\index{Næss, Arne} are well. Poor friends who died. What will Łukasiewicz\IN{\lukasiewicz}\index{Łukasiewicz, Jan} do with his nationalism? And Scholz\IN{\scholzheinrich}\index{Scholz, Heinrich} with his preparedness to collaborate? The half collaborator will persecute the full collaborator being persecuted by the quarters etc. What a world. Refugees will say that the others did not go away -- what a shame -- and these will call the refugees escapists. What a world.

Thanks for newspaper cuttings. I am very thankful for all such stuff. Our files are lively now, we enjoy our big library. The files are increasing, the collections of maps, pictures etc. People here are kind to us. Yesterday a neighbour whom we never met, brought a telegram erroneously\fnA{\original{eronneously}} put under his door, adding -- as a consolation -- a basket full of wonderful apples.

Everything is full of some muddle, everything goes on smoothly and in a rather humane way. There are bad things here too -- but people acknowledge that and want to alter it.

I am waiting for your and Carnap's\incarnap{} letter. Perhaps it is helpful that you lead the discussion into the serious field of the way of life. Perhaps it is better, one says all that, instead of being delicate. Suppression of all these protests against Carnap's\incarnap{} habits creates perhaps the temper, which leads to outbursts, because -- not without reason -- I regard his treating me badly as a result of his general outlook. A point in which you agree with me.

I hope you will bring us more closely together than we have been before, and without Carnapian sleepless nights. I am very prepared to create a kind and  hearty\fnA{\original{heartly}} Carnap\incarnap{}-Neurath\inneurath{} brotherhood. With love from Mary\IN{\reidemeistermarie}\index{Neurath, Marie \ekl{Mieze}} to both of you
}

\grussformel{Ever yours\doned{\\\editor{\ekll{Otto Neurath}}}}


\hspace{2cm}\includegraphicscn[width=2cm]{Grafiken/Elefant-15.png}{}%\Apagebreak


\grafik{Platzhalter Grafik: Elephant}

\ebericht{Brief, msl., 5 Seiten, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/846801}{RC 102-55-13 (Dsl. ON 218)}; Briefkopf: msl. \original{24\textsuperscript{th} September, 45}; statt schriftlicher Signatur grob skizzierte Zeichnung eines Tieres.}
