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

\anrede{My dear friend Carnap,\fnSE{Ein Brief ähnlichen Inhalts wurde von Neurath bereits am 22.\,9.\,1945 verfasst, aber nicht abgeschickt. Siehe Carnap und Neurath, ,,The 1940--1945 Neurath-Carnap Correspondence``, 653--669, bzw. Neurath an Carnap, 22.\,9.\,1945 (\href{https://doi.org/10.48666/847158}{ON 223 1944--1945}).}}

\haupttext{
Perhaps you felt discouraged, when reading my letter, because I wrote it in a rather helpless mood. But let us go on and try -- first of all, I have not the slightest doubt, that you and I would help one another when in danger, further, that we are pleased by our personal contact, etc. Nevertheless there are manifestly some serious differences in outlook, which we as kind people should analyze for finding some compromise. Of course, should you be against compromise as such, then it becomes a difficult matter.

It is so, that I complain about you, violating me by grieving me and you complain about me, violating you by overstepping self-defence. Would you think I am not in harmony with your own stories, when saying, that you did not tell of any case in which I first violated you? Please think about this point, please.

And now I shall try to be analytic and to be restrained, not giving names from the beginning. I think, that you should tell me

 (1) which are the points in my paper, which forced you to withdraw your name. You did tell me about that in the most vague terms only and looking through my paper I cannot discover things sufficiently bad.

 (2) withdrawing\index{Neurath, Otto!on Carnap on monograph} a name is so serious an action, that I assume, that you can tell me what detrimental effects for our movement, readers, mankind as a whole you expected from your name being on the paper.

 (3) if this is so serious, and your name on the paper would give too much authority to my bad paper that it becomes more dangerous, then why did you make the concession, to indicate the withdrawal to be -- as you think -- hardly conceivable, as you wrote me.

 (4) do you really\index{Neurath, Otto!on Carnap on monograph} think that my paper is worse than all the others, e.\,g. Bloomfield's\IN{\bloomfield} about which many people complained\fnA{\original{complaint}} to me?\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ja}}.}

Please, be kind enough to answer these four questions. I do not conceal, that your behaviour looks less like an action made for the common good of readers, mankind, movement but rather like an action, which has to satisfy your own conscience only, without being made for the common good and the common happiness. I confess, that up to now I looked at this ambiguous behaviour as I look at certain actions suggested by Moral Theologists or Talmudists, who first give certain strong rules for satisfying the conscience and then tell how to make the strongness not too strong, again satisfying the conscience, but in both cases not telling us, how the happiness of the human brethren is increased by the suggestions and actions they are producing.

You see, I myself do not like the continental ``Aussprachen haben'', but then I see, that the continental atmosphere is forcing us to have them and therefore I try to make the best of it. The fact that you are writing long letters shows me, that you take the matter seriously, as I do it, and that even Ina\IN{\ina}\index{Carnap, Ina} comes down from the high Olympus, the silent goddess to bring the thundering heroes together before they start sitting sulkingly in their respective tents shows me, that also she thinks\fnA{Hsl. Einschub.} things become serious and that she thinks we should take care of our friendship and come to some kind solution.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ja}}.}

After answering the above questions please try to think a little about me as a human brother, who has his difficulties and whom to help would be a friend's task. You speak of ``reconciliation'', that is not the right word for making the situation better, when one of the partners does not feel being in a feud, but being ``humiliated''. I have seen so many human careers that I am entitled to say it is extremely difficult to alter the atmosphere of humiliation.

You see, when you tell me and others, that I am terrible in my outbursts, that is not humiliating -- EVEN IF IT WERE NOT AN ACCEPTABLE DESCRIPTION. But I feel, as if you put away the basic elements of my life, when you are spreading the legend that I become furious, when criticized in my arguments, in my style, etc., as you did writing to Morris\IN{\morris}\index{Morris, Charles}.

