Abstract
The composition of the Vienna Circle’s ‘manifesto’ — Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis — posed a threat, as indeed Neurath intended it should, to the philosophical hegemony of Schlick. The circumstances which made it a shrewd political move against him are well known.1 There has also been much insistence on the temperamental differences which made even personal relations difficult between Neurath and Schlick,2 differences somewhat similar to those which hindered the great majority of the Vienna Circle from developing relations with Wittgenstein.3 The attention given to the anecdotal aspect of these problems of personality has succeeded, however, in blurring the specific philosophical differences which separated Neurath from all the other members of the group, even in matters of editorial or cultural policy where Neurath aimed to present to the outside world an image of unity within the movement.4
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Cf. H. Neider’s testimony in ‘Memories of Otto Neurath’, ES, pp. 48–9. See also R. Haller and H. Rütte, ‘Gespräch mit Heinrich Neider, Wien: Persönliche Erinnerungen an den Wiener Kreis’, pp. 21 ff.
Cf. H. Neider, ES, pp. 47–9, 82–3.
R. Camap, ‘Intellectual Autobiography’, pp. 24–9.
Cf. K.R. Popper’s testimony in ‘Memories of Otto Neurath’, ES, pp. 51–6.
O. Neurath, Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung: Der Wiener Kreis, Wien: Artur Wolf, 1929, now in GpmS, p. 304, English trans. ES, p. 305. “The university teachers I had met so far - H. Neider recounts in his testimony — had been epistemologists and logicians. History, sociology, the history of science and mathematics were alien to them. Neurath, on the other hand, was a man of encyclopedic knowledge — hardly any field was alien to him and he had published in many. His bookshelves were filled with works by scientists, philosophers, poets, fathers of the church. There were theological reference books and publications on current affairs” (ES, p. 46).
O. Neurath, Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung: Der Wiener Kreis, [1929], GpmS, p. 304, ES, p. 305. Neurath’s manifesto ends with the following proposition, in italics: “Die wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung dient dem Leben und das Leben nimmt sie auf” (Ibid., GpmS, p. 315, ES, p. 318).
Ibid., GpmS, pp. 301–5, ES, pp. 301–5.
Ibid., GpmS, pp. 314–5, ES, p. 317.
Ibid., GpmS, pp. 307–8, ES, pp. 308–9.
Ibid., GpmS, p. 315, ES, p. 317.
Ibid., loc cit.
O. Neurath, ‘Zur Theorie der Sozialwissenschaften’, in Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich, 34 (1910), pp. 37–67, now in GpmS, pp. 23–46.
Neurath quotes the following books: P. Duhem, La théorie physique. Son objet, sa structure, Paris: Marcel Rivière, 1906 (German trans. Ziel und Struktur der physikalischen Theorien, ed. by F. Adler, Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1908, with a preface by E. Mach; English trans. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954); H. Poincaré, La science et Vhypothèse, Paris: Ernest Flammarion, 1902 (German trans. Wissenschaft und Hypothese, Leipzig: Druck und Verlag von B.G. Teubner, 1906; English trans. Science and Hypothesis, London and Newcastle-on-Tyne: Walter Scott, 1905).
In the Literaturhinweise, published as an appendix to the Vienna Circle’s manifesto, Neurath quotes in addition: H. Poincaré, La valeur de la science, Paris: Flammarion, 1904 (German trans. Der Wert der Wissenschaft, Leipzig: Teubner, 1906)
P. Duhem, L’évolution de la mécanique, Paris, Joanin, 1903 (German trans, by Philipp Frank: Die Wandlungen der Mechanik und der mechanischen Naturerklärung, Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1912).
O. Neurath, ‘Zur Theorie der Sozialwissenschaf ten’, Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich, 34 (1910), now also in GpmS, p. 45.
Ibid., loc. cit.
Ibid., p. 46.
