\brief[Neurath an Carnap, \ekll{Oxford,} 15.~Januar 1943]%
{Otto Neurath an Rudolf Carnap, 15. Januar 1943}{Januar 1943}\labelcn{1943-01-15-Neurath-an-Carnap}

\anrede{Dear Carnap,}

\haupttext{
Your Semantics copy did not arrive, I therefore tried to get one for a few days. I am just looking through the main chapters, particularly the chapters, you mentioned in your letter. I am really depressed to see here all the Aristotelian\IN{\aristoteles} metaphysics in full glint and glamour, bewitching my dear friend Carnap\incarnap{} through and through. As often, a formalist drapery and hangings seduce logically minded people, as you are very much. I anticipated that, as I anticipated the coming of a religion founder\fnE{\blockade{UNNÖTIG}Wohl eine Anspielung auf Morris; siehe oben, Brief Nr.~\refcn{1942-12-22-Neurath-an-Carnap}, Anm.~\refcn{1942-12-22-Neurath-an-Carnap-Religion}.} --- such is a certain behaviour of movements, which are based on empiricism. The analogy with Comte's\IN{\comte} positivism is not so far away. But why not -- we are mortals, and therefore we have to be like mortals.

But, let us speak seriously, I mean business. It is for me obvious, that we should have a discussion between friends, as we have organized it about Protocol Statements.\fnEE{Gemeint ist das fast ausschließlich der Protokollsatzdebatte gewidmete Doppelheft 2/3 von \textit{Erkenntnis} 3, 1923/33, das u.\,a. Neurath, ,,Protokollsätze``, und Carnap, ,,Über Protokollsätze``, enthält.} I do not like to criticize you, without admiring you and pulling your leg, I want to present my leg pulled by you. The tricks and tracks of such a discussion should be presented in the most kind and friendly way. I should like to do it in an American periodical (the JOURNAL matter is not definitely solved, and we shall repeat our discussion partly there but from another point of view).

I think the nicest way\editorstr{,} would be the following, I write a letter to you, you write an answer, and I make my finishing remarks, and you tell the public, now it is for the first sufficient given to other people's entertainment and studies.

I should suggest that we eliminate ``misunderstandings'' from our letters, that means it remains our unsolved problematic. And the whole affaire is useful and a kind of prototype, how to make a good discussion.

I do not like your way, to speak of me in your book of some empiricist who makes objections, without giving the reader any opportunity, to read the ``objector's'' (what an unenglish term) own position, as I published it again and again.

Should you have money in your pocket, cable me, if not write me -- the world is able to wait for our ``famous'' correspondence on Semantics. I shall discuss the ``designatum'' and ``denotatum'' terminology, too. \neueseite

It is really stimulating to see, how the Roman Catholic Scholasticism finds its\fnA{\original{his}} way into our logical studies, which have been devoted to empiricism.

The Scholasticism created Brentanotism, Brentano\IN{\brentanofranz} begot Twardowski\IN{\twardowski}, Twardowski\IN{\twardowski} begot Kotarbiński\IN{\kotarbinski}, \L{}ukasiewicz\IN{\lukasiewicz} (you know his direct relations to the Neo-Scholasticism in Poland), both together begot now TARSKI\IN{\tarski} etc. and now they are godfathers\fnA{\original{God fathers}} of OUR Carnap\incarnap{} too, in this way THOMAS AQUINAS\IN{\aquin} enters from another door Chicago, where he entered already via ADLER\IN{\adlermortimer}. What an interesting story -- that means TRADITION. You remember, I always have been full of mistrust, as far as Russell's\IN{\russellkurz} Existence symbol was concerned, and Russell\IN{\russellkurz} the man with the DUPLICATION (Avenarius\IN{\avenariusrichard} called it INTERJECTION) is just extending this start, which is closely related to your and Tarski's\IN{\tarski} and Aristoteles'\IN{\aristoteles} start: THERE EXIST\ekl{S} SOMETHING IN ITSELF, this statement I thought is in a language not acknowledged by us (?) or by me (sure).

