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

What an extraordinary show. A letter from you. RES AD TRIARIOS VENIT – as we classical scholars were accustomed to say when sitting in our benches in the Gymnasium. Nun wirds ernst – I think it very wise of you to interfer. Impartiality is not needed – only interest in the subject. How to bring friends together to prevent them from hurting one another. That is a real goal. And I appreciate it very much, that you will do something in this field. Mary is always active in the same way, but the situation is not so simple. Neither Carnap nor I have the slightest intention to increase the difficulties, both of us want to go on in friendship, but there are apparently serious difficulties. Let us analyse them and perhaps find some way out. I think you have a good manner in handling the matter. Let us hope the best. I feel somewhat helpless after all the letters, but I do not reduce my efforts – on the contrary. And your support is of importance, perhaps also, because you are an Austrian aud you understand perhaps better my way of life. But, what should we try to do seriously? You are touching most important problems. I think that one should accept another person’s saying, nothing hurting was intended. But I should not accept another person’s saying: “When I am right in going on as I want, it is the other person’s job to overcome unjustifiedaunjuditified sorrow”. If you are accepting that – please, do it, I not. It is not, because I do not want to bear this pain – I should be prepared to bear much pain for friendship’s sake, BUT I AM NOT PREPARED THIS ATTITUDE, NOT EVEN IF IT WOULD NOT TOUCH ME. I think here you are touching the main point.

That is just, what I think of Carnap’s attitude, which may be a Wuppertal attitude, he does not put happiness and kindness as such in the centre, but correctness, and if that is assured, then have people the duty to overcome their pain. IbIT FIGHT THIS ATTITUDE WITHOUT RESTRICTION…That does not imply that I fightcfighting Carnap without restriciton, but it is not a point of occasional difference, it is fundamental.

Yes, as far as this general atmosphere of brotherhood is concerned, I am very touchy. I do not deny that. Why should I not be touchy? I want to see kindness around me – I am so often unkind, and other people are so often unkind, that we at least should never ACCEPT a principle, which permits unkindness. In my discussions on prison institutions, I see, that very few people think IMMEDIATELY kindly. Here much more, than on the continent, in spite of the greater cruelty of the prisons here. Just the puritan attitude is hard…When the MexicansdMexikans permit husbands to have their wifes for 14 hours in the prison as guests – I think it kind and nice. 🕮

Why not discussing that here in Parliament? Etc., People think, if one has a right to punish people, everything is OK…Whereas that is not the point for me. What unhappiness grows up in prison life, how much family life may be destroyed etc. it is a happiness aspect…And that I think is needed for our talks, that ONLY HUMAN HAPPINESS APPEARS AS SUBJECT OF DISCUSSIONS, NOTHING ELSE. And I think it will need some serious mediationemediatation for Carnap and me, to find a common basis. It is a problem of WAYS OF LIFE not of ps.fIm Original ps, eventuell auch zu lesen als p’s. and something about deduction etc.

By the way, I do not think that I try to bully people to agree with me, rather to reach a point, where people say, some matter remains unsolved, where they liked to put forward a solution. But maybe that I am to sharp in discussions. That does not touch the question of hurting one another. I AM IMMEDIATELY PREPARED TO DROP BULLYING, IF I PERFORM IT. I HAVE NOT REASONABLE ARGUMENT FOR IT…Bad manners. What I complain is that Carnap’s behaviour unfortunately is more serious as bad manners, which to accept I am obliged, because my own are not very good, indeed:

I am against coercion, and if in my behaviour is much coercion, I am prepared to readjust myself wholly, through and through – whether I shall succeed, that is another question, but I should be thankful for any remark into my ear “Hello, just coercion is starting”…But what I need is a similar declaration by Carnap about “hurting other people, when being right”. Is he prepared to drop this as a principle.

