# Otto Neurath an Charles W. Morris und Rudolf Carnap, 12. März 1937 März 1937

My dear Morris:

I agree with your draft for the prospectus. I would appreciate to have one formulation for the Newspapers (short and concise) and another for the general propaganda – that would be your draft.

According to your letter and your draft we shall use in the future always the Title: INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF UNIFIED SCIENCE.

A few little remarks. I would appreciate if we could use the term “empirical” or “empiricism” in the first 10 lines.

Louis Rougier is – I think so – member of the University BESANÇON (and Cairo).

I do not like the term “idea”. But if you have not a good equivalent for it I do not object seriously. That is only an Idiosyncracy.

There will be extensive use of bibliographic and also of visual aids. (I would appreciate if we could speak about the amount of visual aids more deliberately. I wish to collect a great many illustrations as visual explanations but that is also a question of money. In this moment I think we shall have more opportunities to produce such pictures than three months ago. I think we can emphasize our intention to show visualisations but without special promises.)

I would suggest to formulate: “the history of sciences and scientific empiricism” (or “Logic of Science”). I would prefer to eliminate the term “scientific philosophy” if my scientific friends do not have good arguments for this term of compromise. The fact that the term “scientific philosophy” is not used, cannot irritate our readers.

Don’t you think that we should say that this Encyclopaedia is written at first for persons of the scientific type…but that we hope that this work would influence in the future the general education, not only the scientific education in a more narrow sense.

I would suggest to mention also the preparing conference in Prague 1934, since this meeting has a historical weight. The proceedings published as a separate volume “Einheit der Wissenschaft” (Meiner) are also printed in the Erkenntnis. Also the proceedings of the Congress in Copenhagen will be printed as a separate volume “Das Kausalproblem” (Meiner and Munksgaard) and in the Erkenntnis.

Please, mention that 1937 the Congress in Paris (29–31 July) will be devoted to the ENCYCLOPAEDIA.

If you have no objections I would suggest to use the word “scientific empiricism” in the last lines. “It is to be hoped that scientists and people interested in sciences and in the development of scientific empiricism in general will make them their own.”

Perhaps readers of this leaflet could be interested in the fact that we are preparing a framework of a trilingual dictionary. 🕮a Ksl. Das ist eine noch zu unbestimmte Hoffnung, lieber nicht öffentlich ankündigen! (Überhaupt zurückhaltender mit Ankündigungen noch unsicherer Dinge!).

I do not know whether it is useful to prepare the possibility that people can subscribe in advance also separate pamphlets.a Hsl. Ersetzung von gestrichenem und unleserlichem Text. Also expensive handling! But I do not feel for this splitting.b Hsl. Einschub.

Your draft is very nice and attractive. My remarks do not contain real objections. You see we must be interested in promoting certain terms, for instance “scientific empiricism” – as you suggest – and “logical empiricism”. In Mexico is the term “Positivism” overloaded with accessory meanings also of political kind and I must emphasize that I am a representative of the “logical empiricism” and not of a positivism. During a certain period the positivism of Comte’s type had a great influence. It was a conflict between Comtists and Bergsonists and after this was another conflict. I think so we must emphasize for the special formulations of our group the term “logical empiricism”. But I could understand that you suggest not to use such terms explicitly. In such a case I would think that “Empiricism” is the “minimum” term used by us.

Woodger will write an article for us, but he thinks that this article may be shorter than 70 pages. I such a case we can add another article or make one pamphlet shorter than another.

Enriques will write an article but asks whether we are interested in an article about the history of sciences [it]self or more in an article about the importance of the history of sciences. I shall write him, that we give nearer explanations when we shall know more about all pamphlets.

Rougier will also write, but proposes the theme “History of Rationalism a priori”. The failures of the Rationalism prepared the triumph of empiricism. He emphasizes that he wrote before about this matter and would prefer to discuss this theme. I do not object but I would suggest to call such a pamphlet “From Rationalism a priori to Empiricism”b Ksl. ja. since we must bring all pamphlets in connection together.

Reichenbach writes that the Encyclopaedia is an important thing and he is prepared to be a member of the advisory committee. But he has no time to write. Especially he does not wish to write about Cosmology. He emphasizes that he wrote before about this matter and a repetition would be not better than the first formulation. But he will think over another short theme, is oppressed by a great many things and asks whether the pamphlets will c be bring a fee.

