Otto Neurath an Rudolf Carnap, Entwurf – nicht gesendet, 22. September 1945 September 1945

Maybe you felt discouraged when reading my Juni letter, because I wrote it in a somewhat hopeless mood. And I confess that this hopeless mood is continuing. I really do not know what to do. I am sure, that both of us would help one another in days of danger, that we are pleased in some way when being together, that we, what is called: like one another, but that very often, very, very often some minor items disturb a soft and comfortable being together and that from time to time, perhaps by accumulation the items become more important and sometimes lead to a kind of tension. In your cases characterized, please let me say so, by some grieving action (I do not say, that you are trying to grieve me) in my cases, characterized by some noisy explosion. That is that.

Since I regard friendship, love, harmonious contacts the most important joys of my life, I am not soon tired when making efforts to support a situation, which gives any chance of possible kind atmosphere within the framework of human relations. Perhaps I do not know much about the right way, how to make twisted things again straight… I do not know, whether it is better to go on with you and just to try to suppress, what I have to say and to assume it is hopeless to alter a rigid person like you or to speak with you in a more outspoken way. It is a pity, that the situation reached this point… In principle I do not believe in the German habit “Aussprachen haben”, but when with Germans I often see myself pressed into “Aussprache”, because the more emotional little contacts, delicate spider webs and other means of human intercourse do not work.

I feel really helpless and somewhat hopeless. I assume, that perhaps similar feelings are working in you and I interpret so that fact, that you are writing so long letters and that even Ina comes down the silent goddess from Olympus to bring the thundering heroes together before they start sitting sulkingly in their respective tents. I do not think, that by partial silence one reachs much and I do not guess that speaking is good… but “tossing the coin” I reach the decision that we perhaps come near to one another, when we tell one another a little more about us. You started with that and I appreciate very much your various informationainformations about you and your reactions.

You see, my dear boy, it is not the question of “reconciliation”. If somebody feels himself “humiliated” by somebody else, “reconciliation” is not the right word for making the situation better. On the other hand I know from experience – I have seen many people and nations and their respective difficulties in coming to terms with one another – that it is extremely difficult to an atmosphere in which the irritation created by such feelings is prevalent. 🕮

I am assuming, that I do and did something, which irritated you considerably, without knowing it myself and as far as I am knowing it I willbHsl. Ersetzung von to. redress mycHsl. Ersetzung von to. attitude… Your pedantry and rigidity is to me very often something strange and even hostile. I asked me sometimes, how that is, because in itself I cannot say that it looks so bad. I think that is a very complicated thing and any hypothesis is rather vague and sophisticated. But let me tell you, how I want to think about me, why I have the attitude of sheltering me against something I do not regard as directly ugly. It is not nice, but not ugly.

Since my youth I appreciated friendship, love, smooth atmospheres, where one never comes to clashes, etc. that is one of the reasons, why I try to live “procul negotiis” wherever possible – but well adapted to go on with masses and groups, when needed. I dislike the tensions in such situations, I dislike particularly any kind of string pulling – in spite of the fact, that I should know how to do it. I dislike any kind of “officialdom”, because here is a minimum of friendship and love. I prefer collaborators who are my friends, too – only a hard education through life, taught me that a certain reserved attitude is needed in a society which through and through is full of competition and difficulties. I finally reached a stage, which enables me to create organizations with a sufficiently kind atmosphere and to avoid the spheres of tensions. Mary and I enjoy ourselves in Oxford, because we have the nicest team of collaborators, we ever had before. We have almost only nice contacts and are far away from the centres of string pulling in London. I try to make comprehensive agreements for many years, which are reducing the official contacts to a minimum. I have mainly work-contacts (preparing something in common) and meeting contacts (meetings for two days, a week, etc.) which here are of a wonderful peaceful character and lead, as experience teaches us, to remarkable friendly contacts, even with people who disagree with our opinions… In addition we are surrounded by friendship and have now more of that than before. We now see, what we got in Holland, we got heaps of long letters, full of intimacy, friendship, and the wish to continue personal contact by letter.dHsl. am Seitenrand welcher. And again and again they tell us, what Mary and I helped them by our opinions, attitudes, etc. I tell you that, because you as many other people look at me too much as a kind of organizer and promoter of things, whereas I think in terms of possible friendships, etc. any organization I and Mary build up tries to enlarge the sphere of friendships and friendly contacts. We are hesitating to invite collaborators, of which we think they could disturb the happiness of our team… sometimes I prepare an outside post just for creating the human distance which helps to avoid the destruction of our harmonious social life…

I am not very happy, when people, who should know better, look at all that as a mere tendency towards activity etc. It is something of that in, but NEVER RULING THE SHOW. I try to get publishers withewhich whom I can speak in a kind way etc. and I try even to educate them, if they are behaving differently. 🕮 I am explaining all that somewhat in detail, hoping, that perhaps a slight feeling for my attitude enters your judgement. You see I never felt that you appreciate this side of my existence.

