Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Ernst Mach – Life, Work, Influence pp 501–523Cite as

Mach, Jerusalem and Pragmatism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook ((VCIY,volume 22))

Abstract

Ernst Mach’s positivism, it is argued in this paper, may be regarded as a version of pragmatist philosophy of science. Already James’s biographer Perry detected such tendencies in Mach and this is confirmed here by close attention to Mach’s early works, esp. History and Root of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy and The Science of Mechanics. Both Mach’s principle of the economy of thought and his principle of scientific significance are shown to bear out his pragmatism. A similar conclusion is shown to hold for the philosophy of Wilhelm Jerusalem already long before he became the translator of James’s Pragmatism into German. But while Jerusalem early on relied perhaps even more than Mach on evolutionary theory for promptings of pragmatist insights, he soon too linked them, as Mach had all along, to broadly sociological observations concerning the condition of human cognition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On the German reception of pragmatism see Oehler (1977), Joas (1992), Dahms (1992), Ferrari (2006), Uebel (2014). For the different reception of pragmatism in France and Italy see Ferrari (2013).

  2. 2.

    For the role of pragmatist elements in Rudolf Carnap’s thought early and late see Carus (2007) and in his mature philosophy see Richardson (2007); for the role of pragmatism in the later thought of Philipp Frank see Uebel (2011) and in the earlier thought of Frank, Hans Hahn and Otto Neurath see Uebel (2015).

  3. 3.

    See Putnam (1994). Note that this characterization says nothing about metaphysics and, likewise, does not proscribe all dichotemies and allows for variation in how they are bridged. For a good overview of pragmatism see Hookway (2008/2013).

  4. 4.

    It is in this minimalist sense too that some of Mach’s heirs in Vienna continue his pragmatism.

  5. 5.

    See the often-quoted letter to his wife, 2 November 1882, e.g. in Thiele (1978, p. 169).

  6. 6.

    Perry also noted about Mach that “his last work approached closely to the pragmatist position” (Perry 1936, p. 588); presumably he meant Erkenntnis und Irrtum of 1905. Note also that in 1903 Mach had dedicated the third edition of his Popular Scientific Lectures, containing seven new essays, to William James and retained the dedication for the fourth edition in 1910.

  7. 7.

    Mach to his Danish colleague Anton Thomsen, 21 January 1911, in Blackmore and Hentschel (1985, p. 86; trans. TU). In a letter of 4 September 1909 Mach remarked to Thomsen, after praising James’s Principles of Psychology (1890): “That James tends towards passionate enthusiasm [Schwärmerei] and spiritism has to be weighed against his other achievements.” (Ibid., p. 63)

  8. 8.

    See Ferrarri (2014).

  9. 9.

    A correction is needed here: James did not mention Simmel in Pragmatism, but Jerusalem did in his “Translator’s Preface” (1908c, p. v); for the relevance of Simmel for Jerusalem see Uebel (2012).

  10. 10.

    Mach repeatedly declines being bracketed with philosophers (e.g. 1886/1897, p. vii) but—whether like his later admirer Otto Neurath—he liked the association or not, his reflections on science simply do count as philosophical by all normal standards.

  11. 11.

    See Mach (1882/1943, 1883/1960, Ch. 4, Sect. 4, 1884/1943, 1896/1986, Chs. 25–34, 1905/1976, passim).

  12. 12.

    The English translation obscures Mach’s historical side-taking by speaking merely of “clearing up ideas” to get rid of “metaphysical obscurities”.

  13. 13.

    Mach himself dated it to the early 1860s; see (1883/1960, p. 591)

  14. 14.

    “Historical studies are a very essential part of a scientific education. They acquaint us with other problems, other hypotheses, and other modes of viewing things, as well as with the facts under conditions of their origin, growth and eventual decay. Under the pressure of other facts which formerly stood in the foreground other notions than those obtaining today were formed, other problems arose and found their solutions, only to make way in their turn for the new ones that were to come after them. Once we have accustomed ourselves to regard our conceptions as merely a means for the attainment of definite ends, we shall not find it difficult to perform, in the given case, the necessary transformation in our own thought.

    A view, of which the origin and development lie bare before us, ranks in familiarity with one that we have personally and consciously acquired and of whose growth we possess a very distinct memory. It is never invested with that immobility and authority which those ideas possess that are imparted to us ready formed. We change our personally acquired views far more easily.” (1896/1986, p. 5)

  15. 15.

