\brief{Rudolf Carnap an Charles Morris, 15. Mai 1934}{Mai 1934}

%, May, 15, 1934.

\anrede{Dear Professor Morris,}

\haupttext{thank you for your kind letter from Berlin. I am very glad to see that you are already so near to Prague. And I shall be
happy to meet you here in August.

Your book about the Theories of Mind\IW{} will be of great value for me; I hope to find in it also an explanation of your
pragmatistic views. About these views I should like to discuss with you later. I am sorry, my ``Logical Syntax''\IC{\logischesyntaxenglisch} is
not yet quite ready. But I think it will appear still in May, and then it will be sent to your American Address; I
suppose it will be forwarded to you to Berlin.

I was pleased to hear from you that Dewey\IN{\dewey} is interested in a paper of mine. Now I have sent him a copy of ``Unity of
Sc[ience]''\IC{\unityofscience}.

Yes, Lewis\IN{\lewis} sent me a reprint of his ``Experience and Meaning''\IW{} (and previously the MS). I am very interested in this
paper and I intend to write an answer to it as soon as I have time. I have written some notes for the intended paper. I
am inclosing you a copy (I have sent also one to Lewis\IN{\lewis} himself). I do not know if it is possible to understand anything
from these short hints. But perhaps you may see what matters I intend to deal with. And perhaps you may have some
suggestions.

Since Prague is on your way from Berlin to Vienna, perhaps you might make a little stay here of a day or so. I should be
happy to meet you already in June. And perhaps I may be able to give you some tips about our Vienna people (unless Feigl\IN{\feigl}
has done so already). The members of our Circle\II{\schlickzirkel} who are the most active in discussion -- viz. Feigl\IN{\feigl}, Neurath\IN{\neurath} and myself
-- are no longer in Vienna. Those who are now there (Schlick\IN{\schlick}, Hahn\IN{\hahnhans}, Waismann\IN{\waismann}) will certainly be very kind to you and
ready to give you all information you want about our views, but the active part in meeting and discussing with them has
to be taken by yourself. Especially Schlick\IN{\schlick} will certainly accept you in a very friendly manner; and Mrs. Schlick\IN{\schlickfrau} is an
American lady and will be happy to see you and your wife at her home. But Schlick\IN{\schlick} does not like to discuss much; he does
so sometimes but only when somebody gets him to do so. I suppose that it might be of some value for you also to speak
with some other people who are more or less related to our Circle\II{\schlickzirkel} (e.\,g. Kraft\IN{\kraftvictor}, Menger\IN{\menger}, Kaufmann\IN{\kaufmannfelix}, Zilsel\IN{\zilsel}, Popper\IN{\popper} a[nd] o[thers]). I
will then give you nearer information about their specialities.

Last year Dr. Quine\IN{\quine} (a pupil of Lewis\IN{\lewis}) was here for several weeks. He came from Vienna where he had spent some months. He
was unhappy because he had not been able to use his Vienna time in a profitable manner. He was there without sufficient
connection although he visited regularly the Circle\II{\schlickzirkel} meetings (which in the meantime have quite fallen \soutsp{through} off).
Indeed he was an unknown young man; no doubt you will find it easier to form connections. \neueseite{} But in any case some
information may be of use for you. If you cannot stop here I will write same to you; please write me in this case, in
which questions you are most interested, and whether you will discuss them also in German, and generally what are your
intentions and wishes for your Vienna time.

I think that the time of July, especially the end of July, and the beginning of August will perhaps be rather warm for
you to live in Vienna or Prague. My wife\IN{\ina} and I will perhaps be a little time in the mountains in the summer. What do you
say perhaps to our being together there? So far we have no fixed idea concerning place and time. Perhaps the most
convenient would be either the Austrian mountains (the Alps) or somewhere in the Czechoslovakian mountains. If we should
see you here in June, we could speak about that.}

\grussformel{Sincerely yours\\
R. Carnap}

\ebericht{Brief, msl., 2 Seiten, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/870348}{CM (Dsl. RC 029-04-15)}; Briefkopf: gestempelt \original{Prof. Dr. Rudolf Carnap \,/\, Prag XVII. \,/\, N. Motol, Pod Homolkou 146}, msl. \original{May, 15, 1934}.}