I always think that friends try to make life one another as pleasant as possible, not because one has an advantage from that, but because I as a friend enjoy to see my friend happy. That is the reason, why I try to help them, not

(1) I want tomorrow their help

(2) it is a “duty” to help friends.

Both attitudes are not “bad” from my viewpoint, but they are not, what I am longing for.

Further I like any kind of DIRECTNESS, from human being to human being, as far as kindness, friendliness is concerned. Unsophisticated spontaneity, that is wonderful…I know how rare this bird is. I know that I myself very often disturb kind atmospheres by being, as I am. On the other hand I do not think that my destructive habit is prevalent. Too often people tell me, without being asked for, that they expect me to be successful, when in difficulties, because I am not only able to do many things, but also “charming”. It is difficult to know how one behaves. But now I am beginning to think, that the traditional story of me as a wild man with some friendly grunt is very incomplete and rather a kind of “rationalization”, which enables people to humiliate me, instead of taking me into their circle of friendship and contacts. And here is the point: apparently I am far away from “Bonzentum”. And I should guess, that people, who have something of that, of “snobishness” etc. have some aversion, when seeing how I cannot go on with that. And this difference – I think so – is very, very decisive in human relations. I think Schlick’s extraordinary incorrectfuncorrect behaviour again and again is only understandable in this way. He felt himself endangered – AND CORRECTLY – by the very existence of a person who does not acknowledge this way of behaviour.

That seemed to me a rather “personal” problem. But gradually I evolved a kind of hypothesis, whichgwho runs as follow[s]. I should not publish that before I did not check up it better: There are two ways of behaviour particularly important to me, and as I think also in mankind. Of course they are not exclusive, they are not a dichotomy, etc. there are many others etc. I do not give this description a higher dignity, just “as I see it”. My studies on [“]BROTHERHOOD AND PERSECUTION” lead me to that.

One attitude tries to find HIGHEST ideals, as it were, in justice, duties, etc. everything regarded as something within a systematical structure, which we know already or at least should try to know. These people try to create a kind of scheme of “correctness”. They are judging themselves and other people, whether they are correct in this sense or not, whether they have the right duties or not, the right racial background or not, the right morale or not etc… One has to have certain highest principles, and within this realm strong “convictions” and something of that type. The human relations have to [be] subordinated to such HIGHEST PEAKS of something – deity, duty, nation, leader, ascetic attitude, religion, enthusiasm etc. Within this realm grows up a certain tendency towards rigid adherence to something, which often leads 🕮 [to] hardship, mercilessness etc. Everything becomes relative weak and unimportant, when the own “conviction”, “ideals” etc. are on the stage – and they are always on the stage, as long as these people take themselves seriously. And they do it, by Jove. Even if such people start with “kind” ideals, this attitude as such is dangerous and leads to anything, as history – that is my impression – shows us. Just this way of behaviour enables scoundrels to use “idealists”, who are prepared to be hard and merciless, as soon as their “ideals”, “convictions” are in question – and they are always in question. Sometimes mercy appears as a duty, sometimes not, it is “occasional” as it were. There are ENDS and MEANS and such terrible items in the picture, which rule the show. That is an attitude, which I personally dislike since my youth, but now regard socially as very dangerous, too.

The other attitude is more like the following: people living together are able to create a friendly and kind atmosphere, to think, how they may make one another as happy as possible. They often are not successful and very often unhappiness appears, but this result is NEVER ACCEPTED AS UNAVOIDABLE WHEN CERTAIN “ENDS” should be reached… there are not such “ends” within this group. Friendship and brotherhood are the basic attitude and NOTHING ELSE COUNTS, no conviction, no faith, no enthusiasm. On the contrary, after some experience collected, such people of the brotherhood kind become suspicious, when people instead of liking hobbies and activities supporting welfare and happiness, start with promoting ENTHUSIASM as such; in the realm of kindness is not much space for “ecstasyhecstacy” and “enthusiasm” as such, it is a possibility to enjoy anything either alone or in good company, wonderful music, plays, movies, festivals, fairs, landscapes, etc. but without stressing the point how wonderful “enthusiasm” in itself is, “aufgehen in irgend etwas”, “volle Hingabe” etc. These people of the human brotherhood do not care much for snobism of any kind. Kind people are more wanted than clever people, ordinary folk who have many interests are more wanted than sophisticated adventurers, the big and small events count more or less on the same scale, a friendly afternoon with a friend may be of the same “order” as a symphony of highest musical impressiveness… Not comparable, of course, but the preparedness to design time for these things, energy, may be the same… A kind member of a meeting, which asks for the size of my shoes for getting slippers for me, after hearing that I had difficulty to get them, whereas she has a friend who makes slippers etc. pleases me at least as much as a speaker who tells of the most impressive new invention, arguments etc.