    On Herrmann, see Haller (1986).

  16. 16.

    In his 1882 Vienna lecture he stated: “The atom must remain a tool for representing phenomena, like the functions of mathematics.” (1882/1943, p. 207).

  17. 17.

    What he called “phenomena” (1872/1911, p. 61) were his later “elements”, e.g. (1882/1943, pp. 208–210).

  18. 18.

    To be sure, Mach sometimes speaks in a seemingly more dogmatic tone, as in the paragraph of The Science of Mechanics beginning with “Nature is composed of sensations as its elements.” and ending with “Properly speaking, the world is not composed of ‘things’ as its elements, but of colors, tones, pressures, spaces, times, in short what ordinarily we call individual sensations” (1883/1960, p. 579). A deflationist reading has to read “nature” and “world” here as indexed to the scientific perspective. (Likewise with the claim “There is no cause nor effect in nature; nature has but an individual existence; nature simply is” (ibid., p. 580).) And the translation “Only in the mind, therefore, does the mutual dependence of certain features exist” (1882/1943, p. 199) misleads for “the mind” replaces a demonstrative pronoun standing for “our schematic imitation”. Whether the merely deflationary intention can be upheld by his theory of elements is another matter, of course, but see Haller (1980) for a sympathetic anti-phenomenalist reading that also stresses the only hypothetical character of the economical descriptions aimed for. It may also be stressed that Mach’s elements are not Tractarian atoms: “Experience shows us the elements as dependent on one another.” (1910/1992, p. 118)

  19. 19.

    Compare: “To save the labor of instruction and of acquisition, concise, abridged description is sought…. By communication, the experience of many persons, individually acquired at first, is collected in one.” (1882/1943, p. 193)

  20. 20.

    “The goal … is the simplest and most economical abstract expression of facts.” (1882/1943, 207)

  21. 21.

    See Holton (1992/1993, p. 10–11) and Ryan (1989).

  22. 22.

    See the letter from James to Mach of 17 June 1902 in Thiele (1978, p. 171).

  23. 23.

    In his Pragmatism James himself said that Peirce’s principle “lay entirely unnoticed by any one for twenty years” (1907/1963, p. 24) until he “brought it forward again” in a paper of his own of 1898.

  24. 24.

    In consequence Peirce sought to distinguish his own understanding of the principle by calling the resultant doctrine “‘pragmaticism’ which is ugly enough to be safe from kidnappers” (1905/1958, 186). Likewise Dewey criticized James’s Pragmatism in his (1908).

  25. 25.

    See Wiener and Peirce in editorial preface to Peirce (1905/1958) and Dewey in (1925). For a clear comparison of Peirce and James see Hookway (2008/2013).

  26. 26.

    For a biography and comprehensive treatment of his views see Eckstein (1935), for a recent overview and analysis of his contribution to the sociology of knowledge see Uebel (2012).

  27. 27.

    See Kusch (1995).

  28. 28.

    The correspondence was started when Jerusalem sent him a copy of his Die Urtheilsfunction (1895) and James “acknowledged its importance and his measure of agreement with it” Perry (1936, p. 580).

  29. 29.

    See Jerusalem (1925, pp. 32–33).

  30. 30.

    In these passages Jerusalem also called upon similar ideas in (Simmel 1900, pp. 58–66), which built on ideas first expressed in (Simmel 1895). In later years, however, Simmel was critical of pragmatism: see Ferrari (2006).

  31. 31.

    Later, in his own Preface to Pragmatism, Jerusalem gently suggested that James’s remarks on truth needed to be recalibrated.

  32. 32.

    See Jerusalem (1908a, b, 1909a, 1910, 1913).

  33. 33.

    For his part, Mach mentioned “the nearness” of his views to those of Jerusalem in Der kritische Idealismus in the Preface to the second edition of his Erkenntnis und Irrtum (1905/1976, p. xxxv; cf. ibid., p. 83) and credited it to their shared biological-evolutionary perspective. Mach also contributed a paper to a Festschrift for Jerusalem with an affectionate preface recalling “the time when you used to visit me in the evenings so as to allow this recluse to participate in the events of the world, especially the philosophical ones” (1915, p. 154).

