Writing a Revolution: On - Specialized Research AI at MIT

Writing a Revolution: On
the Production and Early
Reception of the Vienna
Circle’s Manifesto

Thomas Uebel
University of Manchester

Considerable unclarity exists in the literature concerning the origin and au-
thorship of Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis, the
Vienna Circle’s manifesto of 1929 and on the extent of and the reasons for
the mixed reception it received in the Circle itself. This paper reconsiders these
matters on the light of so far insufªciently consulted documents.

The year 1929 is of particular signiªcance in the history of the Vienna
Circle. It saw what for ªve years had been an informal academic discus-
sion group “step out” and assume a notable public proªle as a revolution-
ary philosophical movement with a distinctive socio-historical and cul-
tural grounding.1 As matters are commonly remembered nowadays, this
proªle was attained by the publication of a short programmatic brochure,
Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis (“The Scientiªc Concep-
tion of the World. The Vienna Circle”), which ªrst bestowed upon this
group its now common name. But the publication of this brochure was
but one of several moves initiated from within this group and designed to
procure an audience for its new philosophy. Another of these moves was
the organization of the First Conference for the Epistemology of the Exact
Sciences, where this brochure was ªrst presented and distributed. It also
was no coincidence that 1929 was the year in which the group succeeded
in retaining its nominal leader, Moritz Schlick, despite his having received
an attractive call to a chair in Bonn: the brochure was dedicated to him
personally “as token of gratitude and joy at his remaining in Vienna”
(Anon. 1929; trans. 1973, 299).

It is unsurprising, given this context of origin, that the brochure

1. The by now common distinction between the “private” and the “public phase” of the

Vienna Circle was ªrst drawn explicitly by Mulder (1968, 386).

Perspectives on Science 2008, vol. 16, no. 1
©2008 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Perspectives on Science

Wiseenschaftliche Weltauffassung is many things. It declares dead the philos-
ophy that wishes to lord it over science and instead encourages science to
develop its own philosophy. In doing so it is a philosophical manifesto
that serves as much the purpose of self-deªnition for the group it repre-
sents as it serves the purpose of announcing a distinctive program to phi-
losophers outside. But the brochure is also a socio-historical and cultural
manifesto that at a time of perceived political danger declares renewed the
Enlightenment claim to public reason. In raising responsiveness to evi-
dence to the very criterion of cognitive signiªcance, it offers a common
platform of discourse free of metaphysical and theological obfuscation to
all interested individuals and parties. Moreover, apart from the multiple
aims it pursued, the brochure was also the product of many hands. As is
not uncommon in collective productions, a number of tensions ªnd ex-
pression not only in its text but also in its reception amongst members of
the Vienna Circle and those close to it.

The purpose of this paper is to consider some of these tensions and to
review the issues of the origin and the production history of the brochure
in the light of sources so far insufªciently considered. Besides settling
questions about the inception and the authorship of the manifesto, the
point will be made that its reception shows that already in 1929 some of
the divisions are detectable that so visibly divided the Vienna Circle in the
mid-1930s.

1. The Role of the Verein Ernst Mach
Let’s begin with the association under the aegis of which the brochure was
published.2 It was largely through the efforts of Otto Neurath that the
yet-to-be-so-called Vienna Circle secured an extra-mural institutional
framework for popular lecture series and study groups in Vienna through
its involvement in the founding of the Verein Ernst Mach in November
1928.3 In fact, most prominently involved in the founding of the Verein
Ernst Mach was the Freidenkerbund (Free Thinker Association), whose
leader, Carl Kindermann, alongside socialist representatives of the Vien-
nese adult education movement, had initiated the plan for an association
dedicated to the dissemination of scientiªc thought. Once founded, how-
ever, members of the Circle were prominent among its elected ofªcers:
Schlick was president, Hans Hahn one of his deputies, and Rudolf Carnap
and Neurath minute keepers. A handbill calling for new members an-

2. On the history of the Verein Ernst Mach, see Stadler, 1997; trans. 2001, 328–349.
3. Karl Menger also recalled: “During 1928, Neurath advocated ever more emphati-
cally the need for a public forum, where the insights gained in the privacy of the Circle
could be disseminated” (1982, 90).

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto

nounced forthcoming lectures by Schlick, Hahn, Carnap, Neurath, Phil-
ipp Frank, Herbert Feigl, Friedrich Waismann and Karl Menger, amongst
others.4

As Frank put it in his often overlooked history of the Vienna Circle, the
Verein Ernst Mach became “the legal organization of the Vienna Circle”,
presumably because it also served as the base from which still further ven-
tures were organized (Frank 1949, 40).

In 1929, we had the feeling that from the cooperation that was cen-
tered in Vienna a deªnite new type of philosophy had emerged. . . .
We decided to publish a monograph about our movement, next, to
arrange a meeting, and eventually to get control of a philosophical
journal so that we would have a way of getting the contributions of
our group printed (Frank 1949, 38).5

Just as the brochure was published under the aegis of the Verein Ernst
Mach, so the “meeting” and the later editorship of a journal was sponsored
by it, jointly with Hans Reichenbach’s Berlin-based Society for Empirical
Philosophy.6 While the lecture series in Vienna was to have popular
appeal—“Broader circles of people with a conception of the world that is
free of metaphysics demonstrated the need to establish lasting connections
to scientiªc representatives of this tendency”7—the planned conference
was clearly addressed to the academic community.

