Neurath an Carnap, Oxford, 18. November 1944 Otto Neurath an Rudolf Carnap, 18. November 1944 November 1944

I am glad to hear that you are now relatively well and starting lecturing again. Poor HempelPHempel, Carl Gustav, 1905–1997, dt.-am. Philosoph, verh. mit Eva Hempel. Very often I think of his fate and of nice EvaPHempel, Eva, 1908–1944, geb. Ahrends, verh. mit Carl Gustav Hempel, too.

On INTERGLOSSA. I think its word economy is sufficient, but word economy in itself is a very dangerous principle. Since we wrote a book in BASIC ENGLISH‚ we have some experience in handling it. You see the word economy implies, that you are using the same word in very different, sometimes strange ways, that you have to think, how can we find an IDIOMATIC English expression, composed of the words permitted and then something very metaphorical or allegorical comes out.aKsl. Das gilt nur für Basic English, nicht für Wortökonomie in einer gut gebauten künstlichen Sprache.. To remember the idiomatically permitted strange combinations is much more depressing the beginner‚bKsl. ja. than the learning of some clearcut expressions, whichaHsl. Korrektur von who cover, what you want to say perfectly.

I did not see, that you and many other people who like WORD ECONOMY did realize this point sufficiently. Just, where you want to be exact the word economy is preventing you from doing so very often. Of course, very often you learn to use a simple word combination instead of a strange term, but sometimes it is different.

What source of words, would you suggest? Hogben’sPHogben, Lancelot, 1895–1975, brit. Zoologe und Statistiker argument runs as follow: when using the Greek roots in already USED SCIENTIFIC TERMS, you either know the term, or when not, you are learning something useful for your scientific reading and writing. INTERGLOSSA is particularly thought of as a congress and academy language.

The other points are more important. It would be useful if you could write something about that. I like The Loom of Language – a little too large, I think at least. I think again of the possibility to ask the author for a paper for the encyclopedia on artificial languages, perhaps a paper written by him and you together. At the moment is a boom in artificial language discussion and we should have a great public. I did not suggest that to MorrisPMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris and you, before asking you about your opinion. You remember I thought of HOGBENPHogben, Lancelot, 1895–1975, brit. Zoologe und Statistiker as author of such a paper but now I think this new combination even better than HogbenPHogben, Lancelot, 1895–1975, brit. Zoologe und Statistiker, because he would be judge in his own case. Please think it over carefully.

I am very doubtful about your system of inductive logiccKsl. Bevor Du irgend etwas davon siehst?. i. e. a theory of the degree of confirmation. You see the degrees of confirmation etc. seem to anticipate that you are sure of ONE LIMIT OF THE SERIES‚dKsl. nicht klar. as it were, how you can say so? I do not know any empiricist material, which permits us to apply all this stuff on confirmation. Assumed that the calculus in itself is OK – which I think is not sure, – how should a group of protocol statements look like, that you can speak of “degree of confirmation”? Can you give me any example? Of course you can always make an utopian structure on which you can demonstrate that, but then – you will see – you always will speak of THE REALITY (in some or another way, more or less concealed) and not of possibilities (pluralism). I should like to know, how you now look at Reichenbach’sPReichenbach, Hans, 1891–1953, dt.-am. Philosoph attempts to create a kind 🕮{}of inductive logic. I personally see not even a possible way to overcome the difficulty to substitute a “decision” by a calculus.

You never answered these points‚eKsl. Welche? Wo sind sie veröffentlicht? Oder in einem Brief?. e. g. by presenting a simple example, how you are using the words. Reading your papers, Kaplan’sPKaplan, Abraham, 1918–1993, am. Philosoph papers, Hempel’sPHempel, Carl Gustav, 1905–1997, dt.-am. Philosoph, verh. mit Eva Hempel papers, Morris’PMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris papers, I always feel that they are, what I would call anti-pluralist from start. I know very well to what extent we agree, when removing the usual metaphysical speculations, but I think the anti-pluralist attitude, which starts from ONE world-system as more plausible than all others – the substitute for THE ONE REALITY – comes very often in the foreground. I do not deny that the calculi so evolved may be of great use sometimes, even I want to stress, that some of the more-than-one-level discussions, which form the basis of semantics are very useful, AS LONG AS THEY ARE USED FOR THE REALM OF STATEMENTS – therefore with a pluralist possibility – and not in the realm of statement-things, because the thing-phraseology as you use it is an anti-pluralist one. I see the scientific enterprise in comparing protocol statements and their derivates and in discovering some ways how to fit them together, as far as possible, whereby we have to select already ARBITRARILY certain formulations. Any protocol-statement is a pluralist one and therefore any selection already brings with it the other possibilities, too.