  34. 34.

    See also Jerusalem (1895, passim), (1899, pp. 77–80), (1902, pp. 89–91), (1909b/1925, pp. 142–143).

  35. 35.

    Literally meaning “thickening”, “increase of density” and “compression” in technical contexts and “condensation” in figural contexts, the translators of Ludwik Fleck who twice quoted the term from Jerusalem used “consolidation” (1935/1979, pp. 47, 172), while the translators of Freud who also used the term used “condensation”; see Laplanche and Pontalis (1967/1980, p. 83).

  36. 36.

    See Köhnke (2005). The characterisation of Völkerpsychologie given here—which restores it against much misrepresentation of varying sorts—is his.

  37. 37.

    The term Verdichtung does not, however, appear in Section 4.4 of Mach (1882), which is dedicated to the same topic, the economy of science, though the process and result designated by it is very well described there.

  38. 38.

    Simmel too used the term, albeit in writings of his not mentioned by Jerusalem, and without mentioning Lazarus; for Simmel’s relation to Lazarus see Köhnke (1990).

  39. 39.

    For instance by Friedrich Adler in his German translation of Duhem’s La théorie physique, son object et sa structure which has him speaking, with reference to Mach, of “laws being condensed (verdichtet) in theories” (1906/1978, p. 24).

  40. 40.

    See Jerusalem (1895, p. 150). In his later translation of James’s Pragmatism, Jerusalem used the term “verdichtet” for “funded” as in “funded truths” and “experience funded” (1907/1994, pp. 142, 148, 170).

  41. 41.

    By contrast, Mach stressed to the end that abductive reasoning does not legitimate switching into talk of entities of an entirely different category: “The conceptual compilation of facts is certainly what makes a compendious natural science possible, since without it an endless, immense, scarcely usable number of facts would exist. But it does not follow from this that the conceptual system must include much more or something wholly different from the individual facts of sensation accounted for; it still includes them, only ordered, only ordered perspicuously.” (1910/1992, pp. 123–124, orig. emphasis, trans. altered).

  42. 42.

    For Peirce’s criticism of Mach see also Erik Banks’s contribution to this volume.