I do not know, whether I am applying coercion also in my letters, and papers. It is remarkable, that people react against my papers and letters, exactly as people do, when I speak directly. Look at Joad, etc. answering our Plato article, what a sharp and aggressive tone, whereas our article – as people told me – is rather mild. I have another explanation. Many people FEELgFELL SUBCONSCIOUSLY THAT MY ATTITUDE TOWARDS LIFE, DECISIONS IS NOT ACKNOWLEDING THEIR ATTITUDE, and that is something irritating. People who harmonize with me, do not feel my bad manners so disturbing. I have cases in which people ALTERED THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARDS LIFE and the very same persons, who could hardly bear me before and started crying and shouting, are now unirritated and say sometimes: why so much noise, or something like that… I am more and more of opinion, that irritation is partly based on DIFFERENCE IN ATTITUDE TOWARDS LIFE…Differences in creed, faith, opinion etc. doctrine, science, etc. are negligible compared with differences in the WAY OF LIFE. When I think a friend of mine talks nonsense then he FEELS that I accept his attitude but not his nonsense, but in other cases he feels, that I think his attitude towards life DANGEROUS. And that irritates people – and I understand that. It is depressing, really depressing, for both partners. I am seriously 🕮 interested in that, as a private person and as a sociologist. I have often to lecture on problems of community life connected with planning, socialism, housing etc. and I know therefore all these arguments much better than before.

That overpowering by noise and persistency may be uncomfortable, but seems to be not much IRRITATING, as long as it is not connected with a disregard of the other person’s way of life. Today I guess that Carnap felt for all these years, that I appreciate him, that I admire his work, that I think him a faithful and good friend, but that I – often subconsciously – do not accept his attitude towards life, etc. what one calls sometimes “ethics”. Of course there are not always big problems to solve, only certain daily problems – but even then one feels the difference. E.g. Carnap’s sense for “order in itself” for “reasons” etc. is something I think Platonic, i.e. dangerous. Perhaps I tell a story, which moved me much and it is a story without any unkindness as such.

Arriving in Paris from Brussels together with Carnap, the Ticketcollector tells me, that my ticket is not OK, it is not the French, but the remainder of the Belgian ticket, I told him I gave everything to the BelgianhBelgium official and that is what he returned to me. The ticketcollector asks for the man with the red cap. The man with the red cap, comes and saysisaid: OK. Carnap and I leave the Station. Reaching our taxi Ija feel in my pocket a ticket – the French ticket. As a polite person I return toka give it to the ticket collector; she thanks me very much for my kindness. Carnap: “Nun aber verstehe ich schon gar nichts mehr, die Beamtin hält Dein Billet für unbrauchbar, sie ruft den Beamten vom Dienst, der sagt, Du kannst gehn. Nun war das Billet ja doch falsch.” “Ja‚[”] sage ich, [“]Sie rief ihn doch nur, um mich durchzulassen.” [“]Ja aber, was sollte er dabei tun?” “Ja, siehst Du‚[”] sage ich, [“]das hat nichts mit Regeln zu tun, er hat mich halt angekuckt und sich gedacht [‘]Schaut so ein Schwindler aus?[’] Und nachdem er das negativ beantwortete hatte, war alles in Ordnung, ohne Legitimierung meinerseits ohne Ausfüllung eines Formulars, wie das in Deutschland lin üblich ist. Sag Carnap ists nicht menschlicher?[”] Ich glaube er schüttelte sein Haupt über die Unverständlichkeit der Welt in Frankreich. Perhaps I do not remember the details correctly, Carnap knows such things better. But for me is his attitude RIGID, PLATONIC, ANTIHUMANE – even when he is kind and unagressive, but he does not – that is my guess – acknowledge a community life based on OCCASIONAL MUDDLING THROUGH WITHOUT PRINCIPLES. That is him too uneasy – and for me wonderful. The more of this type, the better…No discussions, no higher principles, a kind solution…Dr. Eisenmenger the former physician of Franz Ferdinand tells a story from Egypt. Cook. A German tourist complains that he had to put his box into the ship without receipt – that is English, as you know – and that itmhe disappeared. The official of Cook, remaining silent, listening to the shouting German, says very formally: “value?” The German astonished, answered: 200 Pounds. “Well, you will get the 200 pounds, should the box not be here within one hour”. It arrived within one hour. Eisenmenger says, that on the continentncon-🕮 forms would be filled, witnesses heard, statements made, investigations made and after months etc. perhaps…What I prefer this British attitude, I should guess that Carnap or people of his breed, would like to have some organize procedure, some rules, findings etc…Or let me say so: I should GUESS that Carnap belongs to the OTHER group and I think this OTHER group indirectly DANGEROUS, as far as our life and that of our children is concerned.