The arrangement of the meeting was not so easy. We wanted to
reach a large audience. The regular philosophy meetings followed
the traditional lines and would hardly have given us enough scope.
By a happy coincidence I was just in 1929 arranging a meeting of
the physicists and mathematicians from the German-speaking re-
gions in Central Europe. . . . The German Physical Society, which
was the ofªcial sponsor of this meeting, did not particularly like
the the idea of combining this serious scientiªc meeting with such
a foolish thing as philosophy. However, I was the chairman of the
local committee in Prague and they could not refuse my serious

4. See the reproduction in Stadler 1997, 332–3.
5. Actually, the plan for “a new periodical as a forum for our kind of philosophy” went

back to Reichenbach at the Erlangen conference of 1923; see Carnap 1963, 32.

6. The only other publication in the series “Veröffentlichungen des Vereins Ernst

Mach” was Hahn 1930.

7. “Weitere Kreise mit metaphysikfreier Weltauffassung zeigten das Bedürfnis,
dauernde Beziehungen zu den wissenschaftlichen Vertretern dieser Richtung herzustellen”
(Neurath 1930, 74). Note that, given the founding history of the Verein, this was no self-
aggrandising claim.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Perspectives on Science

wish to attach a meeting with the topic ‘Epistemology of the Exact
Sciences’” (Frank 1949, 39–40).

In some respects, the plan succeeded very well. Frank, the successor to
Einstein in Prague since 1912,8 gave the ªrst plenary address of the Fifth
Congress of German Physicists and Mathematicians on September 16 to a
full auditorium, celebrating the anti-metaphysical scientiªc world con-
ception and rejecting other philosophies as “fossilizations of earlier physi-
cal theories” (Frank 1929; trans. Frank 1949, 115). Frank was followed by
the applied physicist Richard von Mises (also the co-editor with Frank of
the renowned Riemann-Weber compendium of mathematics for physi-
cists) with an address broadly sympathetic to Frank’s cause. The texts of
their lectures were soon published in the widely circulating journal Die
Naturwissenschaften (Mises 1930). The smaller First Conference on the
Epistemology of the Exact Sciences, meanwhile, had begun a day earlier
on September 15 with introductory remarks by Frank and Hahn’s opening
address, followed over the next three days by lectures from Carnap,
Reichenbach, Neurath, Waismann, Feigl and Adolf Fraenkel. Their texts
were published in the following year in the ªrst volume of Erkenntnis.9
(This was the philosophical journal which, as planned, the Vienna Circle
by then had succeeded in taking over, with the Berlin society, and re-
named from Annalen der Philosophie, with Carnap and Reichenbach as edi-
tors; see Hegselmann and Sigwart 1991.) Last but not least, the ªrst cop-
ies of the brochure were distributed at the Conference to interested
colleagues.

On the other hand, the Vienna Circle’s message was received coldly by
the Congress at large. Of her husband’s plenary lecture, Hania Frank re-
ported that it seemed as if his “words fell into the audience like drops into
a well so deep that one cannot hear the drops striking the bottom. Every-
thing seemed to vanish without a trace” (quoted in Frank 1949, 40). Per-
haps not surprisingly, the assembled scientists did not readily take to the
suggestion, made by Frank, that they tended to adhere to a philosophy
that had been rendered redundant by their own science. Frank had to face
criticism in the third plenary address by the theoretical physicist Arnold
Sommerfeld (the teacher of Heisenberg and Pauli). Sommerfeld, deaf to
the differences between the old and the new positivism, reheated aspects
of the Mach-Planck controversy in his lecture which, in turn, was pub-
lished in the prominent Physikalische Zeitschrift (Sommerfeld 1929). Hav-

8. Frank took over Einstein’s former position ªrst as associate professor, but was ap-

pointed full professor in 1917.

9. For the proceedings of the Conference for the Epistemology of the Exact Sciences see

Erkenntnis 1 (1930): 93–310 (where Frank’s and v. Mises’ papers were also published).

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto

ing drawn the battlelines rather sharply, the Vienna Circle found few con-
verts, at least initially. The effect of the brochure was no different in this
respect. But thanks to the double patronage of the Verein in organizing
the Conference and publishing the brochure, the Vienna Circle at least had
been able to introduce itself forcefully on the central European academic
scene.

2. The Role of Schlick’s Offer from Bonn
According to the brochure, it was on the occasion of Schlick’s receiving
the call to Bonn that it ªrst became clear to those involved that “there is
such a thing as the ‘Vienna Circle’ of the scientiªc conception of the
world” (Anon. 1929, 299). Actually, that is not quite correct. Already in
his 1928 review of Carnap’s Aufbau, Neurath spoke about the “exact con-
ception of the world” as professed by the “‘Vienna School’ around Moritz
Schlick.”10 Carnap promptly commented: “So you wish to gain the histori-
cal merit to name and proclaim the ‘Vienna School’ for the ªrst time. You
are right, incidentally, that a slogan, a summary name, is important for
the reception even if it does not say anything on its own accord.”11 In
Neurath’s mind at least the spirit of the group around Schlick had at-
tained self-consciousness long before the offer from Bonn was received.12

That noted, the threat of Schlick leaving Vienna did play a considerable
role in the production history of the brochure. Having learnt of the threat,
the board of the Verein Ernst Mach wrote to Schlick in April, congratulat-
ing him on the honor of the call but impressing upon him “the profound
and grievous damage” that his departure would inºict on the work he had
undertaken for the scientiªc conception of the world in Vienna: “no one
else could possibly ªll the void left in the cultural life of Vienna.”13 Schlick

10. Neurath used the expressions “exakte Weltbetrachtung” and “die ‘Wiener Schule’
um Moritz Schlick” in Neurath 1928, repr. 1981, 296. Note also that already in his lecture
to the founding meeting of the Verein Ernst Mach on 23 November 1929 Neurath spoke
of the transformation of the “naturwissenschaftliche Weltanschauung” to the “exakt-
wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung.” See Neurath 1928, 10, quoted in Stadler 1997, 369.

