\brief[Neurath an Carnap, Oxford, 25.~September 1943]%
{Otto Neurath an Rudolf Carnap, 25. September 1943}{September 1943}\labelcn{1943-09-25-Neurath-an-Carnap}


\anrede{My dear Carnap,}

\haupttext{
Very bad news -- you probably heard of it already -- Stebbing\IN{\stebbing} died after a cancer operation. The first symptoms appeared some months ago, but the doctors thought, that perhaps radium or something may help. She continued her activity, and looked relatively well -- always overworked. Operation suddenly appeared unavoidable. Unsuccessful and then waiting for the end. First very painful, later on better. We did not see her. Our best friend. A very brave and sincere personality. Many people in England feel her death a heavy loss. She represented a kind of public conscience for some circles. We loved her. She has been at particular good terms with Mary\IN{\reidemeistermarie}, but of course with me, too. She acted as chairman, as I lectured in Cambridge, in a very nice way, and in agreement with most of my statements. And now life is going on. That is our generation, more or less. It is seldom to get new friends. Any loss is hard in itself and hard if you look at the garden of friendship, as I often do.

I have to thank you very much for your kind letters and all your efforts in dealing with my remarks. I have to apologize, that I did not answer you sooner, but I had a lot to do. I had to finish my monograph and then to reduce its size, because the Press thinks now of the production cost\editor{s} more than\fnA{Hsl. Ersetzung von \original{as} (nur in Dsl.).} before and we have now to bear in mind this viewpoint too. I think of the financial things, because we shall show, that the encyclopedia is well \textkritik{funded by}\fnA{\original{founded in}} the public. We have to avoid losses. Even losses of our publisher. You agree with me, that we should go on properly. The war is now in the beginning of the end and it would be against my whole attitude to do anything else but go on, as usual. Only this attitude enabled us here after reaching the shores in our shoes to build up an institute with a nice team of collaborators and to reconstruct more or less all departments of our work, we have a full time collaborator in London for research work only. We are publishing charts after charts and seem to become a kind of British household furniture. That implies the making of arrangements, meeting many people, mostly nice ones. We feel here very at home and feel with our British friends to be victorious on the battle front. The British way of living is nice, the compromise habit, the not believing in too many arguments, usual commonsense, instead of skyhigh principles from which one tries to deduce concrete details -- in vain of course. This adaptation to a new aggregation of items forces us to be active every day, even when reading, listening to the radio, gardening, etc. besides our work. I have to lecture at various places, have to write articles, to attend meetings etc., yesterday evening fire guard meeting of my sector. And then I have to read a lot, Kaempffert\IN{\kaempffert} sends me heaps of periodicals, reprints, surveys etc., I get regularly the Survey Graphic, etc. and try to imagine the American life, too. \neueseite{} 

Now, before starting my new book, a big one, on visual education\fnEE{Neurath, \textit{Visual Education}, ist allerdings erst posthum veröffentlicht worden. Vgl. Tuboly, ,,United by Action``, 102--108.} (very probable) I shall write my long letter to my friend Carnap\incarnap{}. I sometimes hear from Hempel\IN{\hempel} about you and your health. We are highly worried about you. It is not the question of danger, but of being in a sad state day for day. Unfortunately I have no idea, how I could please you by something you enjoy particularly. We always admire how you and Ina\IN{\ina} bear the burden.

What a world, millions killing and wounding one another intentionally and then sometimes diseases visit us, too, one reason more, that we should be as nice to one another as possible and enjoy our friends and neighbours as far as they are enjoyable. There are many nice people in this world of sorrow and pleasure. I think just people who are not in the foreground are very often nicer than the people acting and working. The same may be with learning. Usually people learn from mightful people, who may afterwards protect their pupils against the disasters of life. I learned very much from Itelson\IN{\itelson}, who never could do anything for me, except telling me wise arguments. Here in England we met many ``small'' people, who are good friends, without being in power. People in power are mostly too busy for nourishing friendship. And all our teaching is much more interested in efficiency, as something ``making things'' than in efficiency for friendship, and enjoying one another. The English education, from this point of view, is more human. I know very well, that caning pupils plays here its part etc., but nevertheless it remains here a kind of sense for personal happiness as something accepted -- in the American constitution you have your ``pursuit of happiness''. It is impressive to listen to plain people here, how they avoid boasting and overstatements in daily matters. I collect ``expressions'', e.\,g. fire guard leaders speaking seriously, used e.\,g. once the term ``happiness'', explaining how people should get a feeling to be sheltered by the neighbours etc. and then explaining, what is needed to act ``quickly'', to be ``calm'' and to have the ``usual commonsense''. I like this type of habit much more than the continental one, with ``highest duty'', ``national community'', ``self\ekl{-}sacrifice'', ``obedience'', ``subordination'', etc. ``eternal ideals'', wherever you give a chance to open the mouth.

I am just reading a lot of older books of German and Anglo-Saxon literature. It is astonishing, how e.\,g. our German scientists of high rank, such as Weber\IN{\webermax} etc. unconsciously give a descriptive story of Franklin\IN{\franklin} e.\,g. I should not give after reading his life in detail. I always thought (I only knew his autobiography and some scattered details of his life, of course meeting with Voltaire\IN{\voltaire}, action in England, his printing activities, electricity etc.) him a kind of enlighte\ekl{ne}d Puritan, devoted to a very exemplar\ekl{y} daily routine (in this way as Weber\IN{\webermax} and the Weberians describe it producing the environment of modern capitalism) and now, reading in detail his life, what appeared? A fine \neueseite{}\zzz chap, acting like wise men do, with all human multiplicity life brings to us -- we may agree with that or not, that is not the point, but that the common man's life may be found in the fine fellow, as which I regard Franklin\IN{\franklin}, too. Always interested in humanity and human brotherhood but not in theological doctrines. Making jokes like Lichtenberg\IN{\lichtenberggeorg} -- who is one of the Westerners in Germany -- on the expressions dealing with drinking ``boozy, tipsy, fuddled etc.''. Toleration in Philadelphia -- what a pleasant thing. A doubtful type of relation to his fianc\'{e}e, who remains in America, when he is in England, hardly writing to her. Afterwards he marries her, who in the meantime married another man who run away. The story of Franklin's\IN{\franklin} illegitimate child etc., many heartly friendships with women. Always in some way human and interested in human happiness, science, never gossiping but writing sharp and ironical articles, when important things at hand. He was not in the least ascetic. He did not desire to isolate himself from the common life. Nevertheless in addition to that ambitious. That is very characteristic, to like success but not to do something for success only, but for human happiness. And the Weberian strain of calculating prudence and morals not even in the writings, which contain the often quoted calculations (which are sometimes puzzling to me). But no ``abstract'' wealth as ideal. ``Wealth is not his that has it, but his that enjoys it''. ``Where there's marriage without love there will be love without marriage'', ``An old young man will be a young old man''.\fnEE{Zitate aus Franklin, \textit{Poor Richard's Almanack}, 60, 14.} (That is all about 1735, the time of the usually quoted calculating statements). And his ``An egg today is better than a hen tomorrow''\fnEE{Franklin, \textit{Poor Richard's Almanack}, 13.} is very illuminating a certain kind of habit. He lived in a comfortable marriage. 1755 he writes to his friend Catherine\IN{\catherine} ``I can say, thanks to God, that I do not remember I was ever better. I still relish all the pleasures of life that a temperate man can in reason desire, and through favor, I have them all in my power \ldots\ I must confess (but don't be jealous) that many more people love me now than ever did before \ldots''\fnEE{Benjamin Franklin an Catherine Ray, 11.~September 1755, in Franklin, \textit{The Works of Benjamin Franklin} VII, 89--90.} Franklin\IN{\franklin} liked the Quakers (the group of Christians I like, too, because they are tolerant and human and active simultaneously). Franklin\IN{\franklin} did not like the tendency of German writers to introduce new words always, but nevertheless his words ``colonize'' and ``un\-shakable'' remained in the English language. (I think not ``introduced'' by him, but used by him against the daily usage). He was against slavery, of course, in America but also in Britain (Scottish colliers etc.). A politician like modern American Ambassadors who do not come from diplomacy, as e.\,g. Winant\IN{\winant} here and others in the Soviet Union. Paris. 74 he writes ``I do not find that I grow any older''.\fnEE{Benjamin Franklin an Thomas Bond, 16.~März 1780, in Franklin, \textit{The Private Correspondence of Benjamin Franklin} I, 59--60.} His Dialogue between Franklin\IN{\franklin} and the Gout tells something about his life. ``You eat an aboundant breakfast, not less than four cups of tea with cream, and one or two slices of buttered toast covered with strips of smoked beef \ldots\ sit down to write \ldots\ without any kind of bodily exercise \ldots\ chessboard \ldots\ for two or three hours \ldots\ amuse yourself with \neueseite{}\zzz books, pamphlets, and newspapers most of which are not worth the trouble \ldots''\fnEE{Franklin, ,,Dialogue Between Franklin and the Gout``, 19.} Somebody said disapprovingly of Franklin\IN{\franklin} that ``at the age of seventy-odd had neither lost his love for beauty nor his taste for it''.\fnEE{Adams, ,,Diary``, 134.} Franklin\IN{\franklin} writes to his step\ekl{-}niece: ``\ldots\ civilest nation (the french) \ldots\ if 'ti\ekl{s} understood that you like mutton, dine where you will you find mutton. Somebody, it seems, gave it out, that I loved ladies; and then everybody presented me their ladies (or the ladies presented themselves) to be embraced; that is, have their necks kissed. For as to the kissing of lips or che\ekl{e}cks it is not the mode here; the first is reckoned rude, and other may rub off the paint''.\fnEE{Benjamin Franklin an Elizabeth Partridge, 11.~Oktober 1779, in Franklin, \textit{The Writings of Benjamin Franklin} VII, 393--394.} Madame Brillon\IN{\brillon} writes him ``People have the audacity to criticize my pleasant habit of sitting on your knee, and yours of always asking me for what I always refuse.''\fnEE{Zitiert nach Russell, \textit{Benjamin Franklin}, 263.} The correspondence on the life in Paradise together with all the women is a curious reading. His biographer says \ekl{``}Statesman and scientist, profoundly masculine, he took women into account as well as any other force of nature \ldots\ he treated every woman\fnA{\original{women}} as if she were a person too, and made her feel more truly one than ever. A full life, and very human.\ekl{''}\fnEE{Zitat konnte nicht nachgewiesen werden.}