I assume, that you feel, what I want to transfer to you. Tell what you think of that. Not, whether Carnap would in this case prefer the procedure or the other way, but whether you think it reasonable, that I amoare always feeling this principle of order, system, etc. in LIFE as something dangerous and that I rather think Carnap in favour of that – of course without accepting any cruelty etc. That I do not assume.

You see I am not think[ing] of Carnap as a bad friend – it is I think that I think of him as a good friend, but as a being with a different view, which I think dangerous, and therefore I feel somewhat uneasy FROM START. That is also when I am reading his scientific papers. I always fear that his tendency to create pyramids leads him to assumptions, which I think rather unfounded – but that is not irritating me, but in the field of human relations it is not so simple to deal with people, who do something, one thinks indirectly dangerous.

Now about “professional” and “personal” decisions – you are agreeing with Carnap about that. I do not know this separation at all and I think that some of the worst things are made in the world by expending this point of view. It belongs to the Platonic-Prussian attitude. Here you have a point, which we can discuss without any irritation, because it is a general problem.

I think ALL OUR DECISIONS CAN BE REGARDED AS DECISIONS DEALING WITH HAPPINESS. And I should prefer to be in a country, where I may expect this attitude as a not abnormal one, when speaking with officials, officers, teachers, custom clerks, tax collectors, scientists, physicians, etc.

There does not exist for people in such an environment a separation from professional decisions and friendship. That does not imply, that one does always help a friend against conscience, NOT AT ALL, how often we shall sacrifice our own or other people[’s] comfort for helping other people, but some can think ALWAYS OF THE HAPPINESS OF ALL PEOPLE INVOLVED.

I know of British officer, who as commanderpcommmanders of an internment camp, where writing letters in a certain way was not permitted, thought that against human feelings and therefore asked the internees to give him the letters and he would post them as his owns. He did it OPENLY. All other officiers and soldiers knew that. HE DID NOT EXPECT THAT THIS BEHAVIOUR WOULD REDUCE OBEDIENCE OR DISCIPLINE. A German officier would separate his personal feelings for the internees from his professional decisions, but if he should not be able to “überkommen den inneren Schweinehund” then he would conceal that, not destroying the authority etc. For him is professional duty first, personal feelings second, whereas the British officerqofficers more often puts alle together and looks, what 🕮 will come out from that. Please, tell me, what you think about this point. IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT. We brotherhood democrats, think that in the last instance the executive organs should do, what they do because they accept it, not only because it is ORDER.

I have no idea, really not, what kind of arguments influenced Carnap to drop his name from the Encyclopedia when my paper appeared, but not when Bloomfield’s paper appeared, what unhappiness would be created indirectly or directly in the world if his name were on the monograph. I HAVE NOT THE SLIGHTEST IDEA. Only from a purely formalist point of view – i.e. Platonism, Prussianism – I can understand that. The editor’s RIGHT is to read all papers, I did not get the paper, otherwise I had induced Neurath to alter something, nowrno I am not able to do so – a mistake by the Press in not sending the proofs to the editors as usual – therefore I am in my RIGHT to drop my name, why should I be responsible for Neurath’s bad paper etc… WHAT IS THE UNHAPPINESS WHICH COULD BE ENDANGERED BY THE NAME CARNAP ON THE TITLE PAGE.

Peraps you will tell me that, I should appreciate it very much, if you could help me in understanding his action FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, or is it only understandable from Platonic and Prussian point of view? Then I have to say nothing more. Let us hope that we have not too much such differences.