The first group of the serious people with convictions, rules, duties, justice, high ideals, enthusiasm for something high and lofty, with consistent habits, sure of predictability at least with “probability” seems to me represented by many famous men and by many people in the streets, but also the other group of the people, who are rather gay and sociable, and not too much interested in principles, convictions, etc. but in a kind atmosphere. Who would avoid to do something “fine”, when grieving other people. There are no HIGHER ideals, for which human pain could be taken as not too important. Often may happiness fight with happiness, and grieving one may be 🕮 connected with pleasing another – an often sad situation, but always the discussion starts on happiness and not on anything else. Everything seems uncertain, and therefore the love and friendship of the living time so important.

Look, my dear and take it as attempt to come in closer contact with one another, when I tell you, that the first group of people has certain signs, which we find in Plato’s REPUBLIC, or in Rousseau or in some other people, which for me are the real danger, and that your habit is often to a certain degree, as I see it not so far away from the description I have given above. Perhaps I see you not so as I should according to your opinion, or it is not reasonable to think the group so dangerous, etc. Please, believe me I say all these things hesitatingly, because should I not succeed in altering your own judgement and likings a little, such an explanation makes things even worse.

You see, I do not think that arguments are estranging people much, but attitudes do it. You see I have more and more the feeling that the Platonic attitude is more or less connected with Nazidom. And the German Christianity – as I see it, perhaps I shall alter my opinion some day after studying more in detail the matter – is full of this rigidity and also the philosophy. Even people who dropped religion, who dropped metaphysics, – this cruel type of attitude represented by Kant, who preached many nice things in addition – could not overcome their traditional rigidity and puritan attitude. One of my very good friends – dead already – said that one day to me. All attempts to be gay, to have a well arranged home with comfort etc., reading, etc. did not help, it remained that “duty” played the central role. Helping other people not based on the intention to make other people happy, but because it is our duty to help, etc. If some attitude or action irritated other people, the answer was: I did what I could to be mild, etc. but since my conviction…sorry, that theithey others were hurt etc. I must say, that this type of behaviour is very often to be found in Germany, much rarer in Austria, where terrible brutality is a traditional thing, but not consistent rigidity, neither in kindness nor in brutality… Easy going in both ways, as I explained to an English acquaintance, who thought the Austrians are kind and charming, I told her they are more easy going and often cruel etc… think of Franz Joseph, who ordered the hanging of the Hungarian Generals deliberately, after protest made by many people from outside… But not because he was a Platonist… Whereas the killing of Jews in Germany now, was much more based on “Platonism”, as it were. You have to sacrifice your own mildness (“den verdammten Schweinehund niederringen”). In this way I try to make a hypothesis how kind people could bear that and even help in doing that… And now I think, that in spite of all your personal charm and kindness you have many serious signs of a Platonic attitude. The second way of life is rather strange to you.

I cannot exclude, that you perhaps will be able to SEE that, in a similar way, and PERHAPS you will try to support the brotherhood elements in your attitude and to suppress the Platonic elements. I cannot say, that I succeeded in my own field, and I cannot deny, that friends are not so bad off when saying me that some of 🕮 myjHsl. Einschub. attitudes are somewhat “Boche-like”. I confess that they are and I try to alter that. I NEVER STAND TO ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I do not say, that I am kinder than you, perhaps I grieved more persons than you did, but I think I should hardly fight for a conviction or something like that knowing that it is grieving somebody… Mary tells me often that I grieve people in discussion about “Platonism”, e.g. when trying to show a Jewish refugee that his or her approach to arts and life is in principle a kind of Platonism and therefore connected indirectly with Nazidom… The only answer I can make is: here I am not grieving people for a principle’s sake, BUT BECAUSE I THINK THAT NAZIDOM, PLATONISM, PURITANISM, ETC. as principles make masses of people UNHAPPY. It is a defence of happiness and here are standing happiness against happiness. In former years I fought for my own happiness, but now I think of my son and friends, who suffered from concentration camps etc. PERHAPS I AM OVERSTATING THE CONNECTIONS – please tell me so, I am prepared to revise my views. I should prefer to be “tolerant” in these cases, but against people who spread unhappiness, how should one be “tolerant”, without being prepared to suffer as a martyr and to tell others to do it. I heard a philosopher explain that – that is a third way of life, not even for human happiness to fight, but looking at brotherhood as the central point of human life, nevertheless to BEAR PERSECUTION. As Christ said: I said you so, I did not promise happy society, but persecution and your pain… But that is not my attitude. I should feel myself as a hero, when suffering pain for making other people happy, but I should not feel myself a hero if I could secure other people’s happiness (and my own happiness – which I think I should at least regard as so important as my neighbour’s happiness) by making the man unhappy, who tries to create unhappiness but would prefer sufferingkHsl. Einschub am Seitenrand, Positionierung unsicher.… that is happiness against happiness. A HARD DECISION, but NEVER CONVICTION AGAINST HAPPINESS, that is the point, why I think Calvin so terrible a person, or Knox. Short time ago I met a British socialist, who was unusual rigid and “absolute” in his political aspects. I wanted to ask him, whether he is connected with Puritanism etc., but you know it is against custom to ask a person something intimate in this country. Therefore I was silent, but put forward my point, explaining something about unpredictability, kindness of direct contact, danger of terror as such, etc. and stressing how the other attitude looks like, finally he said with some emphasis: my own Calvinist tradition… And I answered: in Scotland… and he said I am Scotch. And then I said, what I thought of Cromwell, whom he regards as a fine, great man “we need something like that in modern socialism here”. “Ah‚” I said “why not Knox” – “that was a fine boy, too” he answered. There you have the things… That has nothing to do with Nazidom as a social structure, as killing Jews etc, but as hard and merciless attitude which thinks in terms of ENDS, CONVICTIONS, EFFICIENCY etc. and not in terms of brotherhood, happiness, friendship etc. which is a more Christian-Epicurean attitude, if one needs a name for that. It is a misleading name.