References

  • Blackmore, John, and Hentschel, Klaus (eds.). 1985. Ernst Mach als Aussensseiter. Machs Briefwechsel über Philosophie und Relativitätsphilosophie mit Persönlichkeiten seiner Zeit. Vienna: Braumüller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carus, André. 2007. Carnap and Twentieth Century Thought. Explication as Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dahms, Hans-Joachim. 1992. “Positivismus und Pragmatismus” in D. Bell, H.. Vossenkuhl (eds.) Science and Subjectivity, Berlin: Akademieverlag, pp. 239–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, John. 1908. „What Does Pragmatism Mean by Practical?“ The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 5, pp. 85–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, John. 1925. “The Development of American Pragmatism.“ Studies in the History of Ideas 2, 353–372. Repr. in The Late Works of John Dewey 1925–1953, Vol. 2 (ed. by J.A. Boydston), Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1984, 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckstein, Walter. 1935. Wilhelm Jerusalem. Sein Leben und Wirken. Vienna: Vrlag von Carl Gerolds Sohn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, Massimo. 2006. “Da sponda a sponda. ‘Spirito tedesco’ e ‘tecnica americana’.” In M. Nacci (ed.), Politiche della Tecnica, Genova: Name, pp. 189–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, Massimo. 2013 “Pragmatism and European Philosophy: The French-Italian Connection.” In M.-C. Galavotti et al (eds.) New Directions in the Philosophy of Science, Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, Philipp. 1929–30. “Was bedeuten die gegenwärtigen physikalischen Theorien für die allgemeine Erkenntnislehre?” Die Naturwisswenschaften 17 (1929): 971–977 and 987–994, also Erkenntnis 1 (1930): 126–57. Transl. in Frank, Modern Science and Its Philosophy, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1949, pp. 90–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haller, Rudolf. 1980. “Poetische Phantasie und Sparsamkeit. Ernst Mach als Wissenschaftstheoretiker.“In Festkolloquium am 12. November 1979: 20 Jahre Ernt-Mach-Institut 1959–1979, Freiburg, pp. 20–48. Repr. in Haller, Fragen zu Wittgenstein und Aufsätze zur österreuichischen Philosophie, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988, pp. 70–87, and R. Haller and F. Stadler (eds.), Ernst Mach. Werk und Wirkung. Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1988, pp. 342–355.. Trans.“Poetic Imagination and Economy. Ernst Mach as a Theorist of Science“in J. Agassi and R.S. Cohen (eds.), Scientific Philosophy Today, Dordrecht: Reidel, 1981, pp. 71–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haller, Rudolf. 1986. “Emanuel Herrmann. Zu einem beinahe vergessenen Kapitel österreichischer Geistesgeschichte” in Haller, Fragen zu Wittgenstein und Aufsätze zur österreichischen Philosophie, Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988, pp. 55–68. Trans. “Emanuel Herrmann. A Neraly Forgotten Chapter of Austrian Intellectual History“in W. Grassl, B. Smith (eds.), Austrian Economics: Historical and Philosophical Background. London: Croom Helm, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haller, Rudolf. 1988. “Grundzüge der Machschen Philosophie.“In R. Haller and F. Stadler (eds.), Ernst Mach. Werk und Wirkung. Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky 1988, pp. 64–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, Gerald. 1992. “Ernst Mach and the Fortunes of Positivism.“Isis 83: 27–69, repr. in Holton, Science and Anti-Science, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993, pp. 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, Gerald. 2003. “From the Vienna Circle to Harvard Square. The Americanization of a European World Conception.“In F. Stadler (ed.), Scientific Philosophy. Origin and Developments, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 47–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Hookway, Christopher. 2008. “Pragmatism.“Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, updated. 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, William. 1896. “The Will to Believe.“New World 5. Repr. in James, The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, New York, 1897. Trans. Der Wille zum Glauben und andere populärphilosophische Essays, Stuttgart: Fromann, 1899.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, William. 1898. “Philosophical Conceptions and Practical Results.“The Univeristy Chronicle (Berkeley, California). Repr. in James, Collected Essays and Reviews (ed. By R.B. Perry), New York, 1920. Also in W.P. Alston and G. Nakhnikian (eds.) Readings in Twentieth-Century Philosophy, Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1963, pp. 12–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, William. 1907. Pragmatism. A New Name for some Old Ways of Thinking. New York/London: Longmans, Green & Co. Repr. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1991. Trans. Pragmatismus. Ein neuer Name für alte Denkmethoden (trans. W. Jerusalem). Leipzig: Klinkhardt, 1908. Repr. Hamburg: Meiner, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, Wilhelm. 1888. Lehrbuch der empirischen Psychologie. Wien: Braumüller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, Wilhelm. 1895. Die Urtheilsfunction. Eine psychologische und erkenntnistheoretische Untersuchung. Wien: Braumüller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, Wilhelm. 1897a. “Ernst Machs ‘Populärwissenschaftliche Vorlesungen’.” Neue Freie Presse 27 August, Vienna. Repr. in Jerusalem, Gedanken und Denker, Wien: Braumüller, 1905, pp. 185–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, Wilhelm. 1899. Einleitung in die Philosophie. Wien: Braumüller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, Wilhelm. 1900, „“Ernst Nachs ‚‘Analyse der Empfindungen‘.“Neue Freie Presse, 5 August. Repr. in Jerusalem, Gedanken und Denker, Wien: Braumüller, 1905, pp. 194–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, Wilhelm. 1902. Lehrbuch der Psychologie. Wien: Braumüller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, Wilhelm. 1905. Der kritische Idealismus und die reine Logik. Ein Ruf im Streite. Vienna: Braumüller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, Wilhelm. 1908a. “Der Pragmatismus”, Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 25th January. Repr. in Jerusalem, Gedanken und Denker. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Neue Folge. 2nd ed. Vienna: Braumüller, 1925, pp. 130–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, Wilhelm. 1908b. „Philosophenkongress in Heidelberg.“Die Zukunft, 10th October, pp. 55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, Wilhelm. 1908c. “Vorwort des Übersetzers.” In James 1907/1979, pp. iii-x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, Wilhelm. 1909a, “Apriorismus und Evolutionismus.” In Th. Elsenhans, (ed.), Bericht über den III. Internationalen Kongress für Philosophie zu Heidelberg, 1. bis 5. September 1908, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1909, pp. 806–815.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, Wilhelm. 1909b. “Soziologie des Erkennens”. Die Zukunft 15 May 1909. Repr. in Jerusalem, Gedanken und Denker. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Neue Folge. 2nd ed. Vienna: Braumüller, 1925, pp. 140–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, Wilhelm. 1910a. “William James”, Die Zukunft, 5th November. Repr. in Jerusalem, Gedanken und Denker. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Neue Folge. 2nd ed. Vienna: Braumüller, 1925, pp. 154–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, Wilhelm. 1913, “Zur Weiterentwicklung des Pragmatismus.” Deutsche Literaturzeitung 34: cols. 3205–3226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, Wilhelm. 1916. “Ernst Mach.” In Die Zukunft, 24 June. Repr. Jerusalem, Gedanken und Denker. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Neue Folge. 2nd ed. Vienna: Braumüller, 1925, pp. 202–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, Wilhelm. 1925. Gedanken und Denker. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Neue Folge. 2nd ed. Vienna: Braumüller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joas, Hans. 1992. “Amerikanischer Pragmatismus und deutsches Denken. Zur Geschichte eines Missverständnisses.” In Joas, Pragmatismus und Gesellschaftstheorie, Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 114–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Köhnke, Klaus Christian. 1990. “Four Concepts of Social Science at Berlin University: Dilthey, Lazarus, Schmoller and Simmel.” In M. Kaern, B.S. Phillips, R.S. Cohen (eds.), Georg Simmel and Contemporary Sociology, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 99–107.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Köhnke, Klaus Christian. 2005. “Einleitung des Herausgebers.” In Lazarus, Grundzüge der Völkerpsychologie und Kulturwissenschaft (ed. by K.C. Köhnke). Hamburg: Meiner, pp. ix–xxxvii

