\brief{Rudolf Carnap an P.W. Bridgman, 14. April 1935}{April 1935}

%Prague, April 14, 1935.

\anrede{Dear Professor Bridgman,}

\haupttext{Thank you very much for your kind letter of Sept.\,19. I am very glad to see that you are interested in the writings of
the Viennese Circle\II{\schlickzirkel} and that you also -- as we do -- think that there is much in common between your views and ours.

Even in the point which you touch in your letter, there is, I think, more agreement than it might seem for the first
look because we did not stress this point so much and perhaps not enough. That language is a device which is, as all
practical devices, always imperfect, and therefore will not be perfectly appropriate to all possible situations, that is
an opinion which we share with you. Just therefore we think that stating new and better language systems is one of the
most important tasks of the logicians. Logic is a tool; yes, in our view it is nothing else than the system of rules of a
certain language system. As there is not only one possible form for a knife, thus there is not only possible logic. For
each purpose of cutting we have to look for the most appropriate form of knife or, if there is at present no suitable
form, we have to try to make a new one, as appropriate as possible (i.\,e. as we succeed to find out in the moment),
although never perfectly appropriate. Analogously for each purpose of expressing and describing facts we have to look for
the most appropriate logic, that is for a language system as suitable as possible, though never perfect. Thus we agree
with you in the opinion that a fixed system of language cannot be perfect; that always there might be found situations
for which it is not sufficiently suitable. But then we should think, that in every such situation there is the necessity
and also the possibility of improving the language system used, the logic applied. I do not know whether you think that
there are or might be situations for which every possible logic would fail, that is: would be unable to make the
necessary expression forms available. I am not sure whether this is so; I did not think enough about this question; but I
have some doubts whether there could be such situations. On the other hand I admit that there may be situations (and
perhaps all experiences have this character) which are inexhaustible in the sense that we could say more and more about
the situation without ever coming to an end. This question however is not the same as that before, I think.

I am not sure whether I expressed my thoughts here in a sufficiently clear way, or rather, I am sure, I did not. I am
afraid, letters are always a very insufficient method for scientific discussion. The more glad I am, that in the next
year I shall have the opportunity to come to Harvard\II{\harvard} and, I hope, to speak with you. Because some weeks ago I got an
invitation from the president\IN{\praesidentharvard} of the Harvard University\II{\harvard} for participation in the Tercentenary (Sept. 1936) and in the
Conference\II{\tercentenary} connected with it. I shall be very happy to come.}

\grussformel{Very sincerely yours\\
\blockade{ksl.}}

\ebericht{Brief, msl. Dsl., 1 Seite, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/871826}{RC 102-38-06}; Briefkopf: msl. \original{Prague, April\,14, 1935}.}