If you were able to tell me, that you a little a very 🕮 little only, are prepared to look at your attitude from this point of view, then I think perhaps we shall find a way to become friends who have not to fear the TENSIONS, of which you speak. If not – nothing will happen – we shall try to be good friends, but I should say, I should not be astonished to see a tension reappear, because thislHsl. Ersetzung von the. ATTITUDE is connected with tensions. I told you the tensions appear so rarely, that I should not fear them too much. Let us hope that the strain would not too much for you. But I should prefer, believe me, to have with you a serious and kind correspondence about the Platonism in you, as should call it, the Puritanism in you, the Prussianism in you etc. I know this kind of description is almost a kind of “giving names”, a very risk, like an operation, but I think you are to[o] grand a personality to be afraid of such a discussion. It only shows you that the tension is of a type, which has NOTHING TO DO WITH RECONCILIATION. I am not in a mood which needs reconciliation… I am only in a mood which is longing for your full friendship, for your preparedness to readjust your attitude, be sure, that I myself am fully prepared to listen to your explanations and to readjust myself. Since I do not look at life as something rigid I can anticipate changes in my outlook… I do not think that my desire for friendship and brotherhood will be dropped, I think I am to[o] much a spoiled child and the kindness is too important for me. Humiliation is irritating, not because I cannot bear it – I have strong bones – but because it is something destroying kindness and I have a sensitive skin… I shall try to harden it, when you think it is necessary for our friendship, but better would be to be together soft and mild… relativist, and not with any strong and rigid rules, applied at life without thinking of other people’s unhappiness.

You are again repeating that your remarks to Morris about me are “obvious to everybody” – I speak not of the volcano, but about what you say, that this volcano becomes active, when criticised. I tried to analyse my behaviour in detail, I asked other people, and JUST THATmHsl. Einschub. DOES NOT COME OUT. Would I see that in me, I should think a terrible quality and extirpate it with all my power. Astonishingly you are not GIVING ME ONE INSTANCE IN YOUR LONG LETTERS IN WHICH I BECAME A VOLCANO AFTER FACTUAL CRITICISM… I ask you now, NOT FOR DISCUSSION’S SAKE, but for my own “salvation”, please, tell me of cases in which I reacted volcano-like after criticism of my arguments, my style, or something of this kind. Seriously I could not remember one case. I try to recollect outbursts and I usually find some ATTITUDE OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO CREATED MY PROTEST… not because they criticised me. I dislike to be humiliated and treated with disrespect of the normal human relations…

What you say, that you made thisnthus remark about me to find an excuse for MORRIS, what is that? My dear, dear friend, think, what you say. You the man who wants to be so very correct, is here saying something about another person, very like a denunciationodenounciation, for “excuse’s sake”… It is so, as you say, it was also a criticism of Morris, what you did, BUT YOU WERE MORE INTERESTED IN NOT GRIEVING HIM THAN IN NOT GRIEVING ME. 🕮 If you would tell me of my behaviour being so — I should be really thankful, as I said more than once. I can hardly imagine, that any of my outbursts were connected with criticism against my arguments or opinions… perhaps as an exception, but I do not know at the moment such an exception.