11. “Sie wollen sich also das historische Verdienst erwerben, die ‘Wiener Schule’ als
erster zu benamsen und zu proklamieren. Sie haben übrigens recht, dass ein Schlagwort,
eine zusammenfassende Bezeichnung, auch wenn sie nichts für sich besagt, von Wichtig-
keit fur die Wirkung ist.” Carnap to Neurath, 7 October 1928, RC 029-16-01 ASP.

12. In fact, it had done so for a while: already in a letter to Carnap of December 31,
1927, Neurath spoke of the “Wiener Schule” (Vienna School) (in quotation marks). See RC
029-16-06 ASP.

13. “. . . es bestünde keine Möglichkeit, dass ein anderer die so im geistigen Leben
Wiens entstehende Lücke füllen könnte. Der Schaden, den die im Verein Ernst Mach in
engster Gedankengemeinschaft mit seinem Vorsitzenden vertretene Weltauffassung dad-
urch erleiden müsste, wäre ein tiefer und schmerzlicher.” Letter from Board of Verein Ernst
Mach to Schlick, 2 April 1929, reprinted in Mulder 1968, 387.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Perspectives on Science

decided to stay in Vienna long-term—despite the unhelpful attitude of
the Austrian ministry of eduction towards his request for additional provi-
sion for his chair14—only on the day before his departure for a Visiting
Professorship at Stanford at the end of May. In response a letter of thanks
for his “truly generous and unselªsh decision to continue [his] work in Vi-
enna despite the existing difªculties” was composed and signed by most of
those who the brochure would identify as members of the Vienna Circe
and few others.15

Existing documents leave the precise order of events somewhat unclear,
however. Whether the plan for the conference preceded that for the bro-
chure, or vice versa, and whether the conference was being planned already
before Schlick received the call to Bonn, or vice versa, has not been conclu-
sively established. The safe position to take is that, as Stadler put it,
“Schlick’s decision to stay in Vienna stimulated work for the planned
booklet as well as preparatory activities for the Conference on the Episte-
mology of the Exact Sciences.”16 This formulation remains suitably neutral
between conºicting reports. There is, on the one hand, Frank’s failure to
mention Schlick’s call to Bonn when he related the group’s plan to “pres-
ent [its] brain child to the world at large” via a monograph, a conference
and a journal (Frank, 1949, 38). On the other hand, Menger reported:
“Great was the joy of all of us when we learned that Schlick had decided to
return to Vienna for good. ‘This must be celebrated,’ Neurath said and we
all agreed. ‘We must write a book outlining our views—a manifesto of the
Circle—and dedicate it to Schlick when he comes home in the fall,’
Neurath added; and with his habitual expeditiousness and energy he went
to work” (Menger 1982, 91). According to Menger, but not Frank,
Schlick’s decision to stay in Vienna provided the original stimulus for the
production of the brochure.

On this matter we can turn to Carnap’s diaries for further informa-
tion.17 Carnap had learnt of the offer to Schlick already in late March from

14. All he received was a post of librarian for Waismann who already had worked at his

department without pay. See Stadler 1979; trans. 1991, 72.

15. “Ihr wahrhaft grosszügiger und uneigennütziger Entschluss, Ihr Wirken in Wien
ungeachtet der entgegenstehenden Schwierigkeiten fortzuführen. . . .” That letter was
dated 13 June 1929, but it is unclear whether it was sent to Schlick at Stanford or whether
it was given to Schlick with the brochure when he returned in October (see Mulder 1968,
388). Only Frank’s and Marcel Natkin’s signature are missing, presumably because they
were not in Vienna at the time.

16. Stadler 2001, 335; cf. Mulder 1968, 387: “Als man nun anlässlich des Kongresses
in Prag die Veröffentlichung einer Broschüre erwog, lag es auf der Hand, das Pamphlet
Moritz Schlick zum Zeichen des Dankes zu widmen und nach seiner Rückkehr aus
Amerika zu überreichen.”

17. Carnap’s diary is kept with his Nachlass in the Archive of Scientiªc Philosophy at

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto

Ernst Cassirer during his stay in Davos.18 His diary’s entries for late May
reveal some of the drama that surrounded Schlick’s decision. The entry for
Saturday, 25 May, notes that “Schlick says on the telephone: ministry de-
clined, so he must go to Bonn.”19 Since Schlick’s attempt to win further
resources for his chair came to nought, that seemed to settle the matter.
The entry for Monday, 27 May, then records that Carnap learnt of Schlick’s
decision ªrst-hand and very early on: “10.30 met Schlick in university. He
stays in Vienna! . . . He leaves this evening for America. Lunch with
Waismann. [I] tell him of my plan for the brochure ‘The Principles of the
Viennese Philosophical School’ (Leitgedanken der Wiener philosophischen
Schule).”20 No further entries pursue the matter until that for Thursday,
6 June: “Circle. Waismann, second talk on probability. . . . I tell of the
plan for the brochure ‘Leitgedanken’.”21 Carnap’s diary does not state
whether the plan was accepted right away by the members (sans Schlick),
nor in what relation it stood to the plans for the conference in Prague,
which ªnds its ªrst oblique and laconic mention in his diary in the entry
for 14 June: “In the evening my lecture in the Verein Ernst Mach:
‘Pseudoproblems in Philosophy. About the Soul and God’ (formulation by
Neurath). . . . Afterwards a discussion about Prague. Then together in
café, Neurath, Feigl, Kaspar. . . .”22 However, in the entry for Monday,
to Mrs.
17 June, we read: “3pm lecture. Afterwards with Feigl

