# Rudolf Carnap an Charles Morris, 15. Mai 1934 Mai 1934

Dear Professor Morris‚

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 MindB 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”B 1937@The Logical Syntax of Language, London, 1937 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 DeweyP Dewey, John, 1859–1952, am. Philosoph is interested in a paper of mine. Now I have sent him a copy of “Unity of Sc[ience]”B 1934@The Unity of Science. Übersetzung und Einleitung von Max Black, London, 1934.

Yes, LewisP Lewis, Clarence Irving, 1883–1964, am. Philosoph sent me a reprint of his “Experience and Meaning”B (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 LewisP Lewis, Clarence Irving, 1883–1964, am. Philosoph 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 FeiglP Feigl, Herbert, 1902–1988, öst.-am. Philosoph, seit 1931 verh. mit Maria Feigl has done so already). The members of our CircleI Schlick-Zirkel, Wiener Kreis who are the most active in discussion – viz. FeiglP Feigl, Herbert, 1902–1988, öst.-am. Philosoph, seit 1931 verh. mit Maria Feigl, NeurathP Neurath, Otto, 1882–1945, öst. Philosoph und Sozialwiss., heiratete 1912 Olga Neurath und 1941 Marie Neurath and myself – are no longer in Vienna. Those who are now there (SchlickP Schlick, Moritz, 1882–1936, dt.-öst. Philosoph, verh. mit Blanche Guy Schlick, HahnP Hahn, Hans, 1879–1934, öst. Mathematiker, Bruder von Olga Neurath, verh. mit Eleonore Hahn, WaismannP Waismann, Friedrich, 1896–1959, öst.-brit. Philosoph, verh. mit Hermine 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 SchlickP Schlick, Moritz, 1882–1936, dt.-öst. Philosoph, verh. mit Blanche Guy Schlick will certainly accept you in a very friendly manner; and Mrs. SchlickP Schlick, Blanche Guy, 1881–1964, geb. Hardy, verh. mit Moritz Schlick is an American lady and will be happy to see you and your wife at her home. But SchlickP Schlick, Moritz, 1882–1936, dt.-öst. Philosoph, verh. mit Blanche Guy 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 CircleI Schlick-Zirkel, Wiener Kreis (e. g. KraftP Kraft, Victor, 1880–1975, öst. Philosoph, MengerP Menger, Karl, 1902–1985, öst.-am. Mathematiker, verh. mit Hilda Menger, KaufmannP Kaufmann, Felix, 1895–1949, öst.-am. Philosoph, verh. mit Else Kaufmann, ZilselP Zilsel, Edgar, 1891–1944, öst.-am. Philosoph und Soziologe, verh. mit Ella Zilsel, PopperP Popper, Karl Raimund, 1902–1994, öst.-brit. Philosoph, verh. mit Josefine Popper a[nd] o[thers]). I will then give you nearer information about their specialities.

Last year Dr. QuineP Quine, Willard Van Orman, 1908–2000, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Naomi Quine (1932–1947) und Marjorie Boynton Quine (1948–1998) (a pupil of LewisP Lewis, Clarence Irving, 1883–1964, am. Philosoph) 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 CircleI Schlick-Zirkel, Wiener Kreis meetings (which in the meantime have quite fallen through off). Indeed he was an unknown young man; no doubt you will find it easier to form connections. 🕮 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 wifeP Carnap, Ina (eig. Elisabeth Maria immacul[ata] Ignatia), 1904–1964, geb. Stöger, heiratete 1933 Rudolf Carnap 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.

Sincerely yours
R. Carnap

Brief, msl., 2 Seiten, CM (Dsl. RC 029-04-15); Briefkopf: gestempelt Prof. Dr. Rudolf Carnap  /  Prag XVII.  /  N. Motol, Pod Homolkou 146, msl. May, 15, 1934.

Notes for an answer to Lewis’P Lewis, Clarence Irving, 1883–1964, am. Philosoph “Experience and Meaning”B

1. The chief thesis of LewisP Lewis, Clarence Irving, 1883–1964, am. Philosoph (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 CircleI Schlick-Zirkel, Wiener Kreis is now in accordance. Difference from our former views (which were influenced by WittgensteinP Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1889–1951, öst.-brit. Philosoph); Lewis’P Lewis, Clarence Irving, 1883–1964, am. Philosoph 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’swie ergänzen? ds „s“ würde ja wegfallen statements.-

———————

1) “We” is to be understood as denoting generally the Viennese CircleI Schlick-Zirkel, Wiener Kreis. But in the question under consideration it means only what we call sometimes (jocularly) the left wing of the CircleI Schlick-Zirkel, Wiener Kreis, to which belong i. a. FrankP Frank, Philipp, 1884–1966, öst.-am. Physiker und Philosoph, verh. mit Hania Frank, Bruder von Josef Frank, HahnP Hahn, Hans, 1879–1934, öst. Mathematiker, Bruder von Olga Neurath, verh. mit Eleonore Hahn, NeurathP Neurath, Otto, 1882–1945, öst. Philosoph und Sozialwiss., heiratete 1912 Olga Neurath und 1941 Marie Neurath, CarnapP Carnap, Rudolf, 1891-1970, dt.-am. Philosoph, 1917-1929 verh. mit Elisabeth Carnap und ab 1933 mit Ina Carnap. This more radical wing may be characterized by the following points: rejection of some of Wittgenstein’sP Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1889–1951, öst.-brit. Philosoph 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” (SchlickP Schlick, Moritz, 1882–1936, dt.-öst. Philosoph, verh. mit Blanche Guy Schlick, WaismannP Waismann, Friedrich, 1896–1959, öst.-brit. Philosoph, verh. mit Hermine Waismann) holds the views of WittgensteinP Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1889–1951, öst.-brit. Philosoph. 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 question of formulation is here very important. Explanation of the difference between the material mode of speech (using words like “thing”, “object”, “fact”, “experience”, etc.) and the formal mode of speech (concerning sentences, names, denotations). Already in former time the publications of the V[ienna] C[ircle]I Schlick-Zirkel, Wiener Kreis were avoiding some elsewhere usual expressions of the material mode of speech. Some of the formulations quoted by LewisP Lewis, Clarence Irving, 1883–1964, am. Philosoph 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. 🕮

3. 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.

Spalte1 Formal mode:

(p. 133 below)… basis of a probability-judgment … . Knowledge and meaning go beyond the present experiences.

Spalte 2 Material mode:

On occasion of an observations sentence (e. g. …) a physical sentence (e. g. …) 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.

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

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