If you want to drop this talk, please drop it, but perhaps here we may find the way of understanding one another and perhaps adapting us to one another. Perhaps I do not realise, when I am volcanic, or you think the “reasons” for my being volcanic are others than I think they are etc…

I DID NOT PROTEST AGAINST YOUR SAYING THAT I HAVE VIOLENT REACTION – that I never denied, and I am sorry, that I have this temper, what I tried to bring near to you, is that the assumption I am volcanic WHEN MY ARGUMENTS, MY STYLE etc. are criticised… AND YOU CAREFULLY – I DO NOT SAY INTENTIONALLY – ARE AVOIDING IN YOUR LETTER JUST THIS POINT, only speaking of the violent emotional reactions, never denied by me.

Let us speak of SCHLICK. I reacted in my way, because SCHLICK, as I saw it treated me as a schoolmaster and higher BONZE treats a schoolboy and a person not equal of standard. And THAT I NEVER BEAR… and I do not think I shall alter this attitude. Aggressive impudence I dislike outmost. I confess that without remorse, I am not one of the soft people who suffer patiently. BUT I DENY THAT I REACTED EMOTIONALLY BECAUSE SCHLICK WANTED SOMETHING DIFFERENT… I have hundreds of example[s], that I am altering manuscripts without any complaint, when people show me mistakes, arguments, style etc. which are defect[ive]… I have to[o] many witnesses for that, too many even in my files. But the case Schlick is different. It is very important to analyse such a case not toptoo speak like you: “you had a quarrel”, and “The question now is not who was right or who wrong; probably nobody was entirely right but everybody had some good things to say for his side.” You are bringing this whole show into the field of “right” etc. “some good thing to say” — as if it were a discussion, whereas the PERSON’S HAPPINESS IS IN QUESTION. How can you know, what “good things” Schlick had to say, when humiliating me? Philipp Frank was witness of conversations. As far as I remember, he never tried to conceal his opinion that Schlick treated me PERSONALLY BADLY. And I reacted against that, NOT AGAINST ANY CRITICISM… Please, say something about this point. Otherwise our both statements are not linked up with one another…

Please, tell me how you see the Schlick-Neurath conflict, which you regard as one of the most depressing experiences of your life. I really have not the slightest idea, why it did depress you that a BONZE who behaved badly, as he was accustomed to do, got a rebuff – a very seldom case, because usually the victims of such bosses are depending upon him. Therefore they EITHER “kuschen” or “transform the humiliation otherwise hardly to bear into admiration etc.”…🕮 Since Schlick regarded you as co-boss you did not suffer much from him, just occasionally.

I have more than one case, in which Schlick behaved without ANY REASON aggressive[ly] and humiliating me. One day Waismann invited me to tell of my ideas in the Schlick circle. I said, why not, I came and Schlick STARTED, introducing me: I do not know, why Dr. Neurath wants to talk to us, but he may start… or something like that. There are sufficient witnesses of this scene, which all people of the circle regarded as at least VERY UNUSUAL AND STRANGE – NOT THE SLIGHTEST AGGRESSION FROM MY SIDE, also not in the months before, nothing. From the clear sky. And you remember the wholly unnecessary remark on the ugly word “Einheitswissenschaft” in Paris (in the paper read to the congress in French translation, where SCIENCE UNITAIRE is nothing ugly). Etc. Wherever Schlick could he made a suffisante1Französisch für „süffisant“ bzw. (englisch) „smug“. remark. If it were not printed, I could think that I invent such details, as many scientists do, who are inclined to the usual mild form of scientific persecution mania. Since I know, that scientists have this disease I try to control myself and others as far as the symptoms of this disease are concerned. I asked Neider in detail about that. He, who liked Schlick, DID NOT DENY THE DESCRIPTION, but tried to explain the case, that Schlick in his finer style of life, feared always I could destroy the delicacy of a mood, e.g. when he was sentimental at Christmas tree occasions with music etc., whereas, as you know, I myself like a certain sentimentality and never take it badly, when other nice chaps are sentimental. I am only critical when bullying bosses, like Schlick behave sometimes overdelicately… that is rather comic and remembers me of some delicacies of famous persecutors… I do not want to overstate this subject. But, please, tell me a little more in detail, why the case Schlick did depress you so much, as far as I can see you are pitying Schlick more than me, and you are not speaking of HUMILIATION, but of arguments, points of view and such paraphernalia, which interest me never so much as human relations.

Poor Schlick, depressed by me… such an aggressive person, full of unfriendly habits, depressed, when a victim answers… Perhaps you looked at Schlick differently…

The second case, again HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CRITICISM. You wrote to Morris, of course you did not try to influence Neurath’s manuscript, because you know like others, howqwho violently herHsl. Einschub. reacts against criticism. Now I should expect you would tell me, when I behaved so, instead of that you tell the Moscow story. Please, my dear, dear friend, put yourself for one moment into my way of arguing: “I say, Carnap tells people I am furious when criticisedscriticises, that is too bad, I never did so”, what do you tell me? That I became furious, of course I do not deny that.