I tell you that, that you imagine my state of arguing at the moment. I always appreciated the Bentham\IN{\bentham}, Mill\IN{\mill}, strain in Anglo-Saxon arguing, but I always felt uneasy when thinking of Franklin\IN{\franklin}, why? I quote from WEBER\IN{\webermax}: ``provisorische Veranschaulichung \ldots\ was mit dem `Geist' des Kapitalismus gemeint ist \ldots\ wir halten uns zu diesem Behufe an ein Dokument jenes `Geistes', welches in nahezu klassischer Reinheit enthält \ldots\ von aller direkten Beziehung zum Religiösen losgelöst \ldots: `Bedenke daß die Zeit Geld ist \ldots\ Die unbedeutendsten Handlungen, die den Kredit eines Mannes beeinflussen, müssen von ihm beachtet werden \ldots\ es läßt Dich als einen ebenso sorgfältigen wie ehrlichen Mann erscheinen und das vermehrt Deinen Kredit'.\ekl{''}\fnEE{Weber, \textit{Die protestantische Ethik}, 74f., hier Franklins unten von Neurath angeführte Werke zitierend.} (A rather cynic remark, Franklin\IN{\franklin} tells, how he tried to be decent on Sundays, avoiding actions in the public, therefore READING at home, that does not reduce the public credit etc. many remarks are rather ironical.) That are remarks from \ekl{``}Necessary hints to those that would be rich\ekl{''} 1736 and \ekl{``}Advice to a young tradesman\ekl{''} 1748. ``Es ist Benjamin Franklin\IN{\franklin}, der in diesen Sätzen zu uns predigt. Daß es `Geist des Kapitalismus' ist, der aus ihm in charakteristischer Weise redet, wird niemand bezweifeln --''\fnEE{Ebd.} Weber\IN{\webermax} thinks that these quotations are used properly by Kürnberger\IN{\kuernberger} in ``Der Amerikamüde'' and continues\ekl{:} ``Dokument der (heute längst verblaßten) Gegensätze deutschen und amerikanischen Empfindens, man kann auch sagen, jenes Innenlebens, wie es seit der deutschen Mystik des Mittelalters den deutschen Katholiken und Protestanten trotz alledem gemeinsam geblieben ist, gegen puritanisch-kapitalistische Tatkraft schlechthin unübertroffen''\fnEE{Ebd., 112, Anm.~26.} etc.

Just that I cannot see. I see the happiness habit \neueseite{}\zzz in Franklin\IN{\franklin} prevalent (of course I know sufficiently Puritan books, but I also know sufficiently ascetic books, written by Protestant and Catholic writers in Germany) and I think that just the acknowledging HAPPINESS and PLEASURE as ``moral items'' is the difference, whereas in Germany Kant\IN{\kant} stressed the point, that happiness and pleasure do not play any role within the moral sphere.\fnEE{Bezug unklar. Kant trennt zwar (KrV, B 833ff.) praktische Bedingungen der Glückseligkeit von Bedingungen, die einen ,,würdig`` machen, glücklich zu sein, aber er landet auch bei dem allgemeinen Prinzip: ,,\textit{Tue das, wodurch du würdig wirst, glücklich zu sein}`` (B 336f.).} Etc. You see, it is a long story, but I learn more and more, how strange German sociology tought us. I knew it before, but the extent becomes more and more clear.

I see, how well known philosophers in Germany always quote Plato\IN{\platon}, when speaking of the ideal state, and I imagine how many young people accepting that, became weakened against Fascism. Plato\IN{\platon} is the only author in antiquity and in history, with some fame as moralist, who tought pure and simple cruelties pure and simple oppression as ideal. Children should look from horseback, when the parents disembowel enemies in battles, that they get, as he says the proper ``taste of blood like young hounds''. He supports censorship, allows only military music, doctors have not to help ill people who are responsible for their illness, better for them and for the community when they die, all people of Hellenic blood should be united and then start the conquest of the barbarians, the ``enemies by nature'' that is the way to be irresistible and to do, what is the highest ideal of the leading groups: the purity of blood.\fnE{Zu den eugenischen Ausführungen Platons über die Heranzüchtung der ,,Wächter`` vgl. z.\,B. \textit{Politeia}, 459a--462a.}

How can we expect that an enthusiastic youth full of preparedness to self\ekl{-}sacrifice, prepared to think of happiness as something dirty, English utilitarian, can reject the voice of the highly admired Plato-Hitler\IN{\hitler}? Plato\IN{\platon} this Fifth columnist in Athens who supported Sparta. Prussia? (I remember how Marianne Weber\IN{\webermarianne} and Gertrud Bäumer\IN{\baeumer} after my lecture on planning for happiness said to me ``Sehr interessant, wie immer, wenn Sie sprechen, aber warum mußten Sie das Niveau der Debatte senken? Gloeckkk is gemaiain.''\fnEE{Diese Bemerkung (,,Glück ist gemein``) ist in Neuraths Erinnerung bei den Lauensteiner Kulturtagen gefallen, einer von Eugen Diederichs organisierten Veranstaltungsreihe, die ein Jahr vor Ende des Ersten Weltkriegs neue kulturelle und politische Ziele für die Nachkriegszeit definieren sollte und an der auch Marianne Weber und Gertrud Bäumer teilgenommen haben. Max Weber war einer der Hauptredner und Neurath ein wichtiger Zaungast dieser Treffen; vgl. Werner, \textit{Ein Gipfel für Morgen}, und \textit{Gruppenbild mit Max Weber}.} Of Professor Cohen\IN{\cohen}, Marburg Heinemann\IN{\heinemannoxford} told me the statement: ``Die Schweine wollen glücklich sein'',\fnEE{Zitat konnte nicht nachgewiesen werden.} Nohl\IN{\rjnohl}: ``Dabei ist allem höheren Menschentum immer bewußt gewesen, daß Genießen gemein macht und die Unabhängigkeit von der Lust die Basis alles höheren Menschentums ist. Jede Ethik muß darum zunächst den Hedonismus erschlagen.''\labelcn{1943-09-25-Neurath-an-Carnap-Nohl-1}\fnEE{\labelcn{1943-09-25-Neurath-an-Carnap-Nohl-1}Nohl, \textit{Einführung in die Philosophie}, 98f.}) I see the difference in habit and attitude much more in the happiness and common sense arguments of the Western group and in the overpersonal, transcendent, anti-happiness arguments of the German leaders in philosophy and moral discussions. And I think that the metaphysical strain in Germany is closely connected with the ``abstract'' ideals, transcendent in eternity, Volkstum etc. AGAINST the human habit towards the own and other people's happiness. The difference between Franklin\IN{\franklin} and Kant\IN{\kant}.~\neueseite{} 

