\brief[Carnap an Neurath, Santa Fe/New Mexico, 7.~November 1942]%
{Rudolf Carnap an Otto Neurath, 7. November 1942}{November 1942}\labelcn{1942-11-07-Carnap-an Neurath}

\anrede{Dear Neuraths:}

\haupttext{
Thank you very much for your letters of July 17, 20, 29, and August 27. We are very glad to see from all of them that you both are happy in your activities, as happy as is possible in a war. And that you are happy together and found a new nice place for living.

We are away from Chicago since July and until next June, on a leave of absence as I wrote you. Unfortunately my back trouble has started again on the first day of our trip and has become worse than before. In consequence I have been in bed all the time since the beginning of July. But we are here in a nice landscape and nice climate; I am lying on a porch with two giant windows so that I can enjoy the landscape. And sometimes I can take short walks. Mostly I have no pain and can work. Therefore I am in general quite happy. Disturbing is only the idea that the future is so uncertain because so far no doctor has been able to find the real explanation and a proper cure beyond merely temporal relief. Strangely enough, Ernest Nagel\IN{\nagel} seems to have similar back trouble, and he even went through an operation -- all in vain.

I have asked the Oxford University Press, Oxford (they distribute the Semantics book in England) to send you a copy. If you do not get it soon, please inquire there. If the other copy should still arrive, please let me know. Likewise, if you have already or will find some of the reprints of yours which I sent you, please put aside my copies because I should like very much to get them back from you later. The second volume will soon appear; it is more of a technical nature, less concerned with general problems of the nature of semantics. (About its contents see preface to vol.~I, p.~ix.) Therefore I doubt whether this volume will be of interest to you. If, however, for some reason or another you should like to have it, please let me know.

I am very much interested in what you wrote about Hogben's\IN{\hogben} ideas on language-making and about his own auxiliary language. I remember our previous discussions where I maintained the superiority of artificial languages in comparison to Basic English, while you were rather sceptical about their practical chances. You say that Hogben's\IN{\hogben} Interglossa seems better than the other artificial languages; do you know enough of the other ones to make a critical comparison or do you merely infer it from Hogben's\IN{\hogben} good ideas about the method of language-making? As Morris\IN{\morris} wrote you already, we think it better to see first Hogben's\IN{\hogben} book before we decide on a monograph of his for the Encyclopedia. Who will be the American publisher of Hogben's\IN{\hogben} book and when is it to appear? I am looking forward to it with great interest. \neueseite

I am very glad to have your detailed comments on Russell's\IN{\russellkurz} book. However, in the moment I cannot study them in detail because I do not have the book with me. As soon as I have an opportunity I shall read them together with the book and answer you. I have myself many objections against this book, especially against his attempt of a revival of old epistemological questions. Please read Nagel's\IN{\nagel} critical review\fnEE{Nagel, ,,Mr. Russell on Meaning and Truth``.} in Journal of Philosophy 38, 1941, pp.~253--270. I agree with most of Nagel's\IN{\nagel} objections. On the other hand, I think that Nagel\IN{\nagel} should also have indicated the positive values of the book; e.\,g. that it carries out certain logical analyses instead of metaphysical speculations. I am afraid that in certain points here as with respect to Tarski\IN{\tarski} and Popper\IN{\popper} you are too critical, or rather too suspicious. You reject certain statements because they might \uline{perhaps} be meant in a metaphysical way, although another interpretation is possible which makes them scientific, i.\,e. acceptable to an empiricist. At least this was the case with respect to many statements in Tarski's\IN{\tarski} book which you criticized. Whether it is also the case with Russell\IN{\russellkurz} I shall examine later. With people who stand in general on the same empiricist basis as we but who might deviate perhaps in some particular points (as e.\,g. Schlick\IN{\schlick}, Tarski\IN{\tarski}, Popper\IN{\popper}, and even Russell\IN{\russellkurz}) I am more inclined to take the attitude of a cautious judge, that is to say, to give them in each particular point the benefit of the doubt. I have the impression that -- in doubtful or ambiguous cases -- you are inclined to condemn the accused of the crime of metaphysics.