the University of Pittsburgh but, due to the personal nature of some entries, has long been
sequestered. I wish to thank Brigitta Arden, Associate Curator there, and Brigitte
Parakenings, Curator at the Philosophical Archives at the University of Konstanz, for their
extraordinary assistance in decoding the relevant passages of Carnap’s Stolze-Schrey short-
hand, and the Carnap Collection Committee for permission to use this material here. All
rights reserved.

18. See entry for 27 March 1929 in Carnap’s diary cited in Haller 1993, 225–226, fn.

30.

19. “Schlick sagt telefonisch: Ministerium hat abgelehnt, er muß also nach Bonn.” RC

025-73-03 ASP.

20. “1/2 11 Schlick in Universität getroffen. Er bleibt in Wien! . . . Er reist heute
abend nach Amerika ab. Mittags mit Waismann. Er [sic!] erzähle ihm meinen Plan der
Broschüre ‘Leitgedanken der Wiener philosophischen Schule’.” RC 025-73-03 ASP. Since
the rest of the last sentence is grammatically inconsistent with any personal pronoun but
the ªrst person singular one, it can be assumed that Carnap meant “ich”: thus my transla-
tion in the text above.

21. “Zirkel. Waismanns 2. Vortrag über Wahrscheinlichkeit. Zwei Arten von Funk-
tionen. Mit bestimmtem und unbestimmtem Umfang. Ich erzähle den Plan der Broschure
‘Leitgedanken’”. RC 025-73-03 ASP. The entry for the previous Circle meeting on May 30
only states that Waismann gave a talk on probability which gave rise to a long and lively
discussion.

22. “Abends mein Vortrag im Machverein: ‘Scheinprobleme in der Philosophie: von
Seele und Gott’ (Formulierung von Neurath). . . . Nacher Besprechung über Prag.” RC
025-73-03 ASP.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Perspectives on Science

Neurath. . . . Later Neurath joins us. About the Prague conference and the
planned brochure.”23 This is followed by numerous mentions of discus-
sions of and work on “the brochure” and occasional references to the con-
ference in Prague throughout entries for the rest of June and most of July.
This suggests the following. Pace Menger, even though Neurath had
long been agitating for a more public proªle for the group around Schlick,
it appears that it was Carnap who conceived of the idea for the brochure
independently of him and directly in response to Schlick’s decision to stay
in Vienna. The plans for the conference, meanwhile seem to have been
hatched already earlier.24 If so, it may of course still be the case that an al-
ready perceived need for promotional material to be distributed at the
planned conference in Prague found translation into Carnap’s idea for the
programmatic brochure. And what Menger reported may well have been
Neurath’s own response when he received the news of Schlick’s decision, a
response which converged with Carnap’s plan. In any case, producing the
brochure appears to have been Carnap’s idea.

3. The Authorship of the Brochure
Frank’s history of the Vienna Circle states that “the monograph was writ-
ten by Carnap, Hahn and Neurath in close cooperation” (Frank 1949, 38).
Of those mentioned, Neurath, in the short bibliography of works of
by members of the Vienna Circle featured in the ªrst volume of the se-
ries “Einheitswissenschaft,” listed “Carnap/Neurath/Hahn” as authors
(Neurath 1933; McGuinness 1987, 276). Carnap’s bibliographical over-
view in his contribution to that series lists the brochure under the author
Neurath with the addition “with Carnap and Hahn”; the bibliography of
Logical Syntax lists it under Neurath with the addition of “with others,”
and his autobiography lists it as “Hahn, Neurath, Carnap.”25 Other former
members of the Circle agreed with this rendition to varying degrees. For
instance, Feigl recalled the pamphlet being “composed by Carnap,
Neurath and Hahn, aided by Waismann and myself.”26 Heinrich Neider
meanwhile remarked that the programmatic essay “was produced essen-
tially by Neurath” (Neider, “Memories of Otto Neurath,” in Neurath

23. “3h Vorlesung. Nacher mit Feigl bei Frau Neurath. . . . Später Neurath dazu. Über

Prager Tagung und geplante Broschüre.” RC 025-73-03 ASP.

24. Given what Frank reported about its initial reluctance (39–40; see quote above), it
is unlikely that Frank’s negotiations with the German Physical Society concerning the con-
ference were started only after May 27 and concluded already before June 22.

25. Carnap 1934; trans. McGuinness 1987, 284. Carnap 1935; trans. 1937, repr. 2002,
342. Carnap 1963, 22, fn. 5. Carnap’s autobiography does not discuss the brochure any
further.

26. Feigl 1969, repr. in Feigl 1981, 70; see also his 1969, repr. in Feigl 1981, 22.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto

1973, 49). The editors of Neurath’s Empiricism and Sociology, a collection of
his writings which featured the ªrst translation of Wissenschaftliche
Weltauffassung in English, summed up what was known by about 1973
and since has become the standard view.

The pamphlet Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis does
not give an author’s name on the title page—unless one considers
“Der Wiener Kreis” as author, being printed in smaller type. This
pamphlet is the product of teamwork; Neurath did the writing,
Hahn and Carnap edited the text with him; other members of the
Circle were asked for their comments and contributions. (H. Feigl
mentions F. Waismann and himself. . .) (Neurath 1973, 318n).