I should really like to get explained Carnap’s action in the terms of human brotherhood. The happiness of a friend is of the same importance as any other happiness, e.g. the unhappiness of a reader who reads my paper and takes it seriously, because Carnap’s name is on the title page, whereas now he takes it less seriously…and therefore he does not reach the unhappy consequences connected with reading my paper in a serious way. THAT IS AN ARGUMENT ACCEPTABLE FOR ME. But no argument that tells me of Carnap’s RIGHT to do something or an abstract editorial decision etc…Nothing happens in an empty space…That is my attitude. And so I make my decisions as editor, reviewer etc. And I know that Carnap very well know[s] how to take care of other people’s sensitiveness, e.g. Morris, Schlick, etc…I do not complain so much his action in this context but, this kind of deplorable arguments, deplorable from my point of view “right”, “professional decisions not mixed up with personal decisions” etc., what a mess in my eyes… I agree wholly with you “The zealous Lutheran from Prussia” (Just “Lutheran” in Carnap’s case?) but, please, my dear Ina, do not overlook that saying that to me, is like saying to me “The man who prepares the soil for concentration camps etc.”. That is, what I think, my being irritated through Carnap may be connected with the feeling that I have to endure the attitude which indirectly helped Hitler and his gang getting the support of people, who sincere in their “intentions” did think in SCHEMES and not in direct approach to happiness. It is the fight against the German 🕮 atmosphere connected with my outbursts, that is what I guess, more and more. It is not so much a personal thing, it is the protest of a different community against the people with the rigidity of rights and such things, the persecutor of the German type…THIS IS ONLY A BORDER PHENOMENON, and of course I do not say that Carnap is politically unsound or dangerous, on the contrary, I am sure of his attitude, but this general way-of-life tendency belongs to the dangerous group. And his dropping the name appears to me as something rigid, unhumane in general and particularly against a friend. And since we are now discussing the matter seriously – which I do not like very much – I hope Carnap will now tell me

(1) what he criticizes in my paper. He only spoke in very general terms, not sufficient for a jury.

(2) and what disadvantages he expected from his remaining on the title page for our movement or the happiness of mankind. He did not even indicate that. And I confess that this not telling me, why it was in the interest of other people, irritated me very much. This “auf sein Recht pochen” is against all my feelings…If Carnap did tell me, what badsEventuell auch sad. consequences he expected when remaining on the title page, I were sorry indeed, but I do not think an outburst would be the result.

If you would say to me, it is every person’s “right” to be a zealous Prussian or not – then I tell you that endangered people who are not prepared to bear sufferings without rebuff do not agree with you…People who are supporter[s] of this dangerous atmosphere should try to alter their outlook…I must tell you, that it is an exception, when a German agrees with me, that the German intellectual and emotional atmosphere is dangerous since a century (not German blood or something like that). I am doubtfoul what Carnap will tell me about this point.

WHEN CARNAP IS INFLICTING BLOWS IN THE NAME OF “SCIENCE, IMPARTIALITY AND SUCHLIKE GODS” then I really think that we have not much in common, as far as our ways of life are concerned, I am just elaborating that all these “gods” are the source of persecution directly or indirectly, any kind of AUTHORITY, which is absolute is dangerous, only brotherhood and kindness are, I think so, items I shall accept as basic arguments. Impartiality – Das i nit loch.1Wiener Dialekt für „Dass ich nicht lache“. Comic idea that there is some judge, who knows what is just, partial etc…And how often is impartiality unkind…But fearing partiality creates pain. What to do…that is just the problem of brotherhood. Therefore Christ’s aggression against people who are endangering marriage, but on the other hand asking people to throw the first stone on the sinner if without sinstHsl. Einschub.…No consistency. OF COURSE NOT. You want love, friendship, democracy AND CONSISTENCY. Muddle will you get…only with muddle-love, friendship and democracy are tractable. That I guess is the situation…Let us speak about that.

You tell me that he like a Roman emperor kills his own son WITH GRIEVE, whereas I thought the grieve was not so great. It was very great as you tell me. That is nice of Carnap, but does not alter the fact that he is killing his son, because the DUTY, one of the GODS asks for that. Kleist, 🕮 DER PRINZ VON HOMBURG, sacrificing human beings for a conviction etc. See the same in GOETHE IPHIGENIE. It is always the same story…And the Iphigenie and Homburg motive is just, what I FIGHT, FIGHT…Without and with emotion.

You say Lutheran – do you know what that implies? Ina, my dear Ina. Luther preached to persecute the Jews, to destroy their synagogues etc., etc. He suggested to kill the peasants, one less or more, should not matter. He fought his religious adversaries without restriction, in the whole one of the few REALLY TERRIBLE people, one should never sayuthey of a man “just a Lutheran” as: one may say: a Quaker, or a Negro, or a Londoner…It is serious and hard to say that.