Perhaps you will think not too strong of my ``intolerance''\fnAmargin{Ksl.  \original{\textsp{Ich sage nichts gegen seine Intoleranz gegen Metaphysik, die ist gut; ich lehne nur ab, dass er manche Empiristen Metaphysiker nennt, z.\,B. Popper.}}} towards metaphysics, when you think of this possible correlation. The empiricist people, happiness people, like Epicure\IN{\epikur}, Montaigne\IN{\montaigne}, Voltaire\IN{\voltaire}, Lichtenberg\IN{\lichtenberggeorg}, Franklin\IN{\franklin}, Mill\IN{\mill}, Bentham\IN{\bentham} are less prepared to persecution than others ON AN AVERAGE, but more prepared to help other people, because these\fnA{Hsl. Korrektur von \original{they} (auch in Dsl.).} feel UNHAPPY, PERSECUTED, BEING SLAVES, etc. Whereas in Plato's\IN{\platon},\fnEE{Vgl. zum Folgenden Neurath, \textit{Foundations of the Social Sciences}, 50, Anm.~56\,/\,GphmS 973, Anm.~56, und Neurath/Lauwerys, ,,Plato's \glq Republic\grq\ and German Education [III]``.} in spite of all transcendentalism, bodily lust plays a great role -- in Symposium the story of Alcibiades\IN{\alkibiades} embracing Socrates\IN{\sokrates} a night long without success, or in the Republic the RIGHT of the brave soldiers to embrace boys and girls, he likes.\fnE{\textit{Symposion}, 217b--219d, bzw. \textit{Politea}, 260b.} The price of victory. In Epicure\IN{\epikur}, Franklin\IN{\franklin} etc. the bodily lust in a very temperate way accepted, Epicure\IN{\epikur} telling people, that they have not much to expect from that, better to avoid it, but if, then thinking of the law, the customs, and other people's happiness.\fnE{Vgl. Diogenes Laertius, \textit{Leben und Meinungen berühmter Philosophen},  Zehntes Buch, 127--132.} But the tradition is, that Plato\IN{\platon} is the rock of idealism and Epicure\IN{\epikur} at least a flat and dull pleasure-teaching man. Think how Voltaire\IN{\voltaire} usually is treated, who was one of the few famous people in the 18\textsuperscript{th} century who devoted years of his life to help immediately many persecuted people, suppressed people, not only by writing. If a man like Wieland\IN{\wieland} fought Plato's\IN{\platon} dirty and cruel habit,\fnEE{Wieland, \textit{Aristipp und einige seiner Zeitgenossen}; vgl. dazu auch Auerochs, ,,Platon um 1800``.} etc. the historians of literature did, what they could to destroy his fame, to label him as sensuous, etc. Crossman\IN{\crossman} and your Fite\IN{\fite} and a few others such as Kelsen\IN{\kelsen} protested against Plato's\IN{\platon} unrestricted fascism and mercilessness.

I am now re-reading our Austrian philosophers, too. I read them before and disliked them, but now you see how they formed an environment out of which grew Nazism. You see, lecturing on ZUR PSYCHOLOGIE DES ENTSCHLUSSES 1913 in Vienna, I explained, that our arguments cannot be sufficient, therefore the importance of decision and lot -- perhaps.\fnEE{Vgl. Neurath, ,,Die Verirrten des Cartesius und das Auxiliarmotiv``.} Who protested violently? Saying that this kind of teaching is against the high ideals etc.? KOLBENHEYER\IN{\kolbenheyer} -- and I am not astonished that he is now a leading NAZI writer after abandoning our Philosophische Gesellschaft an der Universität zu Wien, where a Neurath\inneurath{} may teach such terrible things. Another famous Vienna philosopher, wrote during the first world war:\fnEE{Die folgenden von Neurath frei übersetzten Zitate aus den Schlusspassagen (244--252) von Gomperz, \textit{Philosophie des Krieges in Umrissen} (Originaltext in der nächsten Anmerkung), sind zwei Mal durch in runde Klammern gesetzte Einschübe Neuraths unterbrochen.} ``Connected with the growing up of one nation, through more power, better qualities, better environment, castles, temples, poets, science etc. other nations have to go down, less lucky, and nobody will\fnA{\original{well}} shed tears, into the eternal night \ldots\ who ever fights for his own country always fights in this sense, for THE GOOD CASE. The hard law of nature (sic) victorious SHOULD be, who CAN be victorious \ldots\ Hard and merciless history is a judge like nature, BENEFICIAL has been, what happened in reality, what not did happen, SHOULD not happen \ldots\ Tragedy of History \ldots\ The success makes the decision GOOD, regarded from viewpoint of future generations is the case, which permanently and for ever has been victorious \ldots\ There are Poles, who feel they are Poles and want to rebuild tripartited Poland. But assumed \neueseite{}\zzz these Poles have been exterminated, nobody longer wants a non-dissected Poland -- who could judge differently but: a nation not suitable for life, dies, as it DESERVED TO DIE, and by this death space for other nations has to be gained with a better future. (I despised this kind of writing 1915 as unhuman and full of senseless metaphysics. I doubt that 1915 one could write such unhuman arguments without some metaphysics on ``law of history'', on ``rights of a nation'', etc. but today it sounds particularly unhuman, when we read of the extermination of the Poles. Is it not somewhat deplorable that just a Jewish professor of Philosophy wrote such terrible program book? Would you mind, when I say this professor with his metaphysics has been a characteristic item in an environment, out of which Nazidom grew up?) Who succeeds in helping to make his country victorious for ever, he may be sure, that in the eyes of future generations this case will be regarded, too, as the really GOOD case, and appear as useful for the benefit of mankind (it sounds like a blasphemy from viewpoint of humanity to me, not to mention the metaphysical elements of this habit, with his un-pluralist outlook, there is only ONE possibility, not many). It is not a proper thing for a nation in war to deliberate whether the own case is the good case, it is the nation's duty (sic) the nation's case to transform in the good case, BY BEING VICTORIOUS (I call that the pure and simple pirate philosophy full of metaphysical tricks and tracks), and taking care in this way (sic) that the own case will be regarded by future generations as the good case. WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THIS OUR FATHERLAND AND THE GERMAN NATION WILL SUCCEED IN THIS.''\fnEE{Gomperz, \textit{Philosophie des Krieges in Umrissen}, 244--252: ,,So sinken auch für jedes Volk, das sich durch größere Kraft, höhere Begabung oder Gunst der Wohnsitze in das Licht der Geschichte emporhebt und nun durch seine Burgen und Tempel, die Gesänge seiner Dichter und die Lehrgebäude seiner Denker der fernen Nachwelt seinen Erfolg, seinen Wohlstand und sein Glück verkündet, viele, viele andere, minder glückliche Völker unbeweint hinab in die endlose Nacht der Vergessenheit. [\ldots] wer immer für das eigene Land eintritt, der kämpft in diesem Sinne für eine ,gute Sache`. [\ldots] lautet das harte Gesetz der Natur wie der Geschichte: Siegen \textit{soll}, wer siegen \textit{kann} [\ldots] Hart und unerbittlich wie die Natur selbst gibt sie [die Geschichte] ihren Wahrspruch dahin ab, daß \textit{heilsam} das war, was wirklich geschehen ist, und daß, was sich nicht ereignet hat, sich auch nicht ereignen \textit{sollte}. [\ldots] Tragik der Geschichte [\ldots] \textit{gut}, im Sinne der Nachwelt und der Menschheit, ist \textit{die} Sache, die dauernd und endgültig \textit{siegt}. [\ldots] Noch gibt es Polen, die sich als Polen fühlen und wenigstens der Gesinnung nach jene Teilung [Polens] wieder aufzuheben streben. Aber setzen sie den Fall, diese wären ausgetilgt, es gäbe niemand mehr auf der weiten Welt, der nach einem einheitlichen Polen verlangte -- wer würde dann anders urteilen, als daß hier ein lebensunfähiges Volk verdientermaßen zugrunde gegangen ist und daß durch seinen Untergang anderen, lebensfähigeren und zukunftsreicheren Völkern Raum geschaffen werden mußte. [\ldots] Denn wo die Würfel dauernd und endgültig gefallen sind, da kann die Nachwelt, da sie selbst auf dem Boden dessen steht, was damals geschaffen wurde, und mit den Augen dessen sieht, was damals entstanden ist -- die Nachwelt, sage ich, \textit{kann} dann gar nicht anders urteilen, als daß es heilsam und notwendig war, daß das geschehe, was wirklich geschehen ist. [\ldots] einem kriegführenden Volke dagegen geziemt es nicht mehr, darüber zu grübeln, \textit{ob} seine Sache die gute Sache sei, noch auch, sich gemach darauf zu verlassen, \textit{daß} seine Sache die gute Sache ist, sondern ihm obliegt es, seine Sache zur guten Sache zu \textit{machen}, indem es \textit{siegt} und dadurch auch dafür Sorge trägt, daß \textit{seine} Sache von der Nachwelt als die \textit{gute} Sache beurteilt wird. Wir hegen die Zuversicht, daß dies sowohl unserem Vaterlande wie auch dem deutschen Volke gelingen wird.``} How much I prefer the attitude to find reasons to fight for something, one calls good, independent of victory and independent of the successful extermination of a nation. Sometimes ``cant'' and ``hypocrisy'' -- of course, I cannot describe to you, how much I like an aggregation of human beings, where one has to apply hypocrisy and cant, when making cruel things, which are despised as such, and one cannot say, victory declares according to the hard law of history that your case is the good one \ldots\ ugly and nauseatic for me, today as 1915. I \editor{better understand}\fnA{Original \original{understand better}.} people, who tell me, that they do their duty as long as they can in accordance with their nation, but that they would not go on with that, should the nation try to do something against their conscience, etc., of course, that is a temperate way of acting, but just this commonsense way enables us to think of people's happiness and does not overcome the primary feelings of mercy and humanity, so far as they are given in some individuals.