I think this antagonism between us is an old one. And perhaps something in your unexpected behaviour may be connected with that. I should even prefer this hypothesis to the assumption that you like to insult me. You see, you write in your letter of October 7, “BY SOME MISTAKE I DID NOT GET THE PROOFS BEFORE JUNE (no guilt from my side, therefore) …You will understand that I did not wish to be made responsible for something that I had not seen and that if I had seen it I should not have approved.” That sounds as if we as editors had to approve papers. After we accepted an author (perhaps after reading his syllabus) he has only to send us the manuscript, we may make remarks and ask for alterations, should he decline that, we have to print the paper. WE ARE ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SELECTION OF THE AUTHOR. Remember, what difficulties we had with BloomfieldPBloomfield, Leonard, 1887–1949, am. LinguistfKsl. Dies ist etwas ganz anderes; das war ein Meinungsunterschied. in inserting even that spoken and written languages may be regarded side by side. Assume he had declined to mention that, then we had to print it, of course. We are not a censoring body only an editing one, which forces the authors to read our remarks, to GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING, THAT IS ALL.

Then you continue with quasi-kindness: “On the other hand I did not wish to take any conspicuous step, as e. g. the removal of my name from the title page. Therefore I chose the quite non-conspicuous way which will not be noticed by most readers; I asked MorrisPMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris to have a note printed on the back of the title page …that because of special circumstances (A VERY BAD FORMULA WHICH CAN IMPLY 🕮{}EVERYTHING) I do not share the editorial responsibility for this monograph.” You could imagine that you suggested alterations and then I declined to make them. Then the paper should appear without touching any editor’s scruples – or did you ever think differently of our rights?

“Points concern language and careless formulations lack of explanations of your new terms etc.” You see without giving any examples, that sounds rather aggressive. Imagine, that you say together with that, that MORRISPMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris did not his duty in not mentioning that to me. You stress the point, that not “differences between our opinions” did move you. I should like to know something about the defects, you mention.

But now about the personal side of this matter. I ask me, how can a friend grieve me so much and without any manifest reason. Listen, Carnap, if this were the first time, I should look into my own behaviour, but you see, you grieved me again and again. It started particularly, as you wrote your article about physics as a universal language of science. In spite of the fact that you used results of our discussions of my remarks made in the Vienna Circle, you did not even mention me, walking over me as a nonentity. You remember I protested intensely and you inserted then the note, which tries to state my part in the whole realm of discussions. This experience depressed me very much.gKsl. Mich noch mehr! Ich warnte Dich damals (in Olgas Gegenwart), daß ich nicht nochmal sowas ertragen würde!.

But that was not the first and not the last time you grieved me. One day you wrote me a letter, in a similar teacher-like tone, that you can hardly accept an article of mine for the ERKENNTNIS, since my style of presentation did not reach the level, wanted there etc., etc. Carnap, Carnap, when I look at the articles the ERKENNTNIS published usually and then look at my articles with all their defects, I think they do not belong to the worst there and in the literature they are sufficiently quoted and discussed. You are usually not very critical towards other people, but particularly irritated by me. And now after some smaller incidents, not so important, you produce this newest piece of unkindness.

You see, we are living in difficult times, we have to try to be as kind to another as possible, there are difficulties in making anything. One has to be glad, that one overcomes all difficulties, etc. I can hardly imagine, that a kind of feeling of “duty” or something like that lead you to such a decision and action. But it may be that or that. You grieved me, did you anticipate that, then I tell you, that you reached your goal, did you not imagine that, then I tell you that you did it.

When I think of our movement, any such behaviour seems to me unwise. In my letter to MorrisPMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris I touch this point. I can hardly assume that the reactions by you are fully independent of your attitude towards the problems themselves. I see three periods of your evolution, which always lead to a possible irritation.

It started with the WittgensteinPWittgenstein, Ludwig, 1889–1951, öst.-brit. Philosoph boom. I remember, how you and FeiglPFeigl, Herbert, 1902–1988, öst.-am. Philosoph, seit 1931 verh. mit Maria Feigl pressed for inserting a high praise of 🕮{}WittgensteinPWittgenstein, Ludwig, 1889–1951, öst.-brit. Philosoph into the WIENER KREIS pamphlet. I looked at WittgensteinPWittgenstein, Ludwig, 1889–1951, öst.-brit. Philosoph– and said so and wrote so – as an antiscientific thinker full of metaphysics, etc. I never could realize, how SchlickPSchlick, Moritz, 1882–1936, dt.-öst. Philosoph, verh. mit Blanche Guy Schlick, WaismannPWaismann, Friedrich, 1896–1959, öst.-brit. Philosoph, verh. mit Hermine Waismann, you and HahnPHahn, Hans, 1879–1934, öst. Mathematiker, Bruder von Olga Neurath, verh. mit Eleonore Hahn have been so impressed by him. Of course he produced many very clever and stimulating ideas, but the “negative” items are very high. I had the feeling that my resolute behaviour against WittgensteinPWittgenstein, Ludwig, 1889–1951, öst.-brit. Philosoph in some way or another disturbed all of you. When I look at the empiricist Elements of our circle I should arrange them as follow

You see this visual joke helps me to present my case clearly. You always had a certain inclination towards PYRAMIDISM, how I call it. You want – as I explained to you some day in Vienna – to have some top of a pyramid and then nice deductive chains leading to the bottom. You answered that you really like that and that you are rather astonished that I reject this ideal totally. You see, in LOGISCHER AUFBAU DER WELT you did even show some inclination towards the GEISTESWISSENSCHAFTEN etc. And now I appeared as something irritating you, because much more “strong” than others in presenting my case, perhaps because I did not publish regularly my ideas, as you and others did and used the discussion as my medium.

The next period may be characterized by your inclination towards PopperPPopper, Karl Raimund, 1902–1994, öst.-brit. Philosoph, verh. mit Josefine Popper, Logik der ForschungcHsl. Korrektur von Logischer Aufbau der Welt.– you preferred his attitude to mine. I think today, what I thought then, that you like the strong antithesis of YES and NO in his looking at positive and negative instances, and then his tendency to start from ONE world system, as the most complete one.

And then came TarskiPTarski, Alfred, 1901–1983, poln.-am. Mathematiker und Logiker, whose AristotelianPAristoteles, 384–322 v. d. Z., gr. Philosoph Metaphysics seem to you useful in building up semantics. What may be helpful in building up a calculus, can become very dangerous in preparing an instrument for empiricism. Should my guess be acceptable, that you FEEL A LITTLE THAT YOU ARE IN SOME WAY UNEMPIRICIST, then I should understand that I myself as your bad conscience irritate you enormously. That would make me more prepared to take your tendency to grieve me easier.

Let me come to an end. All that is guess work, but I think I should write it to you since I would say it to you. Of course writing and speaking are different, scripta litera manet‚ but I tried to write as peacefully as possible, whereas in a conversation I should call you names, as usual. 🕮

In spite of the fact that all such events touch me very much, I usually overcome them and discover a way how to go on better than before. You see, your treating me badly by not mentioning me, induced me to start with publishing my main ideas regularly – I like that now. Your letter on my articles being hardly acceptable for the Erkenntnis immediately induced me to create the series EINHEITSWISSENSCHAFT, where I could publish my own stuff whenever I wanted to do it, without any consent from my strong teacher. Of course I did not insult you but invited you to be with me and to publish there, you by me highly admired giant of logical analysis and a man who unveils the secrets of so many metaphysicians …And so life could go on in a rather smooth way, as far as we are concerned. Now I got my fill again – let us wait, what nice activity will come out from that, what new plan, which will enable us to co-operate better than before …Let me assume that you will grieve me next time within one decade, then in the following decade – but I think there will hardly be more than three decades, therefore not more than three grievances – I shall prepare myself for that.

I am rather an APARESH– should you know of these people – who are well acquainted with living peacefully together, but not with fighting one another. They bear any insult very intensely and hardly know how to answer …The same is with me. I am sad and feel myself very clumsy in writing such a letter, but I should also feel myself rather clumsy writing no letter at all. And I manifestly am not sufficiently educated to write the letter, which “SHOULD” be written … That is that. Let us hope that we shall have good time together when we shall meet again. I hope we shall have a good air communication after the European war will be over.

With our best wishes for your health, remember us to InaPCarnap, Ina (eig. Elisabeth Maria immacul[ata] Ignatia), 1904–1964, geb. Stöger, heiratete 1933 Rudolf Carnap,