Look, all my life I have two important pillars of my behaviour; to reserve a considerable part of my life to purely humane relations, kind relations, friendship, love, enjoying reading, looking at landscapes, etc., making people happy and becoming happy by being treated in a kind way. The other pillar is to take nothing for granted (without exception) and being prepared to alter anything which I do not regard as ``folklore'' (I should not be interested in altering trousers or ties etc.) i.\,e. my arguments, my style, etc. that is the reason, why so many people are astonished with what extraordinary preparedness I am accepting suggestions dealing with my style, dealing with my arguments. It is normal, -- there are many witnesses of that -- that I say to people less educated than I am, alter the wording, if you think it better understandable. My publishers tell me how nice I am, never being angry when a ``reader'' of the office makes suggestions. I think it just characteristic that I never have an outburst, when people suggest alterations. Imagine that such a mythos, propagated by you (perhaps other people started with that and you accepted it without taking care of proving it -- I have no idea) inflicts pain.

I think -- you know it is difficult to get a picture of the own person -- that I collected sufficiently data, which tell me, that I designed much energy and efforts to these two parts of my fabric, and succeeded. The number of friends is increasing -- I should say rapidly, when looking at the long letters from so many people, who talk over private problems etc. Apparently people, who are not afraid of me and my ``outbursts''. But -- perhaps that indicates something -- they are in the vast majority non-Germans, they are Dutch, English, etc. Further I have many examples showing me that people, who first felt themselves irritated by my -- very often badly noisy \ekl{--} behaviour dropped one day this being irritated and go on nicely with me --- AFTER THEY DISCOVERED WHERE THE DIFFICULTY IS. And it is mainly in the feeling of humiliation, which people create in one another. Outbursts are not so bad, but outbursts which are originated from the humiliation feeling and outbursts which\fnA{Hsl. Ersetzung von \original{who}.} create humiliation feeling.

WHEN YOU ARE WRITING TO MORRIS\IN{\morris}\index{Morris, Charles} THAT I BECOME VIOLENT WHEN CRITICISED I BECOME REALLY FURIOUS, because I feel it as denunciation\fnA{\original{denounciation}}, based on NOTHING, as far as I can judge.

In your last letter you are writing that you wrote that to Morris\IN{\morris}\index{Neurath, Otto!on Carnap's letter to Morris}, mainly for reducing his possible sorrow that he did not protest. Imagine, my dear Carnap\incarnap{}, how that humiliates me. You are thinking of his pain, not in the same way of mine, (1) inflicted by taking away the responsibility from Morris\IN{\morris}\index{Morris, Charles}, -- I assumed he did, what necessary, I giving him FREE HAND, as letters show -- and in \neueseite\{\}\zzz (2) inflicting another by telling him about my outbursts,\fnAmargin{Ksl. am oberen Blattrand \original{\textsp{Ich teilte ihm nichts mit, sondern erwähnte nur, was er selbst schon wußte.}}.} when criticised. YOU DID NOT ANSWER THIS SERIOUS, VERY SERIOUS REMARK OF MINE, but started telling me, what I never denied, that I am violent in self-defence.

The way, in which you are criticizing my overstepping self-defence, is for me again humiliating, why? You are not much concerned with what Schlick\IN{\schlick}\index{Schlick, Moritz} did, but you speak in general of the fact, that both parties have something to say etc. THAT IS JUST THE WAY TO AVOID THE FRIENDLY ANALYSIS OF THE VICTIM'S FATE. What comes out: YOU are the victim, because you had one of the most depressing experiences.

When analysing Schlick\IN{\schlick}\index{Schlick, Moritz!humiliating Neurath}'s behaviour towards me, you would discover a continual tendency to humiliate and attack me.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{(übertrieben)}}.} Whereas I, as you remember, did much for preparing the booklet for praising his coming back to Vienna. From my side not the slightest tendency to attack him.

About his extraordinary rude and humiliating behaviour I have Frank\IN{\frankphilipp}\index{Frank, Philipp} as a witness, as we discussed my ``\uline{SOZIOLOGIE}''.\fnE{Neurath, \textit{Empirische Soziologie}.} If he did suggest far\ekl{-}reaching changes as an equal to an equal I would\fnA{\original{should}} never \ekl{have} reacted irritatedly, but he behaved like a big boss who has a right to bully me and to treat me like a school boy. Perhaps I am an ``eingebildeter Laffe'', but I do not regard my work so much less, than his and EVEN IF IT WERE SO, I ASK FOR THE NORMAL RESPECT BETWEEN SCHOLARS.