I think that this merciless habit in history very often is connected with absolutism in metaphysics and faith. If one thinks there are many possibilities in arguing then one cannot be very hard with argumentative conviction, only indirectly or by heart, but not in the argument: \neueseite{}\zzz Of all the possible world systems one is the best in coherence, or the ``relative'' best (that does not alter the habit) one moral way of living is ``the best'' given by the ``categoric\ekl{al} imperative'', but ``the decision of an authority'' etc. may be combined with merciless destruction of other people. Whereas a sceptic habit as such does not give a ``reason'' for aggression and merciless action as deserved by THE ONLY BEST SOLUTION.

Therefore, I think, that PLURALIST arguing, which seems to be closely connected with empiricism, leads to a certain toleration, to a preparedness to look at the argument: you are intolerant, as a very serious one. The Pluralist cannot answer, of course, I am, how could I be different. You remember the story I told you of a friend of mine, who divorced his wife (with many children) letting her in a strange situation, and marrying another lady talked over his case with me. I knew all people in question and was simply sorry. I know, some things happen in life, not always clear-cut made, and we poor human beings try to go through all that, trying to avoid the own and other people's pain. Etc., you know how poorly all arguing is at such moments. That reduces our preparedness to judge other people's actions, as long as they are not clearly cruel and producing pain etc. There are no\editorstr{t} clear-cut situations \ldots\ for me at least. But my friend did not like my sentimental habit, being sorrow\ekl{ful} and doubtful, taking the situation as it was, partly really lucky for the friend and his new wife, partly unlucky for the former wife, but the living together of both not lucky etc. etc. -- you know how complicated such imaginations are, he started with explanations and finally presented me the CATEGORIC\ekl{AL} IMPERATIVE which\fnA{\original{who}} induced him to act as he acted. I answered: ``My dear, I did not criticize you, I listened, what you told me, and was in a rather doubtful mood, but what about the `categoric\ekl{al}', other friends of mine in similar situations did similar things WITHOUT THE CATEGORIC\ekl{AL}.''

You see, the pluralism of empiricism is closely connected with my speaking on a way of living and arguing. I would not say, that I should promote the pluralist arguing for reaching tolerance, but reaching it independently of that I found out that empiricists on an average are less prepared to become merciless persecutors, and not so frequently the enthusiast followers (for the higher glory of THE transcendent nation ideal etc. or something else) because they are not prepared to sacrifice the\ekl{ir} own and other people's happiness to something ``idealist'' and antihuman. The commonsense leads back to looking at human happiness. That is \ekl{a} question of historical analysis. You know I am collecting material for my book on\fnA{\original{of}} persecution and human brotherhood. We are all poor sinners and hardly able to judge everything -- that seems \editor{to be} a mood, which does not lead to persecution and suppression. There are many mansions in the house of freedom and many different animals in \neueseite{}\zzz \editor{the} zoo of a free democracy. I do not speak of a ``law'' or something like that, I only stress the point, that the multiplicity of outlooks supported simultaneously is connected with brotherhood of human beings as I see it evolved in the last centuries in Holland, England and America (I know, what one may say against that, and I say it with many reserves, but the descriptive silhouettes speak a certain language, which everybody may understand). What a difference between totalitarian Sparta and democratic Athens. In Sparta a custom to kill Helots as a kind of exercise for the Home Guard youth. Torquemada\IN{\torquemada} -- what a terrible period. I am analysing the writings of saints and philosophers. Particularly dangerous are poets like Dante\IN{\dante}, full of resentment and revenge. Like Plato\IN{\platon}. Always dangerous the aesthetical view of \editor{the} world, the pain of the damned in hell a kind of ``bass in the harmony of the music of the deity'', that goes through from St. Bernardino\IN{\bernardino} (15\textsuperscript{th} century, continuing St. Augustine\IN{\augustin} and others, where the sins form a part of the well managed picture, the beauty increased by shadows etc.) to Nohl\IN{\rjnohl}, and other modern philosophers with their aestheticism of the world.\fnEE{Vgl. etwa Nohl, \textit{Die ästhetische Wirklichkeit}.} Karl Moritz\IN{\moritzkarl} (Goethe period) as Mary\IN{\reidemeistermarie} told me, how impressed she was by his writings on that subject\fnEE{Vgl. etwa Moritz, \textit{Über die bildende Nachahmung des Schönen}.} and later on feeling how doubtful the whole stuff is.

That is one of the reasons, why I am very careful in discussing pluralist\labelcn{pluralism} and anti-pluralist arguing. You see, Popper's\IN{\popper} writing is essentially based on a non-pluralist view and I think that all of us, who have been continuing DUHEM\IN{\duhem}, POINCARÉ\IN{\poincare}, MACH\IN{\mach}, PEIRCE\IN{\peirce}, etc. did maintain the pluralist empiricism. MORE than one theory possible, when we see one acceptable. MORE than one ``history of the world'' possible within any given empiricist frame, and -- very important -- each detailed concrete statement ``here is a table'' is pluralist from the start, only an attempt to go on tentatively with ``here is a table'', said by somebody. Another man, perhaps said ``here is no table at all''. Whatever we do, we start from possibly DIVERGENT primary statements and try to put them together, dropping some today, perhaps not dropping them tomorrow, accepting a statement, when making theory one for the area three, and accepting a contradictory statement,\labelcn{contradictionspnine} when making theory five for area two. Of course, we try to eliminate such contradictions, but the way of the sciences is just based on the tricks and tracks, which help us to avoid, as it were, the INFECTION OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE SCIENCE THROUGH SINGLE CONTRADICTIONS.

Of course, I learned one of the first things from Itelson\IN{\itelson} that any contradiction destroys all formulae in a system. BUT THAT IS THE POINT\ekl{:} I DO NOT ASSUME THAT ALL SCIENTIFIC STATEMENTS TOGETHER FORM ONE COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM, there are only SYSTEMATIZATIONS within empiricism, but not THE SYSTEMATIZATION of empiricism. I expected that Hempel\IN{\hempel} would write about this problem in his monograph,\fnEE{Hempels Beitrag zur \textit{Encyclopedia of Unified Science}, \textit{Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science}, erschien erst 1952.} giving the problematic situation, whatever he personally may prefer. He -- and you, too -- are less objecting to Popper's\IN{\popper}\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ja}}.} anti-pluralist view, than I. I did not get any real explanation of your attitude only objections to mine. \neueseite{}\zzz I think it useful, to start with this point, because it runs through all our letters, yours, Hempel's\IN{\hempel} and mine. It does not help to call me ``intolerant'' as long, as you do not explain me, why the viewpoint of Popper\IN{\popper} which is rather connected with INTOLERANCE than TOLERANCE, as I explained above, has something in it from \editor{the} scientific point of view.

You see, Popper\IN{\popper} starts with the ONE system of the world, as the best possible at the moment. He speaks always of THE system, therefore ONE contradictory situation destroys any general statement. That leads\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{mit Recht}}.} to an asymmetry in TESTING and INDUCTION, whereas both are full of vagueness (PEIRCE\IN{\peirce}), and rather symmetric from this viewpoint. First of all, why making absolutely general laws?\labelcn{generallawspten} Mach\IN{\mach} tries to restrict the area of validity,\fnEE{Vgl. z.\,B. Mach, \textit{Erkenntnis und Irrtum}, Kap. ,,Sinn und Wert der Naturgesetze``.} and I think we should try as empiricists to make a procedure in such a way, that we may speak of limited uniformities.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ja}}.} Further, I look at the procedures of scientists as follow\ekl{s}: (I re-read in the last two years and particularly during the last months many authors, Maxwell\IN{\maxwell}, Darwin\IN{\darwin}, Newton\IN{\newton}, Kepler\IN{\kepler}, Malthus\IN{\malthus}, Marx\IN{\marx}, Smith\IN{\smithadam}, etc. and many single papers on various subjects) we start from certain observation statements, which may be dropped sometimes, and try to catch as many of them as possible by means of theoretical tools. Should we find holes for our pegs, we are very happy as research workers, and do not bother too much about the pegs without holes and the holes without pegs, feeling it a progress compared with a situation, without pegs which\fnA{\original{who}} fit into holes.

When we have a pattern, as I described it above, fitting into some area relatively well, and another pattern (contradicting the first in some statements) fitting into another area, we try to arrange\fnA{\original{patternize}} our material in such a way, that we get only one comprehensive pattern and all pegs fitting into all holes -- a man who thinks as a research worker of such an ideal even as a ``leading ideal'' looks rather as a comic or jester. He teaches consistency and the infection power of contradictions, whereas the research worker needs some hints how to avoid the infection from contradictions within his encyclopedia, as it were. Of course nobody speaks of contradictions within a single argument. But it is astonishing how many primitive contradictions can be found in well\ekl{-}founded theories within single arguments, and the whole machinery acts useful. My father explained me that by saying, that the great thinkers, are not very pedantic, stepping down a staircase made by them they use the railing of empiricism, and when single steps are badly made or lack\editor{ing} at all the great thinkers go on supported by the empiricist railings. THAT I THINK PICTURES MORE OR LESS THE SITUATION.