You ask whether my semantical statements can be translated into your language of ``accepting''. This is not possible and it should not be required. The semantical concept of truth is fundamentally different from the pragmatical concepts of accepting or confirming. I suggest urgently that you read again my old paper ``Wahrheit und Bewährung'' (Congress Paris, 1935). There I have tried to make the distinction clear; further, I made a short remark about it in ``Semantics'' p.~28. We should only require that every concept should be translatable in some way into an empiricist, scientific language; but we should not require that it be translatable into certain special terms into which we perhaps like to translate it. I hope that you will see from my book that the semantical term ``true'' is definable in a scientific language (e.\,g. in yours), see e.\,g. p.~26.

I should like to get a clear explanation from you of your distinction between aggregational terms and formula terms. I have never been able to understand what you said about them. Does ``formula term'' mean ``uninterpreted'' (i.\,e. belonging to a calculus or syntactical system) or does it mean what I call ``logical'' in distinction to ``descriptive'' (see ``Semantics'' §~13)?

In addition to ``Life'' and ``Look'' you might perhaps find material of interest to you (statistics, reports about cultural trends, etc.) in ``Survey Graphic'', ``Time'', and ``Fortune''.

I think, in the question of planning, our views are not very different. We both emphasize the advantages of planning, and I agree also with your description of the dangers of overcentralization. However, I am still not convinced of the advantages of muddling through. I think that decentralization and democracy can well be combined with a procedure according to a plan instead of according to momentary whims or tradition. (I see, I made a slip in my last letter towards the end;\labelcn{1942-11-07-Carnap-an Neurath-Slip} instead of ``muddling vs. democracy'' I meant to say ``planning vs. democracy'').%\fnE{Siehe oben, Brief Nr.~\refcn{1942-06-24-Carnap-an Neurath}.}

I wrote to Candida Kranold\IN{\kranoldcandida} but did not get an answer. \neueseite

Trude's\IN{\morrisfrau} address is: 5428 Ridgewood Court, Chicago. However, Ina\IN{\ina} thinks that Trude\IN{\morrisfrau} does not appreciate approaches by Charles'\IN{\morris} friends (including me) at the present time. Trude\IN{\morrisfrau} feels that a person is either Charles'\IN{\morris} friend or hers, and that both together does not work; also, that Charles'\IN{\morris} friends have no idea as to the actual situation and how it came about and that therefore they do not see her position properly.

You write that some people in Vienna have unexpectedly Nazi-sympathies. Are among them some whom I know?

I don't know anything about the Franks\IN{\frankphilipp}\IN{\frankphilippfrau} -- we are quite out of touch. Tarski\IN{\tarski} teaches mathematics at Berkeley. Hempel\IN{\hempel} has written something about confirmation; it seems near publication. He is very busy teaching and Eva\IN{\hempelfrau} is secretary to a psychoanalyst. Among our common friends nobody is in the army: some are too old, some have dependents, some are not citizens and therefore cannot volunteer (though they can be drafted for service if they have taken out first papers; however, it so happens that they all have dependents and therefore the draft has not yet reached them). All the efforts in Washington -- especially by Johnson\IN{\johnsonalvin}, Oppenheim\IN{\oppenheim}, Hempel\IN{\hempel} -- to get visas for the Grellings\IN{\grelling} have failed; and now Hempel\IN{\hempel} writes the terrible news that Grelling\IN{\grelling} and his wife have been deported from France by the Gestapo; but we don't know any details.

I have not heard from Waismann\IN{\waismann} for\fnA{\original{since}} years; do you know anything? Does he teach or how does he earn his living? Is he writing something? What became of the manuscript of his book? Please send me his present address.

With best regards and wishes from us both to the two of you,
}

\grussformel{Cordially yours,\\Carnap}%\Apagebreak

\ebericht{Brief, msl., 3 Seiten, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/847117}{ON 222 (Dsl. -- mit hsl. Vermerk \original{copy} -- ebenfalls ON 222)}; Briefkopf: msl. \original{Rudolf Carnap\,/\,University of Chicago\,/\,Chicago, Illinois} und \original{Santa Fe, N.M., November 7, 1942\,/\,(That is in New Mexico)}.}