Two variations on this were presented by Karl Menger in the years fol-
lowing. On one occasion he continued the story whose beginning we
noted earlier as follows: “I did not hear about the progress of Neurath’s
project until late in the summer when Hahn asked me about some biblio-
graphical details in the last proofsheets of a pamphlet that was ready for
publication. . . . Neurath had completed the manuscript after several con-
ferences with Carnap” (Menger 1982, 91). On another occasion Menger
simply wrote: “The pamphlet, whose genesis I had occasion to observe,
was mainly written by Neurath; Carnap cooperated to some extent; Hahn
received the ªnal draft” (Menger, “Introduction” in Hahn 1980, xiv).
Clearly, if these statements are not to contradict each other, one must as-
sume that what Menger observed was not the full order of proceedings,
and that for that he relied on reports by others, even though he was pres-
ent at certain junctures of the project. Most notable here is the stress on
Neurath’s role and the reduction of Hahn’s in the production of the bro-
chure. (Hahn, incidentally, did not refer to the brochure in any of his sub-
sequent writings.)

In his authoritative Neopositivismus. Eine historische Einführung in die
Philosophie des Wiener Kreises of 1993, Rudolf Haller, summarised the re-
sults of his research as follows:

The work was ªrst written by Neurath, whose version was criticised
by Carnap, Hahn, Feigl and others, however. Then Carnap took on
the task of producing a revised version, based on Neurath’s which is
no longer to be found in Carnap’s otherwise fairly complete Nach-
lass. Feigl, together with Waismann the closest collaborator of
Schlick’s, was consulted which was the reason why Carnap men-
tioned him to Schlick as an author of the work, alongside Neurath
and himself.27

27. “Verfaßt wurde die Schrift zunächst von Neurath, dessen Fassung aber von Carnap,

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Perspectives on Science

In support Haller refered to a letter from Carnap to Schlick of 30 Septem-
ber 1929 which accompanied Schlick’s own special copy of brochure.
Haller had quoted from it when he ªrst had offered the above hypothesis
of the production history in 1984. The relevant passage, he then said, was
“conªrmed by other letters” and “solves once and for all the difªcult ques-
tion of the authorship of the pamphlet.” In the letter from Carnap to
Schlick we read: “Please do not consider the content too critically but with
your usual kindness and indulgence. It has been composed by Feigl,
Neurath and myself through a joint effort and with more good will than
quality.”28 In the German version of this paper Haller added that Feigl was
brought in when Carnap set to do the revision and that “Hahn . . . did not
have a direct part in the authorship of the manifesto.”29

Clearly, Haller’s research cast an entirely new light on the matter.
Hahn’s role was even further demoted and Neurath’s considerably re-
duced; by contrast, Carnap’s role was much strenghthened—in line with
our ªnding in the previous section—and that of Feigl clariªed. But did
this settle the matter? In his compendium of the Vienna Circle of 1997
Stadler hedged his bets. Claiming that the manifesto was “published one
month before the meeting” in Prague, he noted that “though signed
jointly by Carnap, Hahn and Neurath,” it was “probably ªrst written by
Neurath and then revised by Carnap . . . while the other members and ad-
herents were asked for comments and contributions” (Stadler 2001, 335).
A footnote adds that this reconstruction was “based on the diaries of
Rudolf Carnap” (Stadler 2001, 335). While Stadler agrees with Haller in
outlines he seems to reserve judgement on several details.30

Hahn, Feigl und anderen kritisiert wurde. Sodann übernahm Carnap die Aufgabe, eine
revidierte Fassung herzustellen, der die Neurathsche, die sich auch im sonst ziemlich
kompletten Nachlaß Carnaps nicht mehr ªndet, zugrunde lag. Feigl, mit Waismann
der engste Mitarbeiter Schlicks, wurde beigezogen, weshalb Carnap ihn—Schlick
gegenüber—zusammen mit Neurath und sich selbst als Verfasser der Schrift nennt”
(Haller 1993, 70).

28. Carnap to Schlick, 30 September 1929: “Den Inhalt betrachte bitte nicht zu
kritisch, sondern mit Deinem gewohnten Wohlwollen und Nachsicht. Es ist von Feigl,
Neurath und mir mit vereinten Kräften und mehr gutem Willen als Qualität geschaffen
worden.” Quoted in Haller 1984, repr. in Haller 1988. 31–32.

29. “In diesem Stadium wurde Feigl um Mitarbeit ersucht. Hahn, der mit Carnap und
Neurath als Herausgeber zeichnete, hat keinen unmittelbaren Anteil an der Autorschaft
des Manifests” (Haller 1986, 193, fn. 8).

30. Two years before Haller’s 1984 paper, he had written: “Der pointiert und
kämpferisch verfaßte Text der Broschüre ist—obwohl von Carnap, Hahn und Neurath
gemeinsam gezeichnet—wahrscheinlich nach einem ersten kollektiven Arbeitsgang von
Neurath, in einem darauffolgenden schließlich von Carnap verfaßt worden” (Stadler 1982,
177).

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto

Still, something of a consensus emerged, but it remained vague. Note
the unclarity concerning Waismann’s role.31 Here our earlier look into
Carnap’s diary already suggests a more concrete answer: Waismann was
Carnap’s ªrst interlocutor when he developed the idea for the brochure
and most likely provided input there and then. This suggests that for
clariªcation and further supplementation of the production history of the
brochure on other issues too we may turn again to Carnap’s diary and his
correspondence. For there also remains the question of how and when
Neurath got involved in the project. In both Haller’s and Stadler’s account
he remains the author of the ªrst version of the pamphlet even though, ac-
cording to his diary, Carnap was its initiator.