Result, that I and other research worker\ekl{s}, look particularly at -- sometimes unexpected -- POSITIVE INSTANCES and not so much at the NEGATIVE ones. Popper\IN{\popper} says, that the good research worker\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ja, siehe Darwin}}.} particularly tries to find the negative spots for testing his arguments. Unfortunately he does not tell examples. I collected many examples \neueseite{}\zzz of the contrary. When you have to start with tentative assumptions, more or less vague, you cannot even expect any sharp negative reaction in the \uline{corpore vili}\fnEE{,,In corpore vili``: Lateinisch für ,,mit/an einem wertlosen Körper (Versuchsobjekt)``.} of our research field. Sometimes negative instances teach us something, but of course, the positive ones are much more convincing to me and other research workers.

There are sometimes even mathematical disciplines based on weak assumptions and successful, think of the history of differential calculus up to the second half \ekl{of} the 19\textsuperscript{th} century. I remember STOLZ\IN{\stolz}\fnE{\blockade{Index, nicht hier}Gemeint ist vermutlich der Mathematiker Otto Stolz.}, who tried to be more consistent, I think in the same strain as Dedekind\IN{\dedekind}.\fnE{Verweis auf Stolz und Dedekind ???} The traditional technique, as in Kiepert\IN{\kiepert}-Stegemann\IN{\stegemann} textbook on differential calculus,\fnEE{Kiepert/Stegemann, \textit{Grundriss der Differential- und Integral-Rechnung}.} full of man traps, but then Pareto's\IN{\pareto} Differential calculus tried to improve the consistency, in the German translation we got the first Pareto\IN{\pareto} symbolism, too.\fnEE{Bezug unklar.} And how successful has been the primary differential calculus with all its contradictions, which remained ``isolated'' to a certain extent. To have a cunning in isolating the difficulties, as it were, seems to be important for research work. If I were a man of cunning in this field I should present some procedures, no general ones, of course, how one avoids the infection. A kind of local resistance against local infection, that is the point, not to be disturbed by contradictions in our rear, when we have to go on somewhere. No cowardice in scientific research; of course, ``be cautious'', is a rule, but not a general Popper\IN{\popper}-rule.

I always ask people to give examples for the Popper\IN{\popper} consistency and negative-test (Popper\IN{\popper} is only one name for a dozen names).\fnA{Absatzmarkierung hsl. eingefügt.}

And now to your statements on Semantics. I shall prefer to speak of the whole and only in a few cases deal with Russell\IN{\russellkurz},\labelcn{dealwithrussell} because the ``T'' points are just the important ones. One question in between: do you think that Russell's\IN{\russellkurz} book\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Ich habe doch nicht Russells Buch gelobt, sondern nur gegen übertriebene Angriffe verteidigt.}}, fortgesetzt mit \original{\textsp{Warum kommst Du immer wieder auf \uline{Russells Buch} zurück? Ich würde es niemals in unseren Diskussionen genannt haben, es ist zu verschieden von meinen Anschauungen. Ich bin nur ausführlich darauf eingegangen, weil \uline{Du} mich darum gebeten hast. Du bringst mich in eine schiefe Rolle als Verteidiger von Russells Anschauungen, die ich gar nicht teile.}}.} helps a student in understanding better his own empiricist research work, suggesting an alteration in dangerous terminology etc., and if not that, what this book helps? Telling me, that it is less disturbing than philosophical books is a weak consolation.

You see, I start from the many observation-statements, (not sense data or something like that), as made in a laboratory: professor X says here I see a certain retort with a fluid behaving\fnA{\original{behave}} in a certain way. Another person tells a different story. What to do. Sometimes we can connect both, where the one man speaks of ``grey'' the other speaks of ``green'', then we speak of a certain item of the type ``A'', that implies\labelcn{oneitemimpliesanotherone} ``grey'' in a X-story and ``green'' in a ``Y'' story etc. We try to find a COMMON statement, sometimes we find it, sometimes only under certain assumptions. Sometimes we say in our encyclopedia ``here is an elephant'', implying, that this statement is in concordance with certain observation statements, \ldots{}  
That is the reason, why I do not know, how to transform your arguments in semantics, with my start, which seems to be a very humble thing. Modest and tolerant. \neueseite{} 

You say page 22, 23, \ekl{``}Suppose Pierre says \ldots\ true, IF A CERTAIN OBJECT, PIERRE'S PENCIL, HAS A CERTAIN COLOUR, BLACK \ldots\ TO FIND OUT WHETHER \ldots\ WHAT WE MUST DO IN THIS CASE IS TO OBSERVE THE COLOUR OF PIERRE'S PENCIL.\ekl{''}\fnEE{Korrekt und vollständig lautet das Zitat aus Carnap, \textit{Introduction to Semantics}, 22f.: ,,Suppose that Pierre says: ,Mon crayon est noir` (S\textsubscript{1}). Then, if we know French, we understand the sentence S\textsubscript{1} although we may not know its truth-value. Our understanding of S\textsubscript{1} consists in our knowledge of its truth-condition, we know that S\textsubscript{1} is true if and only if a certain object, Pierre's pencil, has a certain color, black. This knowledge of the truth-condition for S\textsubscript{1} tells us what we must do in order to determine the truth-value of S\textsubscript{1}, i.\,e. to find out whether S\textsubscript{1} is true or false, what we must do in this case is to observe the color of Pierre's pencil.``} You may think me hopeless, but please, try to talk with me in my way.

\labelcn{semepistmologiee}I should say X says, something is black, Y says something \ekl{is} blue, I AM NOT USING A PHRASE LIKE, ``we have to observe the colour of Pierre's pencil'', but: how we may use both sentences. Perhaps in this way, X is saying he is in the state of a black-observing person, Y is saying he is in the state of a blue-observing person, but now the same story starts with the being there of a person Y or X. Y says here is a person Y and a person X, X says here is a person X only, no person Y at all etc. The question is to find a pattern of statements we are finally \editor{willing} to ``accept'' tentatively in our arguing.

And now I ask, how we may speak of accepting something as a ``lie'', you know I answer, when I accept X says this is brown, when I accept X says internally this is black and not brown, we may accept tentatively X is a liar. If we accept X is saying I see \editor{a} brown table and X is internally saying I see \editor{a} brown table, and we do not accept the statement here is a brown table (as a combined statement, as it were) then we call the X-statement a dream statement or an illusion statement.

Now somebody would say, we call this statement ``true'' only if X has an illusion, but this ``has an illusion'' implies in our language only,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{(unverständlich)}}.} that it fits into a scheme of acceptance.

I see now various possibilities, e.\,g. (I asked sometimes Morris\IN{\morris} about that) that you may show me, that my explanations INCLUDE subconsciously the primary habits\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{\uline{Semantik ist nicht} eine andre Gewohnheit oder \uline{Verfahren}. Mein Verfahren zum Prüfen von Hypothesen ist \uline{genau wie} Deines. Außerdem aber halte ich (mit 95\,\% aller Wissenschaftler und Logiker) gewisse Begriffe für nützlich, die nicht etwa über die Grenze Deiner Sprache hinausgehen, sondern auch in Deiner Sprache ausdrückbar sind, die Du aber nicht verwendest.}}.} of semantics, OK, please show me that, I confess that would be the nicest solution. As it were, you transform my statements in such a way, that we get a one-one correlation between your and my speaking, then everything is prepared for further discussion, or you may show me, where my empiricism reaches difficulties. Or where there are questions I cannot answer. It is for me startling, that Tarski\IN{\tarski} in Paris tried to give examples, always from certain mathematical or logical generalisations, with ``all'' or something like that, and Hempel\IN{\hempel} trying to explain me semantics in relation to empiricism mentions the Gödel\IN{\goedel} business. You see, I do not want to deny that in speaking of calculi PERHAPS something appears, which forces -- let me say a two-level discussion or an infinite number of levels discussion, but then I should ask, whether this level-business touches directly empiricist discussions, or only in so far as we need these higher calculation statements within an empiricist argument, but not as long as we speak of cows and calves,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Er will das auf einfachste grobe Beispiele beschränken, und dann soll man ihm die Nützlichkeit der Semantik zeigen. Wie würdest Du einem Fischermann die Nützlichkeit des Differentialquotienten oder auch nur des Begriffs Primzahl erklären? -- siehe meine \uline{Beispiele für L-Begriffe} im Gebrauch des Wissenschaftlers!}}.} of brown and black only. Please, allow me to be a little puzzled by this type of answers, when I as a humble \neueseite{}\zzz empiricist want to understand the semantics secrets. Page 29 you speak of ``judicial proceedings''\labelcn{judicialproceedings} -- that is my field. And just there I think, we should improve our empiricist view, by introducing my proposal, which does present only empiricist statements, but let undecided\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ich auch}}.} which is ``true''. Not even using this term or a substitute for it. Or can you show me, how ``accepted'' is only a way to be propositionally equivalent with you and Tarski\IN{\tarski} but using other terms. I doubt that very much, because you are quoting Aristotle\IN{\aristoteles}.\fnEE{Carnap, \textit{Introduction to Semantics}, 29, erwähnt Aristoteles.} His arguments, however\fnA{\original{how ever}} we may interpret them, seem to me clear-cut metaphysics. And Kotarbiński\IN{\kotarbinski} is an Aristotelian, of course. You see I had a long discussion with him on the ONE world-system of Popper\IN{\popper} and asked him: ``that implies you agree with him?'', ``OF COURSE'' he answered. He agreed on\fnA{\original{in}} many points with me, but not on\fnA{\original{in}} the pluralism, and just this, the idea of the TRUE SYSTEM, THE TRUE WORLD, THE TRUE WORLD and OUR SENTENCES DIVERGENT FROM A TRUE WORLD etc. is the difference between pluralist empiricism, which is ``monist'' as it were in the language, but pluralist in the possibly acceptable statements. Therefore this Aristotelian metaphysics on the ``true'' is connected with the anti-pluralist viewpoint, that is a reason, why I am interested in this matter from a more general viewpoint in addition. Of course, that is not an ARGUMENT.

You see, as long as semantics appears as pure calculus I have nothing to say, assumed that your calculus is consistent, Martin Strauss\IN{\straussmartin} is doubtful even on this point. But in the moment to bring any empiricist elements into the discussion, I ask how it affects empiricism.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{so wenig wie mich}}.}

You see, I am impressed by the behaviour of Hempel\IN{\hempel} in social problems, Zilsel\IN{\zilsel} behaves similar\ekl{ly}. The SYSTEM assumption excludes multiplicity of arguments,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{(unklar)}}.} and does not put into account the UNPREDICTABILITY as something given IN PRINCIPLE. I treated this point in my monograph seriously.\fnEE{Neurath, \textit{Foundations of the Social Sciences}, 28--30.} Different kinds of unpredictability within empiricism. I do not say, that both things belong together, who says the one, says the other, too, but there is a certain affinity, of course. Starting with pluralism, unpredictability does not shock you at all. Within a clear cut system unpredictability hardly may be discussed. Perhaps only when speaking of various levels, and we get an infinite number of sayings on sayings -- but I doubt whether that may be connected with the empiricist unpredictability in a proper way.

You always tell me, you agree with Russell's\IN{\russellkurz} and Schlick's\IN{\schlick} remarks on my protocol statements,\fnEE{Schlick, ,,Über das Fundament der Erkenntnis``, 84--87; Russell, \textit{An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth}, 174--186.} but my statements intended are different. Please, tell me first what you think how I should express my statements properly and then please tell me, why even then they are not in harmony with your opinion.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{doch, sie sind!}}.} I think it is important to come to some clearness therefore I write such a long letter, transferring to you the whole mood in which I treat the question, not concealing my far\ekl{-}reaching guesses, in as far as anti-pluralism is concerned, which I relate to Aristotelian-Platonic anti-pluralism, intolerance etc. etc., but that is NOT THE POINT \neueseite{}\zzz OF OUR DISCUSSION. Historically only it would be remarkable, should we find out, after accepting the pluralism, and removing the anti-pluralist elements of semantics (SHOULD THERE BE SUCH ELEMENTS)\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{,,Pluralismus`` ist zu vage, um dies klar zu beantworten. Ich bin mehr interessiert an der Frage, ob etwas im Einklang mit \uline{Empirismus} ist, und das ist für Semantik sicherlich der Fall.}}.} that the strain in Polish philosophy is an old Scholastic one. Łukasiewicz's\IN{\lukasiewicz} co-operation with New-Thomism would be then fully understandable, the connection of Kotarbiński's\IN{\kotarbinski} Aristotelianism\IN{\aristoteles} and Łukasiewicz'\IN{\kotarbinski} free-will tendency in multi-valued logic, etc. with Twardowski's\IN{\twardowski} logical trends, who was a pupil of Brentano\IN{\brentanofranz}, who combined the logical trend of Scholasticism with the trend towards modern French and English psychology.

There is \editor{a} sceptic trend in Scholasticism, too, DUHEM\IN{\duhem} is a representative of this trend, very often scepticism in science tries to get absolutism in religion as a kind of substitute. Therefore both trends, multiplicity in action, multiplicity in arguing, may be connected with Scholasticism, but it is a difference, whether the absolute solution appears as an additional element as in DUHEM\IN{\duhem} or as within the empiricist scheme, as in ANTI-DUHEM\IN{\duhem} Popper\IN{\popper}, with his religious and Kantian strain.

Historically, we may say:%\medskip


\begin{tabbing}
1. \=PLURALISM IN EMPIRICISM, ABSOLUTISM IN TRANSCEN-\\\>DENT WORLD \\
2. \>PLURALISM IN EMPIRICISM, NO ABSOLUTE WORLD OF\\\> TRANSCENDENCE\\
3. \>ABSOLUTISM IN EMPIRICISM, NO ABSOLUTE WORLD OF\\\> TRANSCENDENCE\fnAmark
\end{tabbing}
\fnAtext{Die Nummerierungen in diesem Absatz sind am Seitenrand hsl. ergänzt.}

 1. is perhaps connected with DUHEM\IN{\duhem}

 2. is perhaps connected with POINCARÉ\IN{\poincare}

 3. is perhaps connected with POPPER\IN{\popper} and other pseudo-rationa\-lists

 But these are no arguments at all, only historical remarks.

Since I think it rather dangerous\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{warum gefährlich?}}.} to speak of the DESIGNATUM of an expression I suggest to speak of an ACCEPTED SENTENCE\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{das hat doch nichts miteinander zu tun}}.} (or of a designating sentence). Instead of a denotatum I suggest to speak of an ``acknowledged'' expression \ekl{(}or of a denotating sentence). Now, it may be, that this change of terminology enables you to formulate semantics in my terms, too, please, do it, if possible. IT WOULD BE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE FOR ME, BELIEVE ME I WOULD LIKE TO BE IN HARMONY WITH YOU EVEN IN THIS POINT, or this terminology prohibits semantics, then I should like to understand the defects of this terminology.\fnAmargin{Ksl. und hsl. \original{\textsp{Semantik ist in N's Sprache möglich, aber ,,wahr`` ist nicht übersetzbar in ,,accepted``.}}.}

Page 18, I go on in this way, I ask myself can somebody say: I see sentences, OK, can I say I see propositions -- NO, therefore I try to eliminate the term proposition.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Kannst Du Primzahlen sehen?}}.}  In my monograph I suggest to speak of sentences propositionally equal.\labelcn{sentencespropequal} Have you any objections to that?\fnAmargin{Ksl. und hsl. \original{\textsp{OK, das ist mein \unsicher{2-equ!}}}.} Remains everything unaltered? Or not? I know it needs some time to answer that. But what does not a friend perform for a friend \ldots\ You know within the way of life I described above somebody may sacrifice happiness for other people's happiness, but not for something over-personal \ldots\ that is the point. Perhaps you feel a little pain thinking of my unhappiness connected with the semantics difference and you want to reduce your little pain by removing my pain \ldots{}  

There are other points in your book, too, I shall discuss after your answer. Perhaps we should start with these\fnA{\original{this}} primary remarks. \neueseite{}\zzz 

You answer, that all my remarks touch even Russell's\IN{\russellkurz} existence symbol in his logic. Of course, \editor{they do}\fnA{Original \original{it does}.}. I always knew that and I always looked with some suspicion to that. But as long as such symbols remain within calculus not much may happen, we should not be too pedantic, but if they did enter the empiricist sphere through semantics,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{\uline{Jeder} Wissenschaftler hat die Ausdrücke ,,es gibt`` und ,,alle`` in seiner Sprache!}}.} we have to be careful. But that is another long story, connected with the problems of introducing symbols, an action not very properly done by Russell\IN{\russellkurz}, as you may see, where he introduces letter combinations. How to say that $ab$ and $ba$ are the same or vice versa, only $ab$ may be used. Russell's\IN{\russellkurz} remark is a very weak one and only an additional one -- Stebbing\IN{\stebbing} made the right remark on that in her book.\fnEE{Russell, \textit{An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth}, 429--438, bzw. Stebbing, \textit{A Modern Elementary Logic}, ch.\,XXII, \S\,4.	Neurath bezieht sich hier auf sein und Olga Neuraths logisches Frühwerk: Neurath, ,,Definitionsgleichheit und symbolische Gleichheit``; Neurath/Hahn, ,,Zum Dualismus in der Logik``.} This whole symmetry business is a difficult problem in itself. I am not sure, what to do in detail with it. My remarks on monogrammatic writing touch only one point, and my remarks on symbolical\fnA{\original{symbolically}} equivalence etc.