Menger is concentrated in special problems of mathematics and not in the position to write about Mathematics. He suggests Waismann. I agree with him to invite Waismann, but as collaborator for the other volumes, not for this first group of Pamphlets. I think so we shall invite TARSKI.c Ksl. , aber frage, ob er bereit ist, nicht nur die logischen Grundlagen des formalen mathematischen Systems zu behandeln, sondern vor allem auch die Stellung der Mathematik im Gesamtsystem Wissenschaft.. Please tell me you both what you suggest. It was I think so our common opinion to invite Tarski if Menger would be not in the position to make this pamphlet.

I suggest instead of Reichenbach to invite FREUNDLICH. Cosmologyd Ksl. (über FREUNDLICH) als Mitarbeiter willkommen und (über Cosmology) ist doch nicht nötig. (with more Astronomy). Frank feels very much for Freundlich’s collaboration. Please tell me the opinion of you both about this point.d Hsl. Einschub. I agree with you: the number of pamphlets should be definitely determined before the prospectus is sent out. I would think we can announce 18 pamphlets in any case.

I would suggest about a special pamphlet “Logic” to speak with CARNAP and NAGEL. I think if TARSKI writes this pamphlet we should use the title “Mathematics and Logic”. I understand your hesitations in the case that Menger or Gödel would make this pamphlet. I think about the possibility that Næsse Ksl. ? Er würde mehr die psychologische Seite betonen als die logische.. could write a pamphlet about the Calculus and the function of the calculusses and so on. But I am not certain whether Næss is ripe enough to write such a pamphlet for such a forum. I am very glad that Brunswik has no objection to cooperate with Næss. He writes that he is glad to cooperate with him and that he is sorry because the Rockefellers do not give a fellowship to our friend Næss for studying 🕮 in Berkeley. Brunswik suggests to find a way that we could bring Næss into USA.

Could you send me a book or an article of WIRTH. I have not read the last book of Mannheim. An older book of Mannheim is – what I would call – full of metaphysical formulations. But perhaps I would revise my opinion after my USA trip. I learned not always to act as a Torquemada. But I think we cannot decide this point in short time. I am very oppressed by the Mexican work. It is very interesting to give consultations to very clever people and to discuss the ISOTYPE Symbols in connection with the Aztecic Symbols. The chairman of the museum committee is a man with a special knowledge on this field and he brings the facsimiles of the codices and we discuss the possibility to use the one or the other symbol for the representation of the economic and social history of old Mexico. Problems of Organisation etc.

I think so we can announce 18 Pamphlets:f Ksl. noch nicht.

1. Neurath, Carnap, Morris
2. Morris
3. Carnap
4. Andrade
5. ? TARSKI? (NÆSS?)
6. Lenzen
7. Nagel
8. Frank
9. ? FREUNDLICH (perhaps instead of cosmology a pamphlet of Lewis about Logic)g Ksl. ja.
10. Mainx (I think so according to Franks letters)
11. Woodger
12. Brunswik (and Næss?)
13. Neurath
14. Dewey (and ?)
15. Enriques
16. ? (I received no answer, but I hope to receive the answer in near future)
17. Rougier
18. Jørgensen

Perhaps we shall have in reserve not only LEWIS but also WIRTH. For instance if Łukasiewicz would decline to write a pamphlet.

Thank you very much for your work about empiricism. I shall read it in nearer future. I came in touch with a great many interesting people and saw a great many interesting things, Pyramides and temples, bull fights and Fronton games, codices and excavations, old and new buildings, and the whole Mexican life. I shall leave Mexico about March 25, I must leave NEW YORK March 31 on the AQUITANIA. I think I shall come back to USA in the fall.

I think it would be right that the members of the Advisory Committee sign the prospectus. I would suggest that we say in connection with the Congresses for the Unity of Science which people are members of the international committee. What is your opinion?

Please remember me to your wife.

With greetings

always your
Otto Neurath

Brief, Dsl., 3 Seiten, RC 102-51-60; Briefkopf: hsl. Carnap, msl. Dep. 11, Paseo de la Reforma 175\,/\,Mexico D. F., 13. März 1937 und I am sending a copy to Carnap; am Briefanfang Zeichnung eines Elefanten, dazu hsl. Gruß an Euch zwei beide; ohne Signatur.

Processed with \(\mathsf{valep\TeX}\), Version 0.1, May 2024.