I never got such a kind of cold humiliation in my life,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{(übertrieben)}}.} than from him. Scene in the circle: Waismann\IN{\waismann}\index{Waismann, Friedrich!invites Neurath to talk in the Circle} suggested to me, I should some day tell about my points of view, he had spoken with Schlick\IN{\schlick}\index{Schlick, Moritz!humiliating Neurath} and a certain day \editor{he} agreed. Schlick\IN{\schlick}\index{Schlick, Moritz} introduced me -- WITHOUT ANY CONFLICT IN THE AIR -- with words of this kind: I do not know, what Dr. Neurath\inneurath{} has to tell us and what he really wants, but he likes to speak to us, please start, etc. COLLEAGUES OF THE CIRCLE WERE REALLY STARTLED BY THAT AND TOLD ME SO AFTERWARDS.\fnEE{Vgl. dazu die Erinnerungen von Neider, ,,Gespräch mit Heinrich Neider``, 25.}

How Schlick\IN{\schlick}\index{Schlick, Moritz!on unified science \ekl{Paris}} behaved at other occasions, you know perfectly well. His last paper read in French at our congress in Paris, spoke of EINHEITSWISSENSCHAFT -- without any provocation -- as an ugly word.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ist das so schlimm}}.} Fortunately the rather stupid translator translated ``Einheitswissenschaft\index{Schlick, Moritz!on unified science \ekl{Paris}}'' into SCIENCE UNITAIRE -- and now nobody knows, why that is ugly. ETC.\fnEE{Gemeint ist der \textit{Dritte Internationale Kongress für Einheit der Wissenschaften} in Paris 1937 bzw. Schlick, ,,L'école de Vienne et la philosophie traditionelle``.}

Neider\IN{\neider}\index{Neider, Heinrich}, who liked Schlick\IN{\schlick}\index{Schlick, Moritz}, did never deny all that, but only tried to explain it by telling me, that the overdelicate and sensitive man always feared that I could touch his sentiments etc. I told Neider\IN{\neider}\index{Neider, Heinrich} how much I personally like to be sentimental and never disturb other people's sentimentality, if not connected with brutality, as it sometimes is.

I do not deny that I exploded when Schlick\IN{\schlick}\index{Schlick, Moritz!humiliating Neurath} behaved badly, I never denied that, but you should be a good friend and tell me, what the other side can say for HUMILIATING me.

The same is in your own case. Not-quoting\fnA{Hsl. Ersetzung von \original{The non-quoting}.} me belongs to the humiliating things in many cases.\fnAmargin{Ksl. am unteren Blattrand \original{\textsp{Meint er vielleicht Vorwort zu ,,Semantik``?\ldots}}.} The not regarding a person as sufficiently important, that his remarks have to be taken seriously. One may use them, but why quote them. \neueseite\{\}\zzz You say, both sides have to tell their story. You never told me, why you thought it right not to quote me. Your story always starts AFTER THE ACTION, whereas I speak of the beginning, too.

Look, I always fear that I, like other scholars, could fall into the mean and poor scientific persecution mania.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Ja, sehr!}}.} Therefore I suppress my anger in such cases, very often, saying to me -- it is by chance etc. But if such cases increase in number I become angry. Look at the following example. Feigl\IN{\feigl}\index{Feigl, Herbert!paper on logical empiricism} wrote a paper on Logical Empiricism.\fnEE{Feigl, ,,Logical Empiricism``.} Do you think anybody reading this paper, will discover that I had a certain position in its history? I do not speak of the acceptability of my hobbies, protocol statements, index verborum, etc. but of the fact, that in MANY BOOKS, even in Laird\IN{\laird}\index{Laird, John}'s little introduction to modern philosophy\fnEE{Laird, \textit{Recent Philosophy}.} I am acknowledged as somebody of a certain validity within this movement. It is particularly interesting to note, that I fought for LOGICAL EMPIRICISM\index{Neurath, Otto!suggesting logical empiricism} against SCHLICK\IN{\schlick}\index{Schlick, Moritz!suggesting radical empiricism}, who wanted RADICAL EMPIRICISM\index{Schlick, Moritz!suggesting radical empiricism} -- the term used by James\IN{\james}\index{James, William!Bergsonianism}. And I was against that, because James\IN{\james}\index{James, William!Bergsonianism} this half-Bergsonian boy with so much obscurantism should be treated kindly by us, because he taught us a lot, but never as a kind of authority, whose name proposals should be accepted. Please, look to the article by Feigl\IN{\feigl}\index{Feigl, Herbert!relation to Neurath}. He just put me into SOCIOLOGY -- that is all. He does not even mention me as the initiator and editor-in-chief of the encyclopedia. DO YOU THINK HE WOULD TREAT ME SO IF I WERE PROFESSOR, not to ask the question, what he \textkritik{would have done}\fnA{\original{did}} with all that if I were Schlick\IN{\schlick}\index{Schlick, Moritz}. Such things are normal. I analyzed some day -- I WAS NOT INVOLVED -- the big book of an author, who indicated he would not quote others (in the English way) but tell his story. He was PIVATDOZENT, and sometimes a name appears, and -- believe it or not, almost all names were the names of the professors of his university, where he hoped to get a professorship. Nice, as I am, I never published that in a review or so. I never complaint about Feigl\IN{\feigl}\index{Feigl, Herbert!relation to Neurath}. I am not regarding him as very important or influential, but for a long time I regarded him as a potential friend. I FEEL IRRITATED AS A FRIEND. You see, many years ago I had with Feigl\IN{\feigl}\index{Feigl, Herbert} a very fundamental talk about INDUCTION, particularly about cross-inductions etc., inductions supporting one another etc. Feigl\IN{\feigl}\index{Feigl, Herbert} himself told me in USA about that, how much he learned\index{Neurath, Otto!on Feigl} from me that day and how certain remarks by Reichenbach\IN{\reichenbach}\index{Reichenbach, Hans}, he likes, go in this direction etc. But FEIGL\IN{\feigl}\index{Feigl, Herbert} never quoted me in his induction papers. Please, believe me ``Es liegt mir stagelgrien auf''\fnEE{,,Stagelgrien aufliegen`` (oft auch: ,,Stagelgrün``): aus dem jüdischen Jargon kommend in der Wiener Umgangssprache für ,,egal sein``.} whether he quotes me or not (that is not the case with CARNAP\incarnap{}, RUSSELL\IN{\russellkurz}\index{Russell, Bertrand}, etc.), but a potential friend should not humiliate me \ldots\ He could e.\,g. quote some of my many remarks on induction, as it were, to be kindly and perhaps -- CORRECT, too. I have no idea, how you look at Feigl\IN{\feigl}\index{Feigl, Herbert!paper on logical empiricism}'s paper on Logical Empiricism as far as he describes my activities in this movement. Perhaps you think it is just OK. Please, tell me, what you think about that.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Feigl folgt nicht diesen Werturteilen; es ist ihm ganz gleichgültig, ob einer Professor ist.}}.}

This kind of behaviour I think somewhat irritating. If some day Feigl\IN{\feigl}\index{Feigl, Herbert!relation to Neurath} will get an ``outburst'', then he and others think that the Neurath\inneurath{} is quickly irritated, whereas it is the outburst which covers many, many subjects \ldots\ You see I am fighting even that in me, and I am fighting becoming suspicious, \neueseite\{\}\zzz because that disturbs friendship and love. But it is not always simple to overcome this feeling. Imagine, some day I read in Russell\IN{\russellkurz}\index{Russell, Bertrand}, how he uses the word Protocol etc. and I thought strange, how many different definitions exist \ldots\ And I looked into RUNES\IN{\runes}\index{Runes, Dagobert D.} dictionary. I could not find the term PROTOCOL\index{protocol statements} at all. Strange. Then later on I discovered that it is under BASIC.\fnEE{Runes, \textit{Dictionary of Philosophy}, enthält eine Reihe von Artikeln, die Carnap verfasst hat, unter anderem den kurzen Eintrag zu ,,Basic Sentences, Protocol Sentences`` (35).} But there I found various variations, BUT NOT MY OWN.\fnAmargin{Ksl. und hsl. \original{\textsp{Doch, seine würde ich klassifizieren als sentenc. über \unsicher{perceptions}.}}.} I never speak of observation, sensation etc., but I start from sentences with certain types of words in, which belong to certain classes etc. Further. Do you think the various articles together in RUNES\IN{\runes}\index{Runes, Dagobert D.} enable a person to know, what I have to say? You are e.\,g. not quoting my protocol-article nor any other, except on physicalism\index{physicalism}.\fnAmargin{Ksl. am oberen Blattrand \original{\textsp{Doch, Dein ,,Le Dével.`` genannt p.~285; in diesem Artikel ,,Scientific Empiricism`` ist keine Veröffentlichung von Schlick oder Carnap genannt! Im Artikel ,,Physikalismus`` ist Neurath als erster genannt.}}.}
You see I should look at me as over-suspicious, if I did not have the Moscow affaire, the Feigl\IN{\feigl}\index{Feigl, Herbert!paper on logical empiricism} article etc. I should say so: my friends and potential friends do not regard me as much important within their circle -- except as far as I act as a kind of manager\index{Neurath, Otto!role in the movement} \ldots\ OK. Let them. But it is somewhat humiliating, when on the other hand, OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT SO CLOSELY RELATED TO ME mention my work -- as I think -- properly. All that is not worth while\fnA{\original{wile}}\index{Neurath, Otto!role in the movement}, if our atmosphere were kind and homely, which it is not.

That the BONZEN ideology is very normal, I know, but why also within our movement, which I thought should try to be more free and less hard than others, the pluralism with its tolerant features, etc. humane and kind relations should be possible here, contacts etc. more than in other places of our planet \ldots{}  
I do not think you are ``milder'' than I am or more ``peaceful'' -- as you think -- I only make more noise than you. But I am, in principle, prepared to think of other people's happiness, mine included (I am not unselfish), but you, as far as I can read your arguments, you are thinking in terms of ``right'', ``correct'', ``duty'', etc. which is far away from being kind and friendly, thinking of human happiness as a central item. You think -- as far \editor{as} I can see -- that if you are in the right, other people's unhappiness is not counting much. If you are ``just'' the victim may bear his pain with courage etc., etc. Perhaps You see yourself differently. I am really waiting, how you will answer question (2). What human happiness you improved by making me unhappy, when dropping your name\index{Neurath, Otto!on Carnap on monograph}. THAT IS MY QUESTION. Can you indicate that you improved the happiness of mankind, some people etc. by inflicting unhappiness, then I shall think over the whole matter in a different way. Up to now I rather feel, that -- SHOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT, I AM NOT SURE OF THAT -- you were in the position as a ``correct'' man to inflict pain. Which I think a very sad attitude, indeed \ldots\ not only as far as friends are concerned.

This is a ``Platonic'' attitude\index{Platonic attitude}, I should say. I am against this attitude, even if I did not appear as a victim. And differences in ATTITUDES are really dangerous, because they create often tensions. Please, believe me, that I am so fully prepared to find a living compromise, that I shall not be to\ekl{o} hard in my attitude towards this Platonism, which I -- to be frankly -- dislike enormously and which I think is \neueseite\{\}\zzz something unpleasant in your otherwise charming habits.