I have the impression that Russell\IN{\russellkurz} has an anti-pluralist tendency, that may be the main point in his ``realism''. People sometimes cannot bear, that we start with many divergent statements, and remain with divergent statements FOREVER, as it were. There HAS TO BE SOMETHING \gesperrt{\uline{ONE}}. The persons in our group who deal with empiricist research are, as far as I can see, pluralist by habit, DUHEM\IN{\duhem}, POINCARÉ\IN{\poincare}, FRANK\IN{\frankphilipp}, NEURATH\inneurath{} etc., whereas the others like HEMPEL\IN{\hempel}, I think you, too, to a certain extent, of course TARSKI\IN{\tarski}, POPPER\IN{\popper}, present a non-pluralist tendency. I think ZILSEL\IN{\zilsel} is non-pluralist on an average. Therefore the importance of the NEGATIVE instances in Popper\IN{\popper}. Hempel\IN{\hempel} wrote me as if it were something without doubt that general procedures of science have to be based on something like that, I answered, that I do not think there are general procedures, neither in induction nor in testing, but there are things you may learn. I should like to build up a kind of correspondence on that for publication, it is more friendly and not so systematic. I think you are often more systematic, than empiricism allows us to be, e.\,g. in your Meaning article,\fnEE{Carnap, ,,Testability and Meaning``.} which I read and re-read, admiring your cunning and skill, pleased by common features in our arguing and a little sorry about the differences. Analyzing that, I see clearly some historical features, we disagreed, when you agreed with WITTGENSTEIN\IN{\wittgenstein} (I think him an antiscientific metaphysician, who helped us a lot), with POPPER\IN{\popper} (I think him an anti-pluralist metaphysician, who helped us a lot), with TARSKI\IN{\tarski} (I think him an antipluralist, too, who helped us a lot). I guess that the pleasant systems of logic and mathematics seduce people like you, Hempel\IN{\hempel}, Tarski\IN{\tarski} to desire systems of a comprehensive kind in empiricism, where just that is -- I think so -- a characteristic of empiricism, that there are only islands of syste\neueseite{} matization, as above mentioned, and, in principle, some unpredictability, as long as we are inventing people, as long as we etc. It would be nice if we could fit into that correspondence Hempel\IN{\hempel} letters, Frank\IN{\frankphilipp} letters, too. Perhaps Nagel\IN{\nagel}, Strauss\IN{\straussmartin}, etc.

You speak of my intolerance -- and I want to avoid any kind of intolerance. I have the feeling that I build up a kind of tolerance arguments within our LOGICAL EMPIRICISM. Of course, we shall not be pedantic and not always call other people's opinion metaphysical between us, of course. We often see, as Frank\IN{\frankphilipp} said, the metaphysical dots in another person's features but not the big spots in our own\fnA{\original{owns}}.

Perhaps you will find\fnA{Hsl. Einschub.} analogies to POPPER's\IN{\popper} experimentum crucis, the negative instance, the one world system in my own arguing.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Nein, Deine Fehler sind nicht analog Poppers, sondern gehen in die andere Richtung}}.} I should like to learn from you that.

A few remarks on your kind RUSSELL\IN{\russellkurz} remarks.

I first wrote some pages answers to each remark, but that is rather silly. The ``T'' points we should discuss full and pure, please do it. Of course I do not agree with the most of your ``H'' characteristics, because we have to look at the whole context and not whether a good lawyer could perhaps find a translation for something. The question is, whether Russell\IN{\russellkurz} and his readers would translate in this way. You doubt self that sometimes. But let us not discuss trifles, the main point is: ``T'' and your criticism of my standpoint, perhaps in the improved shape you will present to me (assumed I shall accept it).

15/14 of course R\ekl{ussell}\IN{\russellkurz} discusses with the Behaviourist, but he uses in principle the same argument, speaking of \ekl{``}FALLIBILITY'' that implies, that he does not accept that\label{JF-behavioristic-observer} the Beh\ekl{aviourist} accepts a certain statement naively as infallible, whereas RUSSELL\IN{\russellkurz} wants to find out that there is fallibility, how defined? Who takes the chair? Russell\IN{\russellkurz}? The error-fallibility terminology seems to be acknowledged by Russell\IN{\russellkurz}.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Jeder Wissenschaftler nimmt diese Terminologie an!}}.}

50/59 knowing = more or less making a statement; having an experience = more or less making an experimental statement, saying: we cannot repeat a statement we are telling of,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{unverständlich}}.} seems to be objected by you in your Syntax.

64/78 what implies ``antithesis'' without assertion within empiricism?

70/86 when we drop the term ``fact'' and use only the term ``factual statement'' then we drop the expression ``facts left unexpressed''. Have you no objections to this latter expression?\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Nein, Russells Aussage hierüber ist nicht nur empiristisch und sinnvoll, sondern ich stimme mit ihr überein (und 99\,\%\ aller Wissenschaftler)}}.}

104/128 you think one can differentiate in empiricism between THE right time and the chronometer time? I think empiricism has only different chronometer times and by convention we may call some computation ``right time'',\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{ja}}.} but that is not what Russell\IN{\russellkurz} has in mind.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{(vielleicht doch)}}.} What you think about that in detail? It is one of MY POINTS again and again.

108/135 ``God'' is here the hypothetical substitute for Laplace's\IN{\laplace} hypothetical spirit. THERE IS NO\fnA{\original{NOT}} SUCH ANALOGY IN EMPIRICISM. Physics deals with CONVENTIONAL unity only, which may be altered, not with SOME DEFINITE UNITY, as assumed in the God\fnAmargin{Ksl. am unteren Seitenrand \original{\textsp{Diese Kritik an Russells ,,God`` ist lächerlich; wir wissen, daß Russell ein Atheist ist; was er hier mit dieser scherzhaften Wendung sagen will, ist ganz klar und wissenschaftlich.}}.} \neueseite{}\zzz analogy. Otherwise I do not know, what the analogy intends to perform.

132/164 I think even the ``aesthetic'' test does not lead always to ONE solution.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{(Das meint Russell auch gar nicht. Mißverständnis.)}}.} We may toss the coin, when not having time to try various possibilities. Just this aesthetic argument here, indicates (for me of course only) the tendency to find any ``rational'' way to reach ONE solution, whereas I insist that we have to think always of more than one solution, whatever may happen, as possible.

160/200 Russell\IN{\russellkurz} should ask ``who makes the statement''.

160/201 I think the Moore\IN{\moore} discussion is analogical to the Behaviourist discussion. I wanted to say, how one has to go on, by asking WHO \unsicher{says} something, and not where we find the definite answer. Russell\IN{\russellkurz} thinks one cannot speak of the absolute item as such but only given to a certain degree, what involves the assumption that we have some absolute item, which cannot be reached completely but only to a certain degree. That implies e.\,g. the one\ekl{-}dimensional arrangement of the items etc. etc. You know, that is my objection to your MEANING article, that you speak of ``degrees''.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{\unsicher{Gründe?}}}.} Not even degrees -- I think so.

For me Moore\IN{\moore} and Russell\IN{\russellkurz} are here in the same boat, because absolute item and item to a certain degree different from an absolute item makes no great difference for my argument. It seems to make a great difference for you as I infer from many of your writings. The DEGREE business is a very serious one. The PREFERENCE business could be branching and could be like the pecking\fnA{\original{picking}} order of hens, i.\,e. circular. Degrees of ``true'' page 133.

p.~218 in my edition, a possibly strange solipsistic duplication theory brain and phenomena.

245/307 I think that Russell\IN{\russellkurz} is not consistent in the treating of statements as facts and treating differently both, what you say about page 22, where he speaks of II, subjective and objective side of statements \ldots{}  
What \ekl{do} you think about page 320 where R\ekl{ussell}\IN{\russellkurz} speaks of \editor{the} relation between events and the propositions. Page 330 whether anything corresponds in the non-verbal world. You think that OK? You see all these and other remarks are around the statement on page 340 on the perceptual whole within our head, which you reject. I do not know exactly, how you separate the accepted Russell\IN{\russellkurz}\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{\unsicher{lohnt} nicht}}, am Seitenende fortgesetzt mit \original{\textsp{Warum soll ich immer wieder Russell diskutieren? Lohnt nicht!}}.} from the non-accepted one. It would be interesting, perhaps one of your pupils could do that, to present the REALISM structure in Russell\IN{\russellkurz}. I think most of his arguments belong to that or can, as parts of it, be interpreted.

I hope you will speak in detail on my remarks on 133--144.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{(Das ist Russells Kritik über Neuraths Protokollsätze usw.) Ich denke, ich habe \unsicher{genügend geantwortet} 15.\,3.\,43. Da alle Gespräche seit Jahren dies nicht geklärt haben, kann Brief nicht helfen.}}.} We have to discuss that seriously. See above.

I shall see, how you define ``degrees'' without limes.\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{warum?}}.} I think you are such a sorcerer, that something may be possible, I cannot see today.

Let us drop labels unempiricist etc. when discussing with one another, but you allow labels like pluralist, non-pluralist for not always repeating the single remarks. \neueseite{} 

What I needed for my Social Sciences I explained in my monograph. I think you will not like many of my attitudes -- unfortunately, but your tolerance will overcome that and you will explain to other people, that I am not so bad as I look. I think, I should explain more in detail my point later on, but the main points are clear: unified language without dualism, asymmetry etc. from the start, pluralism with encyclopedism,\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Alles sehr \uline{vage}; im ganzen bin ich in Übereinstimmung}}.} avoiding infecting contradictions, unpredictabilities within empiricism.