That noted, recall that once Carnap’s idea was put to the Circle it seems
it was accepted at least in principle and Carnap set to thinking about it in
greater detail, partly in the company of Feigl. What about Neurath’s role
in the very earliest stages? Carnap’s diary for 27 May, when Schlick told
him of his decision, also records that in the afternoon he visited “Mrs.
Neurath” and that “Neurath is still in Sweden.”32 Neurath is not men-
tioned again until Friday, June 14 (see above), on the occasion of Carnap’s
lecture in the Verein. Since any meetings with individual members of the
Circle are meticulously noted in his diaries, this suggests that Carnap had
not met Neurath until then—unless he met him at the three intervening
Circle meetings (with regard to which Carnap only tends to mention the
speaker and signiªcant interventions). So it is not at all impossible that
Neurath had been absent until then.

Now note Neurath’s reaction in the discussion with Carnap and Feigl
about the brochure on 17 June, as recorded in Carnap’s diary: “He urges us
not to be so unworldly.”33 The entry for Thursday, 20 June reads: “3pm
lecture. Afterwards to the Neuraths, with Feigl. Neurath’s draft for the
brochure.”34 And that for Saturday, 22 June: “Meeting Verein Ernst Mach.
Prague and the brochure will be done through the Verein. With Neurath

31. In addition there is the issue of the bibliography. Haller (1988, 32) cites Carnap’s
letter to Schlick: “Each of us did our own bibliographical annotations; but those for you
and Einstein were made by Feigl, the ones for Wittgenstein by Waismann, and the ones for
Russell by myself.” (“Die bibliographischen Angaben in der Broschüre hat jeder selbst
gemacht; jedoch für Dich und Einstein, Feigl, für Wittgenstein Waismann, für Russell
ich.”) By contrast, as we saw, Menger claims only to have been asked about details in the
bibliography, not to have been asked to provide his bibliographical entry in its entirety.

32. “Neurath ist noch in Schweden.” RC 025-73-03 ASP.
33. “Neurath ermahnt uns, nicht so weltfremd zu sein.” RC 025-73-03 ASP.
34. “3h Vorlesung. Nachher zu Neuraths, mit Feigl. Neuraths Entwurf für die

Broschüre.” RC 025-73-03 ASP.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Perspectives on Science

to his ofªce, Feigl also. His new draft for the brochure.”35 This sequence of
entries clearly suggests that having learnt of the plan for the brochure and
of early attempts by Carnap and Feigl at drafting it—after his return to
Vienna—Neurath intervened by setting down the outlines of what he
considered to be a more appropriately “worldly” manifesto.

Yet this was but the beginning of heightened activity. Consider these
entries. Sunday, June 23: “Feigl here in the afternoon. About the brochure
‘Vienna School’.”36 Monday, June 24: “3pm lecture. To the Neuraths, Feigl
also. Discussed brochure ‘Vienna School’.”37 Thursday, June 27: “3pm lec-
ture. With Feigl plan for new draft for the brochure about the Vienna
School.”38 Saturday, June 29: “Afternoon and evening Feigl and Kaspar
here. Work on brochure together.”39 Sunday, June 30: “Afternoon and eve-
ning with Feigl and Kaspar work on the brochure. I take Feigl’s dictation
down in shorthand; until 11.30.”40 Monday, July 1: “Lunch with Hahn on
Zilsel and brochure. 3pm lecture. To the Neuraths, with Feigl and
Kaspar. . . . Once Feigl and Kaspar are gone, Neurath dictates brochure for
me.”41 Wednesday, July 3: “Afternoon to Neurath. He continues dictation
of brochure on Vienna Circle.”42

Several things are notable here. First, that following Neurath’s ªrst in-
tervention and further discussion, Carnap and Feigl began working up a
new draft; second, that Neurath intervened a second time; third, that
there was a change in appellation: the name “Vienna Circle” ªrst appears
in connection with Neurath’s dictation of his second draft. This accords
well with Frank’s report that it was Neurath who suggested the name.43

35. “Sitzung Machverein. Prag und Broschüre warden vom Verein aus gemacht. Mit
Neurath in sein Büro, auch Feigl. Sein neuer Entwurf fur die Broschüre.” RC 025-73-03
ASP.

36. “Nachmittags Feigl hier. Über Broschüre ‘Wiener Schule’.” RC 025-73-03 ASP.
37. “3h Vorlesung. Zu Neuraths, auch Feigl. Broschüre ‘Wiener Schule’ besprochen.”

RC 025-73-03 ASP.

38. “3h Vorlesung. Mit Feigl Plan für neuen Entwurf der Broschüre über Wiener

Schule.” RC 025-73-03 ASP.

39. “Nachmittags und abends Feigl und Kaspar hier. Zusammen Broschüre
gearbeitet.” RC 025-73-03 ASP. Maria Kaspar was Feigl’s ªancee and one of the signato-
ries of the letter of thanks to Schlick.

40. “Nachmittags und abends mit Feigl und Kaspar Broschüre gearbeitet. Ich

stenographiere nach Feigls Diktat; bis 1/2 12.” RC 025-73-03 ASP.

