\brief[Carnap an Neurath, Chicago, 7.~Oktober 1944]%
{Rudolf Carnap an Otto Neurath, 7. Oktober 1944}{Oktober 1944}\labelcn{1944-10-07-Carnap-an Neurath}

\anrede{Dear Neurath:}

\haupttext{
We are back in Chicago after two years of absence. We are still in a Hotel, for weeks now, but we hope to come into an apartment next week at last, though not a satisfactory one. Everything is overcrowded here. My back is much improved, so that I have no difficulty in giving my lectures. Hempel\index{Hempel, Carl G.}\IN{\hempel} was with us in Santa Fe for several weeks and we enjoyed it very much. Although the hard shock which he suffered from Eva's\IN{\hempelfrau} death is still noticeable, he seems to be over the hump by now.

Now about \uline{your monograph}\index{Carnap, Rudolf!on Neurath's monograph}. Last December I did not see your ms. because you wished it to be rushed to the printer and I agreed. I expected then to get the proofs soon and then to have an opportunity to write to you still if necessary. In March I asked Morris\index{Morris, Charles}\IN{\morris} to send me either the ms. or if it were already in print, the proofs. However, by some mistake I did not get the proofs before June. And then I saw they were already in pages. I read the monograph with great interest, there are many interesting and stimulating discussions in it. However, I must tell you frankly, that I found the formulations in many places unclear; they were apparently formulated in great haste. I understand your reason for this; you wanted to finish it quickly because the Press was already impatient. But I think it would have been much more important to have the monograph in good shape than to publish it as quickly as possible. On my question, Morris\index{Morris, Charles}\IN{\morris} answered that any changes were by that time impossible because they would cause too great expenses and delays. Thus I could not do anything more about it, although I regretted it very much. You will understand\index{Carnap, Rudolf!on Neurath's monograph} that I did not wish to be made responsible for something that I had not seen and that if I had seen it, I should not have approved. On the other hand, I did not wish to take any conspicuous step, as e.\,g. the removal of my name from the title page. Therefore I choose a quite non-conspicuous way which will not be noticed by most readers; I asked Morris\index{Morris, Charles}\IN{\morris} to have a note printed on the back of the title page above the copyright\fnA{\original{copy right}} saying that because of special circumstances I do not share the editorial responsibility for this monograph. I think there is no point in going into the details which I disapprove because it is too late anyway. Let me only remark that these points concern language and careless formulations, lack of explanations of your new terms, etc \ldots\ but not differences between our opinions. In most points I agree\index{Carnap, Rudolf!on Neurath's monograph} with the general attitude which you take in the monograph. There are a few points, some old, some new in which we differ. Those I hope to discuss with you sometimes in the future. But I must say that in many points I would not know whether I agree with you or not because your opinion is not formulated in a sufficiently clear and understandable way.

Many thanks for sending me Hogben\index{Hogben, Lancelot}'s\IN{\hogben} ``Interglossa''. I read it with very great interest, and I own and read likewise ``The Loom of Language''\fnEE{Bodmer, \textit{The Loom of Language}.} which I found likewise very interesting and which in some points gives more detailed explanations of the reasons for Hogben\index{Hogben, Lancelot}'s\IN{\hogben} decisions. \neueseite\{\}\zzz In some points this new language has made important improvements in comparison with the earlier projects. I am not quite sure whether the choice of mostly Greek word roots is the best possible. I have always thought that any new project should make improvements in two important respects: (1) to utilize the improvements made in Basic English\index{Basic English}, especially the principle of word economy; (2) certain improvements in the logical structure of the language which might be learned from symbolic logic. Hogben\index{Hogben, Lancelot}\IN{\hogben} has done very well in the first point; and his construction of a very simple syntax is a great achievement. However, with respect to logic his language seems to me to have some weak points; e.\,g. the line between observable things and properties is not always drawn in the right place, and the whole matter of this distinction between two word classes could probably be simplified still more; further his treatment of ``all'', ``every'', ``any'', ``some'' etc. is not satisfactory. The examples of translations which he gives at the end deviate in many points considerably from the original; thus a retranslation into English would lead to quite different texts. Tests of this kind made with earlier languages (e.\,g. Esperanto\index{Esperanto} and Ido\index{Ido}) had much better results.

I have worked much on the construction of a new system of inductive logic\index{inductive logic}, i.\,e. a theory of the degree of confirmation\index{degree of confirmation}. It will become a large book.\fnEE{Carnap, \textit{Logical Foundations of Probability}.} Part of it is written, but it will take a long time until it is finished. Therefore, I have now written a paper in which I outline the chief results.\fnEE{Carnap,  ,,On Inductive Logic``.} I hope it will appear about next winter, then I shall send you a reprint. I am very much interested in getting your comments and criticisms on it. You wrote recently that you assume that I know your reasons for the rejection of the concept of degree of confirmation. However, I know only the fact of your rejection of it, not the reasons. I should be very glad if you could outline or at least briefly indicate them to me.

At present I do not have your letters with me. Therefore, I shall take an opportunity of answering questions in them at a later time.
}

\grussformel{Cordially yours,\\Carnap}


\briefanhang{\textkritikl P.\,S. Please excuse my long silence. The reason was that Ina\IN{\ina} could not type either, because of sciatica.\textkritikr\fnAmark{}}\fnAtext{Hsl. Einschub.}

\ebericht{Brief, msl., 2 Seiten, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/846784}{ON 223 (Dsl. RC 102-55-07)}; Briefkopf: msl. \original{Rudolf Carnap\,/\,University of Chicago\,/\,Chicago, Illinois} und \original{October 7, 1944}.}