I think I may guess what you have in mind by speaking of the language of science and non-science,\fnA{Original \original{not of science}.} but you see, my way is trying to find the point where our rivers meet one another and in semantics I did not find the point, whereas in your Logical Syntax I found the point, even when we did not agree. The same about MEANING article. I do not always agree but I see, where we meet, where not. Nagel\IN{\nagel} did not understand your viewpoint. Did somebody write about it from an empiricist point of view? I shall expect that some Neo-Thomists will find a way, how to use your and Tarski's\IN{\tarski} semantics. That does not imply, that your arguments are similar to Thomism.

Waismann\IN{\waismann} re-wrote his book. English translation made for Ogden\IN{\ogden} did not enjoy him, therefore he started with altering it. Ogden\IN{\ogden} another day asked me about this business, I could not answer. I did not see Waismann\IN{\waismann} for a long time. By chance I heard of his wife's suicide. We visited him, wife and son another day, and felt not very happy there. I am always sorry when seeing people, who escaped from the hell and live then depressed in some way or another. It is not the question of guilt but of good and bad luck in all the constellations. I do not think that Waismann\IN{\waismann} is very happy in all his intellectual relations. The break with Wittgenstein\IN{\wittgenstein} -- disaster for him. The main ideas remain and therefore he seems to be relatively isolated. Sad experience, as he told me, with Braithwaite\IN{\braithwaite}. He is lecturing at the University here, that is a great advantage. But that implies certain adaptions perhaps, I do not know. The world is so full of sadness. I heard a lecture \textkritik{by W\ekl{aismann}}\fnA{Hsl. Einschub.}\IN{\waismann} on geometry.\fnEE{Bezieht sich vermutlich auf Waismanns Lehrtätigkeit in Oxford.} I did not like it very much. A fine sequence of lectures on Mengenlehre in the camp. He did not like very much my tendency to ask about finitism in Mengenlehre as one reached it in differential calculus and occasionally in probability etc. But I heard that such tendencies are now relatively strong. Have you knowledge of that?\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Brouwer, Kaufmann, Wittgenstein, Bridgman (nicht gut)}}.} What could I read? Or better look into it? Poor boy, I am. No friend, who can tell me that as many years ago. Perhaps that is a reason, why I now deal more with the theoretical background of the Social Science language.

Poor Gomperz\IN{\gomperz} dead.\fnEE{Gomperz war bereits 1935 nach seiner Zwangsemeritierung aus politischen Gründen durch das Dollfuß-Regime in die USA emigriert und lehrte bis zu seinem Tod an der University of Southern California (Los Angeles).} He behaved very kind\ekl{ly} to us when we arrived in Holland, helpful in spite of the fact, that he rather disliked my arguing. I disliked his arguing very much, particularly his involved moral reflections on topical subjects. Rather disgusting to me. Unfortunately a frequent type of arguing in middle Europe. What is about Gomperz'\IN{\gomperz} wife\IN{\gomperzfrau}? I like her very much, a brave, handsome person\fnA{Hsl. Einschub.} \neueseite{}\zzz who knows how to deal with life. I always appreciated it very much that he married her, a simple Viennese merchant woman, continuing her business at the ``Tuchlauben''. Happy in travelling.

I hope you are well again and will teach Mathematics in Chicago, tell more about you and your life. It is a great advantage that you both together can be in nice environment.

On an average our friends reached Anglo-Saxon countries, a few others, South America. Some of our Polish friends I think the Soviet Union. But some have been killed, committed suicide or have been deported, or in concentration camps. What a sad world. What you know about Maue\IN{\maue}?\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{nein}}.}

I often ask me, to what extent we are responsible, too, for all what happened, by doing something or by failing to do something \ldots\ I know historical analysis etc., but I want to imagine a little, what kinds of streams lead to the Nazidom. Direct ones, as the quoted chapter on exterminated Poles and the moral qualities of Victory and the obedience to the nation, whatever may happen, but also indirect ones, e.\,g. the supporting of totalitarian habits as such, and so on. A difficult problem, really.

Thanks for the article on planning.\fnEE{Bezug unklar.}\fnAmargin{Ksl. \original{\textsp{Was war das?}}.} I go further than that, and think we can be more multifarious within a planned economy, should we try to be so, whereas competition has been unifying. It is not so much the question of decentralisation, that too, of course, but more a question of planned multiplicity possibilities. Not even majority decisions should be overestimated. When a group of 40 likes flats and a group of 60 small houses, why not 4:6 flats and small houses? Etc. Railroad gauges have to be unified. I shall ask Kaempffert\IN{\kaempffert} to send Morris\IN{\morris} my article, he will send it to you.\fnEE{Vermutlich: Neurath, ,,International Planning for Freedom``.}

We have been in the Wales mountains, very happy, walking every day many hours, sleeping, eating, reading -- not much, enjoying nice landscape and nice people. A few hours discussion with Heinemanns\IN{\heinemannoxford} -- a wholly un-intellectual recreation, our own talks more in reflections on world and life. We try to find out how people behave in various countries under certain circumstances. The aggregation in the Anglo-Saxon countries and in Holland seems to be preferable to us. And we think these aggregations allow the growing up of more happiness, even if more temperate. Less tensions than\fnA{Original \original{as}.} something loved and admired. Holidays, weekend, hobbies important, even when very restful and without excitement. Of course, there \ekl{are} deplorable things, too. But the whole aggregation compared with others is fine. We enjoy together with our British friends the victories. You know from Modern Man in the Making that I always guessed the Allies will be much stronger than the Axis, much stronger. I did not expect that the Axis could finish the whole show in a Blitz. Now the whole show is manifestly over. It may be up to 1945, hardly longer in Europe, perhaps shorter. The Nazis fight for their naked life. Even Non-Nazis are often full of obedience in abstracto and think it a duty to fight on. Of course there are Anti-Nazis there. But the aggregation is not prepared for opposition and fight against government. \neueseite{}\zzz The peace, I do not think, it will be a fine peace, but that the plague will be over will be in any case pleasant. We should talk over all these things some day. Perhaps visiting you by plane will be possible in a near future. Who does know anything? Unpredictability teaches us, to think of our own decisions -- what is called moral personality -- as of more importance and to remain hopeful in difficult situations. Historical laws teach some people cowardice other\ekl{s} fanaticism. I do not like either.

How speaks Heine\IN{\heine}: \ekl{``}Beat your march on the drum, no fear, that is my whole philosophy, that is my whole science, I know, that is the result, because I am a good tambour.\ekl{''}\fnEE{Heine, ,,Zeitgedichte`` -- ,,Doktrin``: ,,Schlage die Trommel und fürchte dich nicht,\,/\,Und küsse die Marketenderin,\,/\,Das ist die ganze Wissenschaft,\,/\,Das ist der Bücher tiefster Sinn.`` usw.} Etc. Go on, boy, something will happen.

I can repeat only, that we go on very well with ISOTYPE and that more and more people are interested in it, that we have many friends and acquaintances here and feel us very well sheltered. Our health is in good state, our mood, too. Paul\IN{\neurathsohn}, as Lynd\IN{\lynd} wrote me, got a fine degree from Columbia and will be successful in his career, he predicts. Philipp\IN{\frankphilipp} and Pepi Frank\IN{\frankjosef} safe. Some people of whom I thought they are in Germany, appeared to be in America or England. That is always a day of particular pleasure, when such \textkritik{}\fnA{\original{an}}\zzz information reaches us. Many good friends from camp remained good friends afterwards, therefore the environment is OK. And we know we have good friends in other countries, too. Morris\IN{\morris} writes in detail on his Paths of Life. I like his attitude and his analyzing paths of life as patterns, but I cannot agree wholly with his technique in detail and some distinctions. But the brotherhood of mankind is more important than such details. It is some kindness in his attitude and much tolerance.

Now, it is evening and I want to finish this letter. I hope it helps to find a way to Semantics, too --- that is that. Oh boy, my dear.

With kind regards from both of us to both of you 
}

\grussformel{ever yours\\Otto Neurath}



\briefanhang{\textkritikl Dear Carnap,\\ I hope very much that you have no pain and that the doctors can help you to get well again soon. I was very glad when I met you both in a cinema queue \ldots\ it was a dream only, unfortunately.\\\indent Good luck! My love to Ina\IN{\ina}!\grussformel{Your\\Mieze\IN{\reidemeistermarie}\textkritikr\fnAmark}}\fnAtext{Hsl. Einschub von Marie Neurath.}%\Apagebreak



\ebericht{Brief, msl., 20 Seiten, \href{https://doi.org/10.48666/846776}{RC 102-55-03 (Dsl. ON 222)}; Briefkopf: hsl. \original{Registered (air)\,/\,University of Chicago}, msl. \original{30 Bickerton Road, Headington, Oxford} und \original{25\textsuperscript{th} September, 1943}, ksl. \original{Luftpost, registriert (über \$ 1 Porto!), bekommen 26.10. (doppelt bekommen, per Schiff 1.11.)}.}