The other case, you dropped your name. I did not become furious because you criticised me, but because you made, what one calls an affront. You did not drop your name as Bloomfield published his paper, which many people do not think of sufficient value etc… Do you think my paper is worse? Dropping a name is a very serious action… But let us analyse the Moscow case. As I said, NOTHING TO DO WITH CRITICISM. I remember your warning very well. I surely did not regard our “reconciliation” as a diplomatic affaire, but I felt, that you did not realize, what 🕮 humiliation means to people, who want kindness and some acknowledged status within a circle of scientific friends in accordance with the work done and not with the position one reached in the hierarchy of the world.

Please, tell me, what you even today think an “exaggerated amount of credit” – you see I do not think that I asked you for a certain amount of credit (perhaps my memory deceives me and my files are, as you know with Hitler and his gang, i.e. somewhere in the hell, should they not reappear). I only wanted me properly quoted, otherwise my own papers would appear as a kind of Plagiarism. Please, believe me I am not very vain – I think rather somewhat under average. In any case: I do not design much energy to presenting myself, but I am much more interested in satisfying myself, discussing questions with others, etc. I dislike only that people are using my arguments without quoting me a little.

But that is not the point of irritation, but the feeling, that people would behave differently, when I were a “Bonze”, a “professor” etc. Perhaps I am wrong in that. And that is humiliating. Not because I need being quoted – I try to assure you that is not the point, but the feeling that I am treated less kindly than people in official positions, it is something unhuman in that. Perhaps you will show me, how wrongly I see that. I dislike very much, when people complain that one does not quote that or that and therefore usually I do not make even an occasional remark, because it looks as if one is interested too much in such little things. But perhaps it is sometimes useful to speak of that. And perhaps I can learn something from you. Let me include this case, then I shall continue the main line of my letter. Some day I read in Russell‚ howtHsl. Ersetzung von he. he wants to use the term “Protocol” and “Protocol statement” etc. I said to myselfume: strange so many people are using now this word, and in so different ways. How is that. One should look, how this word appears in various authors, since many people use it like a Schiboleth for Logical Empiricism. I know hardly a term of our movement so often mentioned with or without irony. Maybe it is only my hobby that I press this idea forward (I think it is a kind of key position – but that is my private matter), but IT IS HISTORICALLY USED BY AUTHORS WHO DISCUSS OUR MOVEMENT, even in such a little tractactus on modern philosophy as Laird’s booklet‚2Laird, Recent Philosophy. the Protocol statements appear, of course in B. Russell, L. Russell, Weinberg, Popper, even – in Carnap. OK. I open THE DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, which I used sometimes, and seek PROTOCOL, PROTOCOL STATEMENT, expecting to find a list of various usages of the word – nothing. I try other articles about Logical Empiricism – nothing about that. Do you think the EXPRESSION would disappear from the stage, if it were used by SCHLICK?

You see, I feel almost ashamed, when mentioning such trifles. And I do not think, that it is the non-quoting which irritates me, but the sign, that people do not respect me as a member of their community. Of course you cannot force people to accept you, but if that is connected with a certain disrespect it is grieving and irritating. You see e.g. I do not think that Feigl is a very important thinker, and that I need to bevbeing quoted by him – really not. But I sometimes thought we could 🕮 become friends, having scientific intercourse etc. I remember very well a long discussion, I think somewhere, perhaps Geneva, on INDUCTION. I told him about cross-induction, induction supporting one another etc. about logical problems etc. HE EVEN LATER ON, I THINK IN THE USA told me that he remembers our discussion, and how much it supported his thinking, how much he thinks that some remarks by Reichenbach are going into that direction – but Feigl never mentioned in his papers with one word this influence. I do not ask for telling this story – but I published sufficient papers, in which I touch this case, also on our congresses, the mildest way would be, to quote only such a statement saying, that his arguments are somewhat in contact with Neurath’s which he cannot accept, because etc… but this way of neglecting primitive rules of decent behaviour in the scientific society – I do not complain too much that, because it is usual – is grieving as long as you think of a person as a possible friend… Or another point. Feigl published a paper on LOGICAL EMPIRICISM.3Feigl, “Logical Empiricism”. I think there is nothing important in the fact, that I pressed this expression against Schlick’s tendency to support the James term “radical empiricism” etc. and that I did not succeed very much, but I think that I, to a certain extent, am one of the pillars of this movement, not only its “promoter” as people sometimes like to treat me.