    Google Scholar 

  • Laplanche, Jean, and Pontalis, J.B.. 1967. Vocabulaire de la Psychoanalyse, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Trans. The Language of Psychoanalysis, London: Hogarth Press, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, Moritz. 1862. “Verdichtung des Denkens in der Geschichte. Ein Fragment.” Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft 2: 54–62. Repr. in Lazarus, Grundzüge der Völkerpsychologie und Kulturwissenschaft (ed. by K.C. Köhnke). Hamburg: Meiner, 2005, pp. 27–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien. 1910. Les fonctions mentales dans les societes inferieurs. Paris. Trans. Das Denken der Naturvölker. Wien: Braumüller, 1921, 2nd ed. 1926.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusch, Martin. 1995. Psychologism. A Case Study in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, Ernst. 1872. Die Geschichte und die Wurzel des Satzes von der Erhaltung der Arbeit. Prague. Trans. History and Root of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy, Chicago: Open Court, 1911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, Ernst. 1882. “Die ökonomische Natur der physikalischen Forschung.” Wien. Trans. “The Economical Nature of Physical Inquiry” in Mach, Popular Scientific Lectures, Chicago: Open Court, 1893, 5th ed. 1943, repr. 1986, pp. 186–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, Ernst. 1883. Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch dargestellt. Leipzig: Brockhaus. 9th ed. 1933. Trans. The Science of Mechanics, Chicago: Open Court, 6th ed. 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, Ernst. 1884. “Über Umbildung und Anpassung im natutrwissenschaftlichen Denken.” Vienna. Trans. “On Transformation and Adaptation in Scientific Thought” in Popular Scientific Lectures, Chicago: Open Court, 1893, 5th ed. 1943, pp. 214–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, Ernst. 1886. Beiträge zur Analyse der Empfindungen. Leipzig: Fischer. Trans. Contributions to the Analysis of Sensation, Chicago: Open Court, 1897