\briefanhang{\uline{Notes for an answer to Lewis'\IN{\lewis} ``Experience and Meaning''\IW{}}

1. The \uline{chief thesis} of Lewis\IN{\lewis} (Pragmatism against Log[ical] Positivism): the object known is defined in terms of experience;
but this is not only the exp[erience] in the moment of knowing; it transcendens that exp[erience]; the Given is the basis for a
probability-judgment, which concerns also future experiences and therefore can be verified by them. -- With this view the
Viennese Circle\II{\schlickzirkel} is \uline{now in accordance}. Difference from our former views (which were influenced by Wittgenstein\IN{\wittgenstein}); Lewis'\IN{\lewis}
criticism of these views is right. The modification and development of our views on this point is mainly the effect of
opposition made by Physicists. Now we 1) consider a statement to be an hypothesis; it is never completely verified by the
present experiences; it concerns also future experiences. -- Agreement with several of L's\blockade{wie ergänzen? ds ,,s`` würde ja wegfallen} statements.-

---------------------

1) ``We'' is to be understood as denoting generally the Viennese Circle\II{\schlickzirkel}. But in the question under consideration it
means only what we call sometimes (jocularly) the left wing of the Circle\II{\schlickzirkel}, to which belong i.\,a. Frank\IN{\frankphilipp}, Hahn\IN{\hahnhans}, Neurath\IN{\neurath},
Carnap\IN{\carnap}. This more radical wing may be characterized by the following points: rejection of some of Wittgenstein's\IN{\wittgenstein} views,
especially of his metaphysics; affirmation of the assertion of physicalism and unity of science; taking logical
syntax as basis and frame for the formulation of our problems. The more conservative so called ``right wing'' (Schlick\IN{\schlick},
Waismann\IN{\waismann}) holds the views of Wittgenstein\IN{\wittgenstein}. In the point under consideration (but not in physicalism) there seems to be an
approach of the two wings one to the other.

---------------------

2. Besides the chief question now discussed, the \uline{question of formulation} is here very important. Explanation of the
difference between the \uline{material mode of speech} (using words like ``thing'', ``object'', ``fact'', ``experience'', etc.)
and the \uline{formal mode of speech} (concerning sentences, names, denotations). Already in former time the publications of the
V[ienna] C[ircle]\II{\schlickzirkel} were avoiding some elsewhere usual expressions of the material mode of speech. Some of the formulations quoted by
Lewis\IN{\lewis} as Positivistic ones would not have been used by us (e.\,g. ``your mind is nothing more than a construction''
(p.\,127); ``reality is nothing m.th.a.c.'' (p.\,128); ``your toothache is identical with such and such behavior'' (p.\,145)).
But this avoidance was done more by instinct than by explicit consideration. And in several other cases we used the
material mode. At present we have learned the importance of distinguishing the two modes. And now we prefer the formal
one. The material mode of speech is neither false nor senseless, but only dangerous: it leads frequently to ambiguities
or to pseudo-problems. \neueseite{}

3. \uline{Application}: translation of some questions and statements of those under discussion in the formal mode. Chief point:
formulation of the difference between datum and cognoscendum, the ``something more'', which is asserted but not verified
immediately.

\blockade{Spalte1} Formal mode: 

(p.\,133 below)\ldots{} basis of a probability-judgment \ldots{} . Knowledge and meaning
go beyond the present experiences.

\blockade{Spalte 2} Material mode:

On occasion of an observations sentence (e.\,g. \ldots{}) a physical sentence (e.\,g. \ldots{})
is stated as an hypothesis. From that further observation sentences are deducible which may be verified
or falsified in future.

What means ``verifiable'' or ``verifiable in principle''? That can be defined in the formal mode: a sentence $S$ is
verifiable, if there are observation sentences deducible from $S$; more exactly: if there are implication-sentences
deducible from $S$ the implicates of which are observation-sentences and the implicants of which are ``possible''. What is
meant here by ``possible''? Not ``technically possible'', but ``logically possible''; i.\,e. the implicants have to be
compatible with the physical laws known.}

\ebericht{Briefanhang, msl., 2 Seiten, CM; Briefkopf: gestempelt \original{Prof. Dr. Rudolf Carnap \,/\, Prag XVII. \,/\, N. Motol, Pod Homolkou}, hsl. \original{11.\,5.\,34}.}