Neurath refers to: W.S. Jevons, The Principles of Science, London: Macmillan, 1877
K. Pearson, The Grammar of Science, London: Adam and Charles Black, 1900; F. Enriques, J problemi della scienza, Bologna: Zanichelli, 1906 (English trans. Problems of Science, Chicago and London: Open Court, 1914).
O. Neurath, ‘Zur Theorie der Sozialwissenschaften’, [1910], GpmS, p. 44.
Ibid., loc. cit.
Ibid., pp. 44–5.
Ibid., p. 46.
Ibid., p. 45.
Ibid., p. 46.
O. Neurath, ‘Die Verirrten des Cartesius und das Auxüiarmotiv’, Jahrbuch der Philosophischen Gesellschaft an der Universität zu Wien 1913, pp. 45–59, now in GpmS, pp. 57–67, English trans. PP, pp. 1–12. Cf. R. Haller, ‘Das Neurath-Prinzip. Grundlagen und Folgerungen’, pp. 81–2.
O. Neurath, ‘Die Verirrten des Cartesius und das Auxiliarmotiv’, [1913], GpmS, p. 57, PP., p. 1.
Ibid., GpmS, pp. 58–9, PP, pp. 2–3.
Ibid., GpmS, p. 59 (“Auch das Denken bedarf der provisorischen Regeln in mehr als einer Hinsicht”), PP, p. 3.
Ibid., GpmS, p. 60, PP, p. 4.
Ibid., GpmS, p. 59 (“Wer eine Weltanschauung oder ein wissenschaftliches System schaffen will, muß mit zweifelhaften Prämissen operieren”), PP, p. 3.
Ibid., loc. cit.
Ibid., GpmS, p. 60, PP, p. 3.
Ibid., loc. cit.
Ibid., GpmS, p. 64, PP, p. 8.
Ibid., loc. cit.
O. Neurath, ‘Prinzipielles zur Geschichte der Optik’, Archiv für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der Technik, 5, (1915), pp. 371–89, now in GpmS, pp. 71–84, English trans. ES, pp. 101–12.
O. Neurath, ‘Zur Klassifikation von Hypothesensystemen’, Jahrbuch der Philosophischen Gesellschaft an der Universität zu Wien 1914 und 1915, pp. 39–63, now in GpmS, pp. 85–101, English trans. PP, pp. 13–31.
O. Neurath, ‘Prinzipielles zur Geschichte der Optik’, [1915], GpmS, p.74.
Ibid., p. 72.
Ibid.,p. 84.
Otto Neurath, Anti-Spengler, München: Georg D.W. Callwey, 1921, now in GpmS, p. 188, English trans. ES, p. 203.
O. Neurath, ‘Prinzipielles zur Geschichte der Optik’, [1915], GpmS, p. 73.
Ibid., loc. cit.
O. Neurath, Anti-Spengler, [1921], GpmS, particularly pp. 182–96, ES, pp. 197–213.
On Spengler’s philosophy of history see, most recently, W. Dray, Perspectives on History, London: Rouüedge and Kegan Paul, 1980, pp. 99–124.
O. Neurath, Anti-Spengler, [1921], ES, p. 199 (“Wie Schiffer sind wir, die auf offenem Meer ihr Schiff umbauen müssen, ohne je von unten auf frisch anfangen zu können. Wo ein Balken weggenommen wird, muß gleich ein neuer an die Stelle kommen, und dabei wird das übrige Schiff als Stütze verwendet. So kann das Schiff mit Hilfe der alten Balken und angetriebener Holzstücke vollständig neu gestaltet werden, aber nur durch allmählichen Umbau”, GpmS, p. 184).
Ibid., GpmS, p. 183, ES, p. 198.
Ibid., GpmS, pp. 183–4, ES, p. 198.
Ibid., GpmS, p. 184, ES, p. 199.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zolo, D. (1989). Enlightenment, Neo-Marxism, Conventionalism: Towards a Critique of Cartesian Rationalism. In: Reflexive Epistemology. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 118. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2415-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2415-4_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7588-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2415-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive