A short time ago, we had the pleasure of seeing PaulPNeurath, Paul, 1911–2001, öst.-am. Soziologe, Sohn von Anna Schapire-Neurath (1877–1911) und Otto Neurath, who was in Chicago for a few hours. We had not seen him since the days in atheThe Hague in 1934. In these years he has developed to a very fine young man. The grave experiences he has gone through have not made him bitter against fate and humanity. He seems quite cheerful. And although he is somewhat gloomy, like all of us, about the prospect of the political development in the peace time ahead, he has, like you and me, not given up a certain optimism about the future development “in the long run”. He has a well-matured and independent judgment on persons, situations, books etc. From what he reported about arrangements he makes to get his students into contact with institutions where they can practically apply their theoretical statistical methods, he seems to be an excellent teacher. Also he seems very industrious and is studying, in spite of his heavy teaching load, various things outside of but in connection with his special field, so that his work will gain a broader basis. I am sure he has a fine career ahead of him.
Now to the sad affair of your monograph and your letter of Nov. 18. I am very sorry that my refusal to share the editorial responsibility for your monograph, caused you so much grief, but I do not see how I could help it. I had not the least intention to insult you. You should not take the matter so tragically, and above all, you should not take it so personally and with so violent emotions. Everyone of us has sometimes the experience that a publication of his is regarded by some of his friends asbHsl. Einschub.rather weakcHsl. gestrichene Unterstreichung.. We have to bear it and not take it as a personal insult. (For instance, I was rather shocked to read Nagel’sPNagel, Ernest, 1901–1985, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Edith Nagel extremely critical review of my “Semantics”, but I never thought of regarding it as a personal insult.) If everybody took such things personally and always reacted with violent moral reproaches (as you do in your letter, and you did before several times towards me when I simply followed my own judgment as editor or author, and another time towards SchlickPSchlick, Moritz, 1882–1936, dt.-öst. Philosoph, verh. mit Blanche Guy Schlick) how would good cooperation and friendship be possible? I did not let my personal relation with NagelPNagel, Ernest, 1901–1985, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Edith Nagel be disturbed by what he did to my book. And I wish very much that you would take the same attitude towards me. In fact, I have waited all the time whether another letter might not come from you in a more conciliatory tone, so that I would be allowed to forget the bitter, ironical and sarcastic remarks in your last letter.
There seems to be one point which must be cleared up among the three of us; that is the question of our editorial rights. I shall outline my conception of them; if I am mistaken, please let me know. (i) I agree with you that in questions of content the author has the final decision. If an editor has an opinion different from the author in some point, he can only make a suggestion and state his reasons; the author is free to accept the suggestion or to stick to his point. (Thus, e. g., BloomfieldPBloomfield, Leonard, 1887–1949, am. Linguist would have had the right to maintain his point of view in the question of “written languages”.) (ii) On the other 🕮{}hand, the editors are the final judges in points of the following kind: choice of the topic (in general lines, not in all details), arrangement of the subject-matter, way of representation, including comprehensibility for our readers and correctness of language, and the like. These and similar points are usually regarded as editorial matters in a collective work like the Encyclopedia. Therefore, if our present arrangement – contrary to my assumption – does not include these things among our editorial rights, then I suggest strongly that we change it accordingly. For, if a reader criticizes points of this kind, he will always make the editors responsible too, not only the author.
You ask what are the points of my criticism. I think you will understand them best from my letter to MorrisPMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris (June 19, 1944)‚aHsl. Note. a copy of which is enclosed.1Rudolf Carnap an Charles W. Morris, 19. Juni 1944, ON 223. (You will see from the letter also that I tried my best to find a solution which would avoid any offense to you.) You see that most, and perhaps all, of the points criticized belong to what I regard as editorial matters. The same holds for most of the points criticized independently of me in a letter from NagelPNagel, Ernest, 1901–1985, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Edith Nagel to MorrisPMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris. The fact that NagelPNagel, Ernest, 1901–1985, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Edith Nagel addressed his critical remarks (which were lengthy and in detail, and much sharper than mine) not to the author but to an editor, shows that he likewise regards these things as matters of editorial responsibility. Let us suppose the case that the note on the back of the title page were not printed at present, but that the printing of the text of the monograph were finished, so that no alterations in the text were possible. Would you in this case actually demand that I share the editorial responsibility for the monograph? I must tell you that I should regard such a demand as very unfair. I certainly should never make a demand of this kind if I were in a similar situation. Please remember the fact that the monograph did not reach me before it was printed in pages, and that I was not guilty for this fact. (I am astonished at your ironical remark in this point; it seems to me clear that the responsibility for this fact rests not upon me, but upon you, MorrisPMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris, the Press, and perhaps WirthPWirth, Louis, 1897–1952, am. Soziologe, in a proportion unknown to me.) Why then should I be required to bear innocently the blame by readers like NagelPNagel, Ernest, 1901–1985, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Edith Nagel and many others? (NagelPNagel, Ernest, 1901–1985, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Edith Nagel writes that his empiricist friends in N. Y. agree with his judgment and are “simply dismayed”.)
I wrote you earlier that my criticism has nothing to do with our differences of opinion with respect to semantics, degree of confirmation, etc. Perhaps the fact of Nagel’sPNagel, Ernest, 1901–1985, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Edith Nagel criticism will show you more clearly this independence, because in the two points mentioned NagelPNagel, Ernest, 1901–1985, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Edith Nagel is rather sceptical about what I am doing, and hence much closer to your point of view than to mine.
I think more important for us than the present particular incident is the problem what we could do to safeguard the quality of future publications. In this connection, I suppose, MorrisPMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris has already taken up with you the question of a more active function of 🕮{}the Advisory Committee as suggested by NagelPNagel, Ernest, 1901–1985, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Edith Nagel.
My two papers on probability and degree of confirmation will probably appear this summer. I shall send you reprints as soon as they come out. My best thanks for the booklet on health with your charts in it, and the reprints on PlatoPPlato[n], 427–347 v. d. Z., gr. Philosoph; did your opponent reply?
I just read Sheldon’sPSheldon, William Herbert, 1898–1977, am. Psychologe “The Varieties of Temperament”, which is very interesting. SheldonPSheldon, William Herbert, 1898–1977, am. Psychologe is now here, MorrisPMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris is working with him, and I hope to see him soon. I suggest strongly that you read this book. If you do, write me in which of his types you would classify yourself (and in which me).dHsl. getilgte Unterstreichung.
I wish with you that some day in the future we shall meet again under a friendlier star. And even now, let us try as best we can to be tolerant, understanding and peaceful to each other personally, no matter whether one criticizes the other’s writing (as I do yours) or ideas (as you do mine).
With best regards‚