But these historical remarks do not form a part of our future correspondence. I shall write you, how I am just preparing my monograph by the encyclopedia, and have to deal with the chronicler's language, and how I try to explain, what TERMINOLOGY implies, then your book arrives, and now I see, that the fine strings which have been Wittgensteinean before, or Schlickean, or Russellian, now become more and more Tarskian \ldots\ i.\,e. ARISTOTELEAN.\IN{\aristoteles} And then I shall tell you my story, and you will answer \ldots\ OK.

Your remarks that Semantics may be misused by metaphysicians do not help you, because they are only continuing your actions.

I think the whole thing is very fundamental. I have now to think, what position your Semantics gets after the removal of the metaphysical elements, I think it remains something translatable into empiricism. We shall see -- it is not so simple to find out the implications of such a fine structure. You know how to make a building -- even if the fundaments were not so good. P. 53 ``thoughts'' come even into the picture, as in Wittgenstein\IN{\wittgenstein}, Russell\IN{\russellkurz} etc.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Dort spreche ich gar nicht von meiner Auffassung, sondern von der von andern (über Designata) (z.\,B. Frege, ohne ihn zu nennen)}}.}

I am prepared to think of an ``Anwendungsbereich'' of your system in any case, but first I want to find out, where the elements of non-empiricism may be found. You see I do not see, how all these Semantics problems fit into the discussions of scientific practice with which I am highly concerned at the moment.

I know not exactly what Strauss'\IN{\straussmartin} objections are, and I asked him about his attitude towards your and my\fnA{Original \original{mine}.} statements. \neueseite

You see I am interested in statistics and in predictions in this field and therefore in the old problem how to give the whole story an empiricist flavor (the metaphysical flavor of all attempts is well known, also to you) but I doubt whether your way out, continuing the Wittgensteiniade will help us. I doubt it. But I am not very competent in analyzing your story.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ja}}.} But sometimes I found something by starting in my own way and then\fnA{\original{than}} looking at links with the statements made by others, e.\,g. by my admired friend Carnap\incarnap{}, the logical syntax of whom I prefer in many respects to Semantics. I shall be with CARNAP\incarnap{} ONE against CARNAP\incarnap{} TWO. You know that I did not agree with all your sayings. I am looking through your terminological appendix and I am highly interested in it. A hard chapter -- of course. What I think of the Truth terms, and of the degrees etc., you know sufficiently.

I shall speak mostly of this group of problems.

We are busy with exhibition making, film making, charts making, reading, writing, designing, discussing social sciences, education etc. I have to write many letters on scientific matters, on educational projects, publishing projects etc. My monograph grows up like plants after a tropical rain. As I started I did not expect so rich a crop\fnA{\original{crops}} -- perhaps it has been useful to go away from The Hague to let my manuscript with Hitler\IN{\hitler}. Now it becomes much more vivid -- I think so. I am just re-writing it. The material is over-sufficient.

Now the war is going on very well; Paul\IN{\neurathsohn} became assistant to the professor of statistics, we heard of friends that they are well in Holland and two of them got babies \ldots\ what a world, killing and births. An old story, a very old one, but a sad one. And then great discussions about birth rate and mortality rate. Human beings are rather mad. But as scientists\fnA{\original{a scientist}} we have to look at all things just as we look at triangles and circles, but I think we may say sometimes: this damned triangle or this \ldots\ circle. Oh my dear Carnap\incarnap{}, when shall we give names to bad things together and speak\fnA{\original{speaking}} of old days in Vienna?

Many greetings and good wishes, from both of us to both of you
}

\grussformel{ever yours,\\Otto Neurath}%\Apagebreak

\ebericht{Brief, msl., 3 Seiten, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/846771}{RC 102-55-02 (Dsl. ON 222)}; Briefkopf: msl. \original{15\textsuperscript{th} January 1943}, ksl. \original{bekommen 1.\,3.\,43\,/\,(gekreuzt mit meinem Brief vom 29.1.)}.}