41. “Mittags mit Hahn über Zilsel und Broschüre. 3h Vorlesung. Zu Neuraths, mit
Feigl und Kaspar. . . . Nachdem Feigl und Kaspar weg, diktiert Neurath mir Broschüre.”
RC 025-73-03 ASP.

42. “Nachmittags zu Neurath. Er diktiert mir Broschüre über Wiener Kreis weiter.”

RC 025-73-03 ASP.

43. “When we prepared the monograph we noticed that our group and our philosophy

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto

Menger too stated that Neurath “gave the name Vienna Circle to what had
been called (and in Vienna of course continued to be called) the Schlick-
Kreis” (Menger, “Memories of the Vienna Circle,” 1982, 91–92).

While he appears to have remained largely in the background so far
(though he already ªgured in one consultation), Hahn now assumed a
larger role. Thursday, July 4: “7pm at Hahn’s. With him and Neurath on
brochure.”44 The next relevant entry comes two weeks later, for Thursday,
July 18: “Afternoon two hours work on brochure.”45 Then, under Friday,
July 19, we read: “5.30pm to Neurath. Hahn there. I read from bro-
chure.”46 Here note, ªrst, that following Neurath’s repeated interventions,
Carnap had taken over the reigns again. And, second, that Hahn contrib-
uted criticism and suggestions on at least two occasions when the project
was at critical junctures. But Hahn’s contribution still went beyond his
critiques of Neurath’s second draft and of Carnap’s version of it. This be-
comes clear when, years later, Neurath wrote to Hahn: “The remark about
Brentano in our brochure is haunting me. I want to know where it comes
from. Didn’t you get it from a book by Höºer? Please be so kind and have
a look.”47 Neurath’s question strongly suggests that Hahn also had collab-
orated with him on the text of section 1.1 of the brochure, “Historical
background.” (In historical matters, Carnap deferred to Neurath.)

Having received the additional comments from Hahn and Neurath,
Carnap undertook to pull it all together. Sunday, July 21: “Very hot.
Work hard on brochure. Frau Mauerhofer brings lunch.”48 Monday, July
22: “As above.”49 Tuesday, July 23: “As above.” Wednesday, July 24: “As
above.” Thursday, July 25: “As above. Finished typing the brochure. In

had no name. Quite a few people among us disliked the words ‘philosophy’ and ‘positiv-
ism’ and did not want them to appear in the title. Some disliked all ‘isms’, foreign or do-
mestic. Eventually we chose the name ‘scientiªc world conception’. . . . Our chosen title
seemed a little dry to Neurath, and he suggested adding ‘The Vienna Circle’, because he
thought that this name would be reminiscent of the Viennese waltz, the Vienna woods,
and other things on the pleasant side of life” (Frank 1949, 38). It is unclear whether Frank
was present in the relevant discussions about the brochure and whether he relates all the
details correctly.

44. “7h bei Hahn. Mit ihm und Neurath über Broschure.” RC 025-73-03 ASP.
45. “Nachmittags zwei Stunden Broschüre gearbeitet.” RC 025-73-03 ASP.
46. “1/2 6 zu Neurath. Hahn dort. Ich lese Broschüre vor.” RC 025-73-03 ASP.
47. “Die Notiz über Brentano verfolgt mich. Ich mochte gerne wissen woher sie
stammt. Hast Du sie nicht aus einem Höºerbuch gehabt? Bitte sei so lieb und stell das
fest.” Neurath to Hahn, June 25, 1934, Neurath Nachlass 243, WKA. Hahn was unable
to answer and died unexpectedly soon afterwards from the complications of a medical oper-
ation.

48. “Sehr heiss. Broschüre gearbeitet; ºeissig. Mittags bringt Frau Mauerhofer Essen.”

RC 025-73-03 ASP. It is likely that Frau Mauerhofer was Carnap’s landlady.

49. “Ebenso.” Same for next two days as well. RC 025-73-03 ASP.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Perspectives on Science

the evening ªnally a thunderstorm.”50 The next day Carnap sent copies to
Hahn, Neurath and Frank. “Enclosed is the manuscript of the text of the
brochure. Please insert proposed changes and additions (in printer-ready
formulations, please!) and send it to me at the latest on August 2.”51 Inter-
estingly, Carnap added beneath the collective part of the letter some re-
marks to Neurath that conªrm the production history as so far recon-
structed and throw further light on it:

Dear Neurath! You see that I could not resolve to surrender uncon-
ditionally the opus that I formulated and typed in the sweat of my
brow to other hands, and be they yours. Instead, I have, after all, re-
served for myself the sour duty and the sweet right of the ªnal for-
mulation. But at the very end, just before the printing, you may
make some corrections! What I didn’t take from you: of the ªrst
draft, the enclosed; of the second: clarity of signs; imperfection of
our language; induction; theory of constitution; what’s real is what
can be integrated; decisive action instead of pedantry; philosophy of
the as-if; pragmatism. These things either already appear some-
where else in a different formulation or I had objections.52

So, following Neurath’s two drafts—note that Carnap clearly distin-
guished them—and Hahn’s criticisms, Carnap had taken over the produc-
tion of the penultimate version which went to Hahn, Frank and Neurath
for their last comments. As Haller noted, Carnap reserved for himself “the
sour duty and sweet right of the ªnal formulation,” (Haller 1993, 226, fn.
32). But note, too, the concession he made to Neurath that he could make
changes at the very end. Clearly, Carnap’s decision suggests a widely

50. “Ebenso. Broschüre fertig getippt. Abends endlich Gewitter.” RC 025-73-03 ASP.
51. “Hiermit übersende ich das MS des Textteils der Broschüre. Vorschläge zu
Änderungen und Einfügungen bitte ich hineinzuschreiben (bitte in druckfertiger
Formulierung!) und das Ex. spätestens am 2. Aug. an mich abzusenden.” Carnap to Hahn,
Frank, Neurath, July 26, 1929, RC 029-15-14 ASP.