Of course, I shall do what I can to avoid clashes, but please, when you write\fnA{Hsl. Ersetzung von \original{writing}.} me a kind letter, try also to tell me, that you are not untouched by these my remarks on your Platonic\index{Platonic attitude} or Puritan or how you may call it attitude. Please. But even if you cannot drop that -- I shall try to be as nice as possible to you \ldots\ It were\fnA{Original \original{is}.} only simpler, when you could have a similar attitude with all its muddling through \ldots{}  
I hope we shall now discuss within our movement also such problems of attitude closely connected with pluralism, unpredictability, which -- I hope so -- will be discussed now, after I published my opinions as bluntly, as possible, and since they are of some importance -- even if not acceptable to some of you.

Of course, Labour gives some hope, e.\,g. in housing. But the USA attitude makes everything difficult, and the Russian attitude, too. I do not know, what the Russians are driving at, but if they want to do, what they are doing -- what a terrible future before mankind. Perhaps much of that harsh behaviour is a kind of higher muddle, let us hope so.

Laski\IN{\laski}\index{Laski, Harold} has many good ideas. But as a chairman of a party, he should a little more distinguish between topical politics and general attitude \ldots\ I heard him lecture. I am not so sure, that he always ``means business''. I should like to go into details, if you \textkritik{}\fnA{\original{did}}\zzz ask me concrete questions, dealing with him.

Glad that Tarski\IN{\tarski}\index{Tarski, Alfred}'s family is safe. How terrible Hosiasson's\IN{\hosiasson}\index{Hosiasson-Lindenbaum, Janina} and Lindenbaum's\IN{\lindenbaum}\index{Lindenbaum, Adolf} death. I remember how they met one another and gradually became accustomed to one another, e.\,g. in Paris. I liked them and enjoyed their happiness.

No, I do not know of Popper\IN{\popper}\index{Popper, Karl!appointment at London}'s Readership. Probably Hayek\IN{\hayek}\index{Hayek, Friedrich}'s influence. He likes him very much indeed and I think Popper\IN{\popper}\index{Popper, Karl!supporting Hayek} will support Hayek\IN{\hayek}\index{Hayek, Friedrich!attacking logical empiricism} in his attacking Logical Empiricism.\fnAmargin{Ksl. am unteren Blattrand \original{\textsp{Was hat \uline{Hayek}\IN{\hayek} gegen Logischen Empirismus geschrieben? ist das in seinem Buch über Ökonomik? Ich habe es nicht gelesen.}}.} I, for peace and happiness, suggested to Hayek\IN{\hayek}\index{Hayek, Friedrich} we should arrange a published symposium and not attack one another brutally. I wrote my review\fnEE{Neurath, ,,Alternatives to Market Competition``.}\index{Neurath, Otto!review of Hayek} as restricted as possible, but I think he is a fanatic with much bias \ldots{} Some of his remarks are rather a kind of scandal -- I think so. But peace is something of importance.

We now get letters from Holland, France etc. \ldots\ Nothing from people in the Russian zone, only from people outside the Russian zone, which is ``sealed off''.

We are enjoying life, having many nice contacts, a very nice correspondence with many people, enlarging our institute etc. Næss\IN{\naess} wrote me nicely, he escaped, but his friend died, tortured, but not telling of Næss'\IN{\naess}\index{Næss, Arne} hiding place. %\fnEE{Biografische Angaben zu Næss ???}  
He hopes we shall have our next congress at OSLO. Let us hope so \ldots{}  
Now I am expecting a particularly nice and kind letter from you, answering the famous four questions and telling me about your attitude and whether it is really so Platonic, as I see it.

Be sure of my intention to calm down ill feeling and to discover a pleasant way of a pleasant compromise, if we cannot reach a more common basis of happiness and humanity.
}

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

\hspace{2cm}\includegraphicscn[width=2cm]{Grafiken/Elefant-16.png}{}

\grafik{Platzhalter Grafik: Elephant}


\ebericht{Brief, msl., 6 Seiten, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/846803}{RC 102-55-14 (Dsl. ON 223)}; Briefkopf: msl. \original{194 Divinity Rd.\,/\,Oxford}, ksl. \original{Stempel 24.~Sept.} und \original{bekommen 12.10.}; am Briefende hsl. \original{24.~Sept. 45}; statt schriftlicher Signatur grob skizzierte Zeichnung eines Tieres.}