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, Ernst. 1896. Die Principien der Wärmelehre. Leipzig: Barth, 2nd ed. 1900. Trans. Principles of the Theory of Heat, Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, Ernst. 1905. Erkenntnis und Irrtum. Leipzig: Barth. Trans. Knowledge and Error. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, Ernst. 1910. “Sinnliche Elemente und naturwissenschaftliche Begriffe.“Archiv für geammte Physiologie 136: 263–274. Trans. „Sensory Elements and Scientific Concepts“in J. Blackmore (ed.), Ernst Mach—A Deeper Look. Documents and Perspectives, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1992, pp. 118–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mach, Ernst. 1915. “Einige Experimente über Interferenz, insbesondere über komplementärfarbige Interferenzringe.“In Festschrift für Wilhelm Jerusalem zu seinem 60. Geburtstag von Freunden, Verehrern und Schülern, Vienna: Braumüller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oehler, Klaus. 1977. “Einleitung.” In 1977 edition of Jerusalem’s translation of James 1907, pp. ix*–xxxiv*.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, Charles S. 1877. “The Fixation of Belief.” Popular Science Monthly 12: 1–16. Repr. in Peirce, Chance, Love and Logic. Philosophical Essays (ed. by M.R. Cohen), New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1923, pp. 7–31. Also in Peirce, The Essential Peirce Vol. I (ed. by the Peirce edition project), Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, Charles S. 1878. “How to Make Our Ideas Clear.” Popular Science Monthly 12: 286–303. Repr. in Peirce, Chance, Love and Logic. Philosophical Essays (ed. by M.R. Cohen), New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1923, pp. 32–60. Also in Peirce, The Essential Peirce Vol. I (ed. by the Peirce edition project), Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992, pp. 124–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, Charles S. 1902. “Pragmatic and Pragmatism.” In J.M. Baldwin (ed.) Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, New York, Vol. II, pp. 321–322. Repr. in H.S. Thayer (ed.), Pragmatism: The Classical Writings, New York: Times Mirror, 19??, pp. 180–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, Charles S. 1905. “What Pragmatism Is.” The Monist 15: 161–181. Repr. in P.P. Wiener (ed.), Values in a Universe of Chance. Selected Writings of Charles S. Peirce, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1958, pp. 180–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, Charles S. 1934. “On Selecting Hypotheses.” In Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. 5: Pragmatism and Pragmaticism (ed. by C. Hartshorne and P. Weiss), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, Ralph Barton. 1936. The Thought and Character of William James. As revealed in unpublished correspondence and notes, together with his published writings. Volume II Philosophy and Psychology. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, Hilary. 1994. “Pragmatism and Moral Objectivity.” In Putnam, Words and Life (ed. by J. Conant), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 151–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, Alan. 2007. “Carnapian Pragamatism.” In M. Friedman and R. Creath (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Carnap, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 295–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, Judith. 1989. “American Pragmatism, Viennese Psychology.” Raritan 8: 45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, F. C. S. 1906. “Jerusalem, Der kritische Idealismus und die reine Logik“, International Journal of Ethics 16, pp. 391–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, Georg. 1895. “Ueber ein Beziehung der Selektionslehre zur Erkenntnistheorie. ” Archiv für systematische Philosophie 1: 34–45. Trans. “On a Relationship between the Theory of Selection and Epistemology” in H. C. Plotkin (ed.), Learning, Development and Culture, New York: John Wiley, 1982, pp. 63–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, Georg. 1900. Die Philosophie des Geldes. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. Repr. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiele, Joachim (ed.). 1978. Wissenschaftliche Kommunikation. Die Korrespondenz Ernst Machs. Kastellaun: Henn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uebel, Thomas. 2011. “Beyond the Formalist Criterion of Cognitive Significance: Philipp Frank’s Later Antmetaphysics.” HOPOS 1: 47–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uebel, Thomas. 2012. “But is it Sociology of Knowledge? Wilhelm Jerusalem’s ‘Sociology of Cognition’ in Context.” Studies in East European Thought 64: 265–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uebel, Thomas. 2014. “European Pragmatism? Further Thoughts on the Austro-German Reception of American Pragmatism.” In M.C. Galavotti et al (eds), New Directions in the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 627–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uebel, Thomas. 2015. “American Pragmatism and the Vienna Circle: The Early Years.” Journal of the History of Analytical Philosophy 3.3: 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaihinger, Hans. 1911. Die Philosophie des Als Ob. Leipzig: Meiner.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophy/School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Thomas Uebel

Authors
  1. Thomas Uebel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Uebel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute Vienna Circle, University of Vienna, Vienna Circle Society, Vienna, Austria

    Friedrich Stadler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Uebel, T. (2019). Mach, Jerusalem and Pragmatism. In: Stadler, F. (eds) Ernst Mach – Life, Work, Influence. Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, vol 22. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04378-0_36

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation