Perhaps you felt discouraged, when reading my letter, because I wrote it in a rather helpless mood. But let us go on and try – first of all, I have not the slightest doubt, that you and I would help one another when in danger, further, that we are pleased by our personal contact, etc. Nevertheless there are manifestly some serious differences in outlook, which we as kind people should analyze for finding some compromise. Of course, should you be against compromise as such, then it becomes a difficult matter.
It is so, that I complain about you, violating me by grieving me and you complain about me, violating you by overstepping self-defence. Would you think I am not in harmony with your own stories, when saying, that you did not tell of any case in which I first violated you? Please think about this point, please.
And now I shall try to be analytic and to be restrained, not giving names from the beginning. I think, that you should tell me
(1) which are the points in my paper, which forced you to withdraw your name. You did tell me about that in the most vague terms only and looking through my paper I cannot discover things sufficiently bad.
(2) withdrawing a name is so serious an action, that I assume, that you can tell me what detrimental effects for our movement, readers, mankind as a whole you expected from your name being on the paper.
(3) if this is so serious, and your name on the paper would give too much authority to my bad paper that it becomes more dangerous, then why did you make the concession, to indicate the withdrawal to be – as you think – hardly conceivable, as you wrote me.
(4) do you really think that my paper is worse than all the others, e. g. Bloomfield’sPBloomfield, Leonard, 1887–1949, am. Linguist about which many people complainedacomplaint to me?aKsl. ja.
Please, be kind enough to answer these four questions. I do not conceal, that your behaviour looks less like an action made for the common good of readers, mankind, movement but rather like an action, which has to satisfy your own conscience only, without being made for the common good and the common happiness. I confess, that up to now I looked at this ambiguous behaviour as I look at certain actions suggested by Moral Theologists or Talmudists, who first give certain strong rules for satisfying the conscience and then tell how to make the strongness not too strong, again satisfying the conscience, but in both cases not telling us, how the happiness of the human brethren is increased by the suggestions and actions they are producing.
You see, I myself do not like the continental “Aussprachen haben”, but then I see, that the continental atmosphere is forcing us to have them and therefore I try to make the best of it. The fact that you are writing long letters shows me, that you take the matter seriously, as I do it, and that even InaPCarnap, Ina (eig. Elisabeth Maria immacul[ata] Ignatia), 1904–1964, geb. Stöger, heiratete 1933 Rudolf Carnap comes down from the high Olympus, the silent goddess to bring the thundering heroes together before they start sitting sulkingly in their respective tents shows me, that also she thinksbHsl. Einschub. things become serious and that she thinks we should take care of our friendship and come to some kind solution.bKsl. ja.
After answering the above questions please try to think a little about me as a human brother, who has his difficulties and whom to help would be a friend’s task. You speak of “reconciliation”, that is not the right word for making the situation better, when one of the partners does not feel being in a feud, but being “humiliated”. I have seen so many human careers that I am entitled to say it is extremely difficult to alter the atmosphere of humiliation.
You see, when you tell me and others, that I am terrible in my outbursts, that is not humiliating – EVEN IF IT WERE NOT AN ACCEPTABLE DESCRIPTION. But I feel, as if you put away the basic elements of my life, when you are spreading the legend that I become furious, when criticized in my arguments, in my style, etc., as you did writing to MorrisPMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris.
Look, all my life I have two important pillars of my behaviour; to reserve a considerable part of my life to purely humane relations, kind relations, friendship, love, enjoying reading, looking at landscapes, etc., making people happy and becoming happy by being treated in a kind way. The other pillar is to take nothing for granted (without exception) and being prepared to alter anything which I do not regard as “folklore” (I should not be interested in altering trousers or ties etc.) i. e. my arguments, my style, etc. that is the reason, why so many people are astonished with what extraordinary preparedness I am accepting suggestions dealing with my style, dealing with my arguments. It is normal, – there are many witnesses of that – that I say to people less educated than I am, alter the wording, if you think it better understandable. My publishers tell me how nice I am, never being angry when a “reader” of the office makes suggestions. I think it just characteristic that I never have an outburst, when people suggest alterations. Imagine that such a mythos, propagated by you (perhaps other people started with that and you accepted it without taking care of proving it – I have no idea) inflicts pain.
I think – you know it is difficult to get a picture of the own person – that I collected sufficiently data, which tell me, that I designed much energy and efforts to these two parts of my fabric, and succeeded. The number of friends is increasing – I should say rapidly, when looking at the long letters from so many people, who talk over private problems etc. Apparently people, who are not afraid of me and my “outbursts”. But – perhaps that indicates something – they are in the vast majority non-Germans, they are Dutch, English, etc. Further I have many examples showing me that people, who first felt themselves irritated by my – very often badly noisy – behaviour dropped one day this being irritated and go on nicely with me — AFTER THEY DISCOVERED WHERE THE DIFFICULTY IS. And it is mainly in the feeling of humiliation, which people create in one another. Outbursts are not so bad, but outbursts which are originated from the humiliation feeling and outbursts whichcHsl. Ersetzung von who. create humiliation feeling.
WHEN YOU ARE WRITING TO MORRISPMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris THAT I BECOME VIOLENT WHEN CRITICISED I BECOME REALLY FURIOUS, because I feel it as denunciationddenounciation, based on NOTHING, as far as I can judge.
In your last letter you are writing that you wrote that to MorrisPMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris, mainly for reducing his possible sorrow that he did not protest. Imagine, my dear Carnap, how that humiliates me. You are thinking of his pain, not in the same way of mine, (1) inflicted by taking away the responsibility from MorrisPMorris, Charles W., 1901–1979, am. Philosoph, verh. mit Trude Morris, – I assumed he did, what necessary, I giving him FREE HAND, as letters show – and in 🕮{}(2) inflicting another by telling him about my outbursts‚cKsl. am oberen Blattrand Ich teilte ihm nichts mit, sondern erwähnte nur, was er selbst schon wußte.. when criticised. YOU DID NOT ANSWER THIS SERIOUS, VERY SERIOUS REMARK OF MINE, but started telling me, what I never denied, that I am violent in self-defence.
The way, in which you are criticizing my overstepping self-defence, is for me again humiliating, why? You are not much concerned with what SchlickPSchlick, Moritz, 1882–1936, dt.-öst. Philosoph, verh. mit Blanche Guy Schlick did, but you speak in general of the fact, that both parties have something to say etc. THAT IS JUST THE WAY TO AVOID THE FRIENDLY ANALYSIS OF THE VICTIM’S FATE. What comes out: YOU are the victim, because you had one of the most depressing experiences.
When analysing SchlickPSchlick, Moritz, 1882–1936, dt.-öst. Philosoph, verh. mit Blanche Guy Schlick’s behaviour towards me, you would discover a continual tendency to humiliate and attack me.dKsl. (übertrieben). Whereas I, as you remember, did much for preparing the booklet for praising his coming back to Vienna. From my side not the slightest tendency to attack him.
About his extraordinary rude and humiliating behaviour I have FrankPFrank, Philipp, 1884–1966, öst.-am. Physiker und Philosoph, verh. mit Hania Frank, Bruder von Josef Frank as a witness, as we discussed my “SOZIOLOGIE”.1Neurath, Empirische Soziologie. If he did suggest far-reaching changes as an equal to an equal I wouldeshould never have reacted irritatedly, but he behaved like a big boss who has a right to bully me and to treat me like a school boy. Perhaps I am an “eingebildeter Laffe”, but I do not regard my work so much less, than his and EVEN IF IT WERE SO, I ASK FOR THE NORMAL RESPECT BETWEEN SCHOLARS.
I never got such a kind of cold humiliation in my life‚eKsl. (übertrieben). than from him. Scene in the circle: WaismannPWaismann, Friedrich, 1896–1959, öst.-brit. Philosoph, verh. mit Hermine Waismann suggested to me, I should some day tell about my points of view, he had spoken with SchlickPSchlick, Moritz, 1882–1936, dt.-öst. Philosoph, verh. mit Blanche Guy Schlick and a certain day he agreed. SchlickPSchlick, Moritz, 1882–1936, dt.-öst. Philosoph, verh. mit Blanche Guy Schlick introduced me – WITHOUT ANY CONFLICT IN THE AIR – with words of this kind: I do not know, what Dr. Neurath has to tell us and what he really wants, but he likes to speak to us, please start, etc. COLLEAGUES OF THE CIRCLE WERE REALLY STARTLED BY THAT AND TOLD ME SO AFTERWARDS.
How SchlickPSchlick, Moritz, 1882–1936, dt.-öst. Philosoph, verh. mit Blanche Guy Schlick behaved at other occasions, you know perfectly well. His last paper read in French at our congress in Paris, spoke of EINHEITSWISSENSCHAFT – without any provocation – as an ugly word.fKsl. ist das so schlimm. Fortunately the rather stupid translator translated “Einheitswissenschaft” into SCIENCE UNITAIRE – and now nobody knows, why that is ugly. ETC.
NeiderPNeider, Heinrich, 1907–1990, öst. Verleger, who liked SchlickPSchlick, Moritz, 1882–1936, dt.-öst. Philosoph, verh. mit Blanche Guy Schlick, did never deny all that, but only tried to explain it by telling me, that the overdelicate and sensitive man always feared that I could touch his sentiments etc. I told NeiderPNeider, Heinrich, 1907–1990, öst. Verleger how much I personally like to be sentimental and never disturb other people’s sentimentality, if not connected with brutality, as it sometimes is.
I do not deny that I exploded when SchlickPSchlick, Moritz, 1882–1936, dt.-öst. Philosoph, verh. mit Blanche Guy Schlick behaved badly, I never denied that, but you should be a good friend and tell me, what the other side can say for HUMILIATING me.
The same is in your own case. Not-quotingfHsl. Ersetzung von The non-quoting. me belongs to the humiliating things in many cases.gKsl. am unteren Blattrand Meint er vielleicht Vorwort zu „Semantik“?…. The not regarding a person as sufficiently important, that his remarks have to be taken seriously. One may use them, but why quote them. 🕮{}You say, both sides have to tell their story. You never told me, why you thought it right not to quote me. Your story always starts AFTER THE ACTION, whereas I speak of the beginning, too.
Look, I always fear that I, like other scholars, could fall into the mean and poor scientific persecution mania.hKsl. Ja, sehr!. Therefore I suppress my anger in such cases, very often, saying to me – it is by chance etc. But if such cases increase in number I become angry. Look at the following example. FeiglPFeigl, Herbert, 1902–1988, öst.-am. Philosoph, seit 1931 verh. mit Maria Feigl wrote a paper on Logical Empiricism. Do you think anybody reading this paper, will discover that I had a certain position in its history? I do not speak of the acceptability of my hobbies, protocol statements, index verborum, etc. but of the fact, that in MANY BOOKS, even in LairdPLaird, John, 1887–1946, brit. Philosoph’s little introduction to modern philosophy I am acknowledged as somebody of a certain validity within this movement. It is particularly interesting to note, that I fought for LOGICAL EMPIRICISM against SCHLICKPSchlick, Moritz, 1882–1936, dt.-öst. Philosoph, verh. mit Blanche Guy Schlick, who wanted RADICAL EMPIRICISM– the term used by JamesPJames, William, 1842–1910, am. Philosoph. And I was against that, because JamesPJames, William, 1842–1910, am. Philosoph this half-Bergsonian boy with so much obscurantism should be treated kindly by us, because he taught us a lot, but never as a kind of authority, whose name proposals should be accepted. Please, look to the article by FeiglPFeigl, Herbert, 1902–1988, öst.-am. Philosoph, seit 1931 verh. mit Maria Feigl. He just put me into SOCIOLOGY – that is all. He does not even mention me as the initiator and editor-in-chief of the encyclopedia. DO YOU THINK HE WOULD TREAT ME SO IF I WERE PROFESSOR, not to ask the question, what he would have donegdid with all that if I were SchlickPSchlick, Moritz, 1882–1936, dt.-öst. Philosoph, verh. mit Blanche Guy Schlick. Such things are normal. I analyzed some day – I WAS NOT INVOLVED – the big book of an author, who indicated he would not quote others (in the English way) but tell his story. He was PIVATDOZENT, and sometimes a name appears, and – believe it or not, almost all names were the names of the professors of his university, where he hoped to get a professorship. Nice, as I am, I never published that in a review or so. I never complaint about FeiglPFeigl, Herbert, 1902–1988, öst.-am. Philosoph, seit 1931 verh. mit Maria Feigl. I am not regarding him as very important or influential, but for a long time I regarded him as a potential friend. I FEEL IRRITATED AS A FRIEND. You see, many years ago I had with FeiglPFeigl, Herbert, 1902–1988, öst.-am. Philosoph, seit 1931 verh. mit Maria Feigl a very fundamental talk about INDUCTION, particularly about cross-inductions etc., inductions supporting one another etc. FeiglPFeigl, Herbert, 1902–1988, öst.-am. Philosoph, seit 1931 verh. mit Maria Feigl himself told me in USA about that, how much he learned from me that day and how certain remarks by ReichenbachPReichenbach, Hans, 1891–1953, dt.-am. Philosoph, he likes, go in this direction etc. But FEIGLPFeigl, Herbert, 1902–1988, öst.-am. Philosoph, seit 1931 verh. mit Maria Feigl never quoted me in his induction papers. Please, believe me “Es liegt mir stagelgrien auf” whether he quotes me or not (that is not the case with CARNAP, RUSSELLPRussell, Bertrand, 1872–1970, brit. Philosoph, etc.), but a potential friend should not humiliate me …He could e. g. quote some of my many remarks on induction, as it were, to be kindly and perhaps – CORRECT, too. I have no idea, how you look at FeiglPFeigl, Herbert, 1902–1988, öst.-am. Philosoph, seit 1931 verh. mit Maria Feigl’s paper on Logical Empiricism as far as he describes my activities in this movement. Perhaps you think it is just OK. Please, tell me, what you think about that.iKsl. Feigl folgt nicht diesen Werturteilen; es ist ihm ganz gleichgültig, ob einer Professor ist..
This kind of behaviour I think somewhat irritating. If some day FeiglPFeigl, Herbert, 1902–1988, öst.-am. Philosoph, seit 1931 verh. mit Maria Feigl will get an “outburst”, then he and others think that the Neurath is quickly irritated, whereas it is the outburst which covers many, many subjects …You see I am fighting even that in me, and I am fighting becoming suspicious, 🕮{}because that disturbs friendship and love. But it is not always simple to overcome this feeling. Imagine, some day I read in RussellPRussell, Bertrand, 1872–1970, brit. Philosoph, how he uses the word Protocol etc. and I thought strange, how many different definitions exist …And I looked into RUNESPRunes, Dagobert D., 1902–1982, öst.-am. Philosoph dictionary. I could not find the term PROTOCOL at all. Strange. Then later on I discovered that it is under BASIC. But there I found various variations, BUT NOT MY OWN.jKsl. und hsl. Doch, seine würde ich klassifizieren als sentenc. über perceptions.. I never speak of observation, sensation etc., but I start from sentences with certain types of words in, which belong to certain classes etc. Further. Do you think the various articles together in RUNESPRunes, Dagobert D., 1902–1982, öst.-am. Philosoph enable a person to know, what I have to say? You are e. g. not quoting my protocol-article nor any other, except on physicalism.kKsl. am oberen Blattrand Doch, Dein „Le Dével.“ genannt p. 285; in diesem Artikel „Scientific Empiricism“ ist keine Veröffentlichung von Schlick oder Carnap genannt! Im Artikel „Physikalismus“ ist Neurath als erster genannt.. You see I should look at me as over-suspicious, if I did not have the Moscow affaire, the FeiglPFeigl, Herbert, 1902–1988, öst.-am. Philosoph, seit 1931 verh. mit Maria Feigl article etc. I should say so: my friends and potential friends do not regard me as much important within their circle – except as far as I act as a kind of manager…OK. Let them. But it is somewhat humiliating, when on the other hand, OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT SO CLOSELY RELATED TO ME mention my work – as I think – properly. All that is not worth whilehwile, if our atmosphere were kind and homely, which it is not.
That the BONZEN ideology is very normal, I know, but why also within our movement, which I thought should try to be more free and less hard than others, the pluralism with its tolerant features, etc. humane and kind relations should be possible here, contacts etc. more than in other places of our planet … I do not think you are “milder” than I am or more “peaceful” – as you think – I only make more noise than you. But I am, in principle, prepared to think of other people’s happiness, mine included (I am not unselfish), but you, as far as I can read your arguments, you are thinking in terms of “right”, “correct”, “duty”, etc. which is far away from being kind and friendly, thinking of human happiness as a central item. You think – as far as I can see – that if you are in the right, other people’s unhappiness is not counting much. If you are “just” the victim may bear his pain with courage etc., etc. Perhaps You see yourself differently. I am really waiting, how you will answer question (2). What human happiness you improved by making me unhappy, when dropping your name. THAT IS MY QUESTION. Can you indicate that you improved the happiness of mankind, some people etc. by inflicting unhappiness, then I shall think over the whole matter in a different way. Up to now I rather feel, that – SHOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT, I AM NOT SURE OF THAT – you were in the position as a “correct” man to inflict pain. Which I think a very sad attitude, indeed …not only as far as friends are concerned.
This is a “Platonic” attitude, I should say. I am against this attitude, even if I did not appear as a victim. And differences in ATTITUDES are really dangerous, because they create often tensions. Please, believe me, that I am so fully prepared to find a living compromise, that I shall not be too hard in my attitude towards this Platonism, which I – to be frankly – dislike enormously and which I think is 🕮{}something unpleasant in your otherwise charming habits.
Of course, I shall do what I can to avoid clashes, but please, when you writeiHsl. Ersetzung von writing. me a kind letter, try also to tell me, that you are not untouched by these my remarks on your Platonic or Puritan or how you may call it attitude. Please. But even if you cannot drop that – I shall try to be as nice as possible to you …It werejOriginal is. only simpler, when you could have a similar attitude with all its muddling through … I hope we shall now discuss within our movement also such problems of attitude closely connected with pluralism, unpredictability, which – I hope so – will be discussed now, after I published my opinions as bluntly, as possible, and since they are of some importance – even if not acceptable to some of you.
Of course, Labour gives some hope, e. g. in housing. But the USA attitude makes everything difficult, and the Russian attitude, too. I do not know, what the Russians are driving at, but if they want to do, what they are doing – what a terrible future before mankind. Perhaps much of that harsh behaviour is a kind of higher muddle, let us hope so.
LaskiPLaski, Harold, 1893–1950, brit. Ökonom und Politiker has many good ideas. But as a chairman of a party, he should a little more distinguish between topical politics and general attitude …I heard him lecture. I am not so sure, that he always “means business”. I should like to go into details, if you kdidask me concrete questions, dealing with him.
Glad that TarskiPTarski, Alfred, 1901–1983, poln.-am. Mathematiker und Logiker’s family is safe. How terrible Hosiasson’sPHosiasson-Lindenbaum, Janina, 1899–1942, poln. Logikerin, verh. mit Adolf Lindenbaum and Lindenbaum’sPLindenbaum, Adolf, 1904–1941, poln. Logiker, verh. mit Janina Hosiasson-Lindenbaum death. I remember how they met one another and gradually became accustomed to one another, e. g. in Paris. I liked them and enjoyed their happiness.
No, I do not know of PopperPPopper, Karl Raimund, 1902–1994, öst.-brit. Philosoph, verh. mit Josefine Popper’s Readership. Probably HayekPHayek, Friedrich August, 1899–1992, öst.-brit. Ökonom’s influence. He likes him very much indeed and I think PopperPPopper, Karl Raimund, 1902–1994, öst.-brit. Philosoph, verh. mit Josefine Popper will support HayekPHayek, Friedrich August, 1899–1992, öst.-brit. Ökonom in his attacking Logical Empiricism.lKsl. am unteren Blattrand Was hat HayekPHayek, Friedrich August, 1899–1992, öst.-brit. Ökonom gegen Logischen Empirismus geschrieben? ist das in seinem Buch über Ökonomik? Ich habe es nicht gelesen.. I, for peace and happiness, suggested to HayekPHayek, Friedrich August, 1899–1992, öst.-brit. Ökonom we should arrange a published symposium and not attack one another brutally. I wrote my review as restricted as possible, but I think he is a fanatic with much bias … Some of his remarks are rather a kind of scandal – I think so. But peace is something of importance.
We now get letters from Holland, France etc. …Nothing from people in the Russian zone, only from people outside the Russian zone, which is “sealed off”.
We are enjoying life, having many nice contacts, a very nice correspondence with many people, enlarging our institute etc. NæssPNaess@Næss, Arne, 1912–2009, norweg. Philosoph wrote me nicely, he escaped, but his friend died, tortured, but not telling of Næss’PNaess@Næss, Arne, 1912–2009, norweg. Philosoph hiding place. He hopes we shall have our next congress at OSLO. Let us hope so … Now I am expecting a particularly nice and kind letter from you, answering the famous four questions and telling me about your attitude and whether it is really so Platonic, as I see it.
Be sure of my intention to calm down ill feeling and to discover a pleasant way of a pleasant compromise, if we cannot reach a more common basis of happiness and humanity.