If you are reading Feigl’s paper, you will find (I discovered that, as I wanted to note down, where he agrees with me, where not) that he almost CAREFULLY avoids to mention any of my many papers on logical empiricism and its foundations (I may be presenting unacceptable theories – that is not the point). He mentions me just as a sociologist, and – strange – did not even mention that I am the editor-in-chief of our encyclopedia. Please, do not tell me, that all that is “just by chance”… think one moment HOW A KINDLY PERSON MAY FEEL WHEN PEOPLE WHO ARE FRIENDS OR POTENTIAL FRIENDS apparently do not think of me, when writing something, where I play a part. That is grieving… Of course there exist other interpretations of this behaviour, which I try not to evolve. Not even for my own purpose. You see kindness and brotherhood are based on faithfulness and we should do, what we can, not to fe[e]d suspicion of any kind, even when based on well acknowledged material. Suspicion destroys brotherhood – you see how the communist party destroys brotherhood by suspicion and by other things of this type. Therefore, please do not think I want to say something against Feigl, and to stir up something. Not at all. I tell you only, how it looks, when people do not like to acknowledge somebody, as they would acknowledge him, if he were a big boss. I THINK IT VERY UNPLAUSIBLE THAT FEIGL WOULD TREAT ME IN THE SAME WAY IF I WERE A PROFESSOR OR SCHLICK IN PERSON, writing things of similar importance.

Perhaps I am “ein eingebildeter Laffe”, but I think that my scientific work, is not less than Schlick’s… But that does not interest me much. I do not speak of the treatment by other people, but ONLY WHAT A PERSON FEELS IF FRIENDS AND POTENTIAL FRIENDS DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE HIS EXISTENCE AS A MEMBER OF THEIR COMMUNITY…🕮

You are happy in saying that no further outbursts of that order appeared, I am happy to say that no further neglect of my scientific personality appeared of that order, but of smaller order – normally I should say. That is my fate. Let it go. Only in the next edition of the DICTIONARY, please insert PROTOCOL STATEMENT… It is not of importance, just a trifle…

You see, when some day Feigl will do something, which is an additional disregard of my person and I shall be more violent, than the moment asks for, please remember this my information, which is not a complaint, only a scientific analysis of my behaviour.

I am not saying you are “wrong”, but you wUnleserlicher hsl. Einschub. not thinking of human contacts as more important than other things. When you think that your conviction presses you to drop your name – I should really like to know, how such a conviction looks like – did you really think of the pain you inflict, if not, why not? And if, do you mind, when I think it unbrotherly to inflict such a pain not for making other people happy etc. but ONLY FOR SATISFYING YOUR CONVICTION? That is him Hekuba… I should like to know, how you see such things, perhaps here is the clue “von das Janze”. Sometimes I do not find through your attitude and your remarks.

I believe you, of course, when you tell me, how all these conflicts depress you, and howxwho you seriously analyse yourself, but I cannot understand, why you are not mentioning the point, I always stress:

Do you think it proper to hurt a friend only for the conviction’s sake? Whatythat are your convictions, compared with brotherhood, friendship and happiness? Do you think it is strange, what I say? I try to find a way to you and to lead you to me…

I do not speak of the cases in which you involuntarilyzunvoluntarily hurt other people – I do it very often, we are poor people, who do not sufficiently see other people’s impatience and pain… That we both have in common. But I should never say “may other people swallow aUnleserliche hsl. Ersetzung von your. pain, if I had to inflict it in accordance with my principles”. Never. Perhaps I shall “rationalize” unkind actions, by seeing people’s happiness increasing by my action etc., even my own – I do not pretend to be unselfish – but I should hardly sacrifice happiness to principles. What unhappiness could arisebarose from your name remaining on the title page – THAT AND ONLY THAT IS A QUESTION IN HARMONY WITH MY WAY OF LIFE… if you think this question is never yours, then we know where we stand. We shall be friends, but this basic danger of tension remains. I think you and I will try to avoid clashes, but it would be nicer if you were prepared to have together with me a common approach to brotherhood and friendship based on happiness.

I DO NOT THINK YOU ARE MILDER THAN I AM… AND I DO NOT THINK YOU ARE MORE PEACEFUL – as you think. Perhaps I shall agree with you after certain talks, but at the moment I only think, that I make more noise, that I am prepared to present emotions carelessly, etc., but I think that you are sooner prepared to put the pain of a situation on other people’s shoulders, IF YOU THINK YOU ARE IN YOUR RIGHT. I perhaps put heavy weights on people’s shoulders, but hardly by pretending that “I am in my right”. Perhaps occasionally, one never knows how one may behave, but in principle I do not have this way of arguing, but I guess you have it, and that is “unmild” in itself, “unpeaceful” in itself…🕮 I think it very important for my happiness – I do not know, whether it is for you of the same importance – to have an opportunity to look at human actions as far as kindness is concerned together with you IN A SIMILAR WAY, and therefore also at us; it is not the question that we should agree about our judgment, but that we may find some compromise in applying certain attitudes towards life, particularly towards friendship and community life…

