
\brief{Otto Neurath an Charles W. Morris und Rudolf Carnap, 12. März 1937}{März 1937}





\grafik{Platzhalter Grafik: Elefant}


\anrede{My dear Morris:}

\haupttext{
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 BESAN\c{C}ON (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 \uline{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\ldots\ 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. \neueseite{}\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{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 \textkritik{subscribe in advance also separate pamphlets.}\fnA{Hsl. Ersetzung von gestrichenem und unleserlichem Text.} Also expensive handling! \textkritik{But I do not feel for this splitting.}\fnA{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”\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{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 \textkritik{}\fnA{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.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{\unll, aber frage, ob er bereit ist, nicht nur die logischen Grundlagen des formalen mathematischen \unsicher{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. Cosmology\fnAmargin{Ksl. (über \original{FREUNDLICH}) \original{\textsp{als Mitarbeiter willkommen}} und (über \original{Cosmology}) \original{\textsp{ist doch nicht nötig}}.}
(with more Astronomy). Frank feels very much for Freundlich's collaboration.
Please tell me the \textkritik{opinion of you both about this point.}\fnA{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 Næss\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{? 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
\neueseite{} 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:\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{noch nicht}}.}

\begin{enumerate}
\item Neurath, Carnap, Morris
\item Morris
\item Carnap
\item Andrade
\item ? TARSKI? (NÆSS?)
\item Lenzen
\item Nagel
\item Frank
\item ? FREUNDLICH (perhaps instead of cosmology a pamphlet of Lewis about Logic)\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ja}}.}
\item Mainx (I think so according to Franks letters)
\item Woodger
\item Brunswik (and Næss?)
\item Neurath
\item Dewey (and ?)
\item Enriques
\item ? (I received no answer, but I hope to receive the answer in near future)
\item Rougier
\item Jørgensen
\end{enumerate}

\noindent 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}

\grussformel{always your\\\editor{Otto Neurath}}

\ebericht{Brief, Dsl., 3 Seiten, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/846313}{RC 102-51-60}; Briefkopf: hsl. \original{Carnap}, msl. \original{Dep. 11, Paseo de la Reforma 175\,/\,Mexico D. F.}, \original{13. März 1937} und \original{I am sending a copy to Carnap}; am Briefanfang Zeichnung eines Elefanten, dazu hsl. \original{Gruß an Euch zwei beide}; ohne Signatur.}