You speak again of his “professional” act…damned professional act, but please, be kind enough and induce him AT LEAST TO TELL ME, WHY HE THOUGHT IT SO IMPORTANT FOR THE FUTURE OF THE ENCYCLOPEDIA, or whatever of his things, he regards as important, to drop his name. Instead of telling me in a “professional way” of the REASONS of the dropping in detail, he wrote me again about MY EMOTIONS, MY ACTIONS etc. in cases, where he thinks I was in the “right”, but getting to[o] far in my DEFENSIVE, whereas our case is, that CARNAP HURT ME, and DID NOT TELL ME IN A PROFESSIONAL WAY, WHAT HE THOUGHT SO BAD IN MY PAPER, and SECONDLY WHY HE THOUGHT IT USEFUL FOR MOVEMENT, MANKIND etc., when dropping his name. I said this already above, I repeat these two questions. I think the answer to thesevthis two question[s] would introduce a more calm rhythm into our correspondence and since I really want to avoid future tensions – whatever the result of my appeal at Carnap’s humane feelings may be – I THINK THIS ANSWER IS ESSENTIAL, and I think very reasonable in the eyes of correct men. You say, I should at worst take his behaviour as misjudgement – do you not think he should at least me tell the reasons of his judgement? Please, try to get at least this answer from him.

I can imagine how terrible it was for Carnap to be in bed for so long a time. He is more adapted to controlling his movements than I myself, but even for a well disciplined man it is a torture. I hope some day I shall meet you both in New Mexico – you are not telling me of the people there, of new friends etc. – and also your dog. One of our collaborators has a dog, who comes with her and is lying down on the floor in her working room. Then there are visiting cats. In spring we shall have flowers etc. in our garden, which is not so great than in the other house.

We enjoy the life here. Nice people. Yesterday e.g. an old man comes, telling that he found a telegram for us under his door, wrongly put there. And “very sorry” for us, and saying so, presenting a basket full of big apples. A kind of consolation. We did not see the man before. He asked how we liked our new mansion, and he told that he is 40 years at the spot visa-vis…🕮 Similar things happen here.

Jørgensen is well, Næss, too as I wrote Carnap. So many sad events, Lindenbaums…how do you know, that they are dead? They first escaped into different zones. H[osiassion] to the North, L[indenbaum] to the south…Do you know anything about Łukasiewicz, Chwistek…What will do Łukasiewicz with his nationalism? And what Scholz with his adaptability towards Nazidom? What a world. The purification process will be terrible again. The half collaborator will accuse the full collaborator, and the half-collaborator will be accused by etc., etc. The emigrants will say: people who did not try to escape, the remaining people: escaping emigrants etc. A find world.

Everything is difficult now. Many thanks for enclosures. I am always thankful for newspaper cutttings, prospects etc. We have again a big library, big files etc. a real secretarial staff etc. Now we shall try to have more international contacts again… I hope some day I shall write a book on the problem, how empiricism appears within our social life as an element of it. It is a difficult educational problem. The pluralism of the start very often leads weak people to laziness, whereas the important point is to learn ENERGETIC DECISIONS AND ENERGETIC ACTIONS, combined with pluralism in arguing…The tolerance of free people may be based on this empiricism as common background. There is not much space for enthusiasm as such, not sacrifice for something “higher”, some “god”, etc. but for kindness, brotherhood – and of course unorganized unkindness, unbrotherhood…as usual, but not unkindness as a duty performed by kind people…That implies a clear description of empiricism and of action. Of course the unpredictability plays a central part in that, the lack of a pryamidic structure of science etc…MUDDLE forms the main features of our private and public life, indeed. Being rigid, knowing, what is right, thinking one is impartial, all that seems to be a kind of superstition to an empiricist. Now you see, how all my attitudes are interlinked… I hope very much to get a fine letter from Carnap and a fine letter from you. You are touching some of the vital spots, therefore I hope you will be able to support our coming together without sleepless nights.

With love from Mary and me to both of you