You are speaking to me in your letter a little to[o] patronizing[ly], if you permit me to make this criticism. I think you takectakes all these emotional things too much as a kind of manner, and not as something connected with a comprehensive attitude towards life. You see most organizers – I have experience in that – try only to put something in motion, whereas I, I think some people call that sentimentality – try, sometimes not in vain, to create a kind atmosphere. Of course, where people react against that, I become unexpectedly for these people emotional. Reichenbach, to give an example, made me emotional, because I thought it not brotherly, how he treated you in the various cases, we had to discuss. And, I cannot deny, that his theoretical remarks looked perhaps more strange to me than they perhaps would do, if he were not so far away from brotherhood in a community, in principle. He is very often charming and I know very well how to go on with him in the nicest way… but I fear him, not as a scientist or debater, but as a person, who is not interested in creating brotherhood in this world.

I often – perhaps not seeing clearly – think, that theoretical remarks are covering dangerous attitudes. I know that is very dangerous field, but on the other hand it is something in it. In our movement I sometimes have the feeling that some members avoid discussing problems of decision, action etc. and are using logical analysis as a kind of escape from life. THAT IS NOT MY APPROACH. I am using Logical Empiricism as something that helps us going on more energeticdenergetical than before, more tolerant than before etc…

I should like some time to learn from you how you look at my activities and my work, when not looking at me only as an engine or a lion… sometimes I thought I had some wise arguments and important approaches to serve… But from your letter to Morris I know how low you regard my Aristotelian paper. Perhaps I shall agree with you when I have learned more about your arguments in detail. Not to go into detail people like me feel also as unkindness, when friends are involved, in other people’s behaviour I am not much interested. You see many people see themselves as member of the scientific republic, and in addition they have friends, I look first at friends and people who are potential friends, and then at the scientific republic…

I shall read, what you have to say about probability, with great interest. I only complain that you and others hardly go into the criticism we have to make… the same is with induction, semantics etc. Perhaps it is fruitful, to go on and not to discuss the problems on the border in detail… I should prefer the lat[t]er, also from movement’s point of view. Frank’s paper is fine, but I dislike howewho careless[ly] he speaks of “facts” “reality” etc. Of course avoiding bad consequences, but there are weak brothers…🕮

I am now waiting, what the various members of our movement will publish on the UNPREDICTABILITY problem. Some people who reacted vehemently against, as they started to show me, where my mistake is, did not succeed – but let us wait and see.

Of course Labour gives much hope and if they are able to have some success – e.g. less unemployment here than in the USA and get the next election again… then it is something in our future. But the international situation is terrible, extraordinar[il]y terrible. We do not know what the policy of the Russians is, but if they REALLY WANT, WHAT THEY DO – it is a sad thing – but if what they do, is not intended, it is also unpleasant, that they do not know better, how to act in accordance with promises, etc. Of course all governments are at the moment somewhat unpleasant as far as foreign policy is concerned – but the links between all the problems are difficult and often very dirty… such is life.

Laski has many good ideas. I think that he not always thinks how people take his remarks. Many difficulties come from that – unnecessary ones, as I think, and others. I heard him lecturing. Clever, at intense, but I am not so sure that he always “means business”. He is to[o] much connected with policy that he can say, he wants to say something only theoretically. Of course I could go into details, where I agree or disagree. But I do not know, what questions you have particularly in mind.

Glad that Tarski’s family is safe. I am very depressed by Hosiasson’s and Lindenbaum’s death. From Tschichold’s we had some lines, Fränzchen and wife are safe. That is all, we know. I did not hear of Popper’s Readership. That would be Hayek’s work, who is connected with him. He hopes apparently to get from him the supports he needs for his philosophical position. He is not satisfied with his antisocialism he wants to explain also his anti[-]logical[-]empiricism. With Popper he agrees, as he tells me whenever he has an opportunity to do so. In my mild way I try to have an exchange of articles with him. I treated his book as mildly as possible– it is rather a scandal, that a scholar publishes such a biased paper full of hardly provable statements. But like his colleague Mises– the economist – he is against socialist planning in any case… a sad figure on the social firmament; Popper, I guess, will support him in some way or another, or at least I shall not be astonished to see him acting in this way…

What about Grelling’s family? It is terrible how one is hampered in all attempts to come in contact with people in Europe. France, Switzerland, Holland is OK, the British-American zones permit some information, the Russian zone is sealed off completely.

We are going well, as usual, enjoying life. We have to enlarge our institute – too much work to do. And now I am thinking of our congresses again. Næss wrote me a nice letter. He escaped the Gestapo, a friend died, tortured but notfHsl. Einschub. telling his hiding place. What a world.

I hope you will write me a kind and brotherly letter,