52. “Lieber Neurath! Du siehst, dass ich mich nicht habe entschliessen konnen, das im
Schweisse meines Angesichts formulierte und im gleichen Schweisse getippte Opus nun
auf Gnade und Ungnade in andere, und seien es selbst Deine, Hände zu überliefern,
sondern mir doch die saure Pºicht und das süsse Recht der letzten Formulierung doch
vorbehalten habe. Ganz zuletzt darfst Du aber unmittelbar vor dem Druck noch korri-
gieren! Von Dir sind nicht genommen worden: aus dem 1. Entwurf das Beiliegende; aus
dem 2.: Klarheit der Zeichen; Unvollkommenheit unserer Sprache; Induktion; Konstitu-
tionstheorie; wirklich ist das Eingliederbare; handfestes Tun anstatt Akribie; Philos. des
Alsob, Pragm. Diese Sachen stehen aber teils irgendwo in anderer Formulierung, zuweilen
hatte ich Gegengründe.” Carnap to Neurath, July 26, 1929, RC 029-15-14 ASP. There is
no way of determining now what “the enclosed” was.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto

shared anxiety about Neurath’s “style”, a concern that surfaced later in
that letter’s addition as follows:

Please do not cross out the section titles!! Without orientation the
brochure would be hellish to read. Remember that with your stuff
one always has a hard time because one doesn’t know which topic
you are currently addressing; remember Hahn’s complaint when the
draft was read to him!53

One polite way of reading this is that Carnap perceived Neurath’s style of
exposition to stand in need of academic editing (by 1929 Neurath had
been out of academia for over ten years).

So by July 26 Carnap had broken the back, as it were, of writing the
brochure. However, having ªnished the text of the brochure did not mean
having ªnished the job overall. Thus we read: Saturday, July 27: “Typed
bibliography.”54 Monday, July 29: “Typed bibliography.”55 It is often for-
gotten that a very signiªcant part of the brochure was its extensive anno-
tated bibliography of the works of the “members of the Vienna Circle,” of
“those sympathetic to the Vienna Circle,” and of the “leading representa-
tives of the scientiªc world-conception.”56 Including such a bibliography
was very much Carnap’s idea, as a later letter to him from Neurath indi-
cates: “Your bibliography is a very valuable addition to our joint work. All
libraries will buy the book, if only because of the bibl[iography]. Of
course, this gives it a rather scholarly character.”57 (Later, on the occasion
of various conferences, Erkenntnis also featured annotated bibliographies,
then mainly compiled by Neurath.)58

Carnap’s letter to Hahn, Frank and Neurath of July 26 already con-
tained some further questions concerning this bibliography. Most salient

53. “Die Abschnitt-Überschriften streiche mir bitte nicht weg!! Ohne Übersicht ist die
Broschüre ein Greuel zu lessen. Denke daran, dass man bei Deinen Sachen immer seufzt,
weil man nicht weiss, zu welchem Thema das Gesagte gehört; denke an die gleiche Klage
von Hahn beim Vorlesen des Entwurfs!” Carnap to Neurath, July 26, 1929, RC 029-15-14
ASP.

54. “Bibliographie getippt.” RC 025-73-03 ASP.
55. “Bibliographie getippt.” RC 025-73-03 ASP.
56. The three categories are used in the bibliography at the end of the brochure. The
bibliography is reprinted in Neurath, 1981, 315–336. The translation in Neurath 1973,
lists the names under their various headings, but does not reproduce the bibliography.

57. “Deine Bibliographie ist eine wertvolle Ergänzung unserer gemeinsamen Arbeit.
Alle Bibliotheken warden das Buch kaufen, schon der Bibl. wegen. Es wird freilich ein
bisserl sehr gelehrtenhaft dadurch,” Neurath to Carnap, August 24, 1928, RC 029-15-03
ASP.

58. See Erkenntnis 1 (1930), pp. 315–340; 2 (1931/32), pp. 151–156; 5 (1935),

pp. 185–204, pp. 409–427.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Perspectives on Science

amongst these were worries about about what to do if Waismann would
not send, despite reminders, what he had promised: the description of
content of the Tractatus and of his own forthcoming book about Wittgen-
stein’s philosophy. “He wanted to get Wittg[enstein’s] permission, since
earlier on we wanted to call him a ‘sympathizer’. Given the current form
of naming Wittg[enstein] (see ms p. 45), he has no cause to object in my
view. Question: shall we feature Wittg[enstein] in the intended fashion
even if Waismann does not answer, or even if Wittgen[stein] objected?”59
In the end, Waismann did send the description of the contents of the
Tractatus and of his own forthcoming book (which was never published in
his lifetime) and Wittgenstein was named in the bibliography, alongside
Einstein and Russell, as a “leading representative of the scientiªc world
conception,” having been mentioned three times in the text.

It was nearly another two weeks before Carnap was able to record in his
diary, on Tuesday, August 6: “Finished brochure!”60 And on Wednesday,
August 7: “Brochure printer-ready to Neurath!”61 Unlike Carnap and
Hahn, Neurath had remained in Vienna and it was he who dealt with the
printers and the publisher. In a concurrent or accompanying letter to
Neurath, Carnap acknowledged the receipt and integration of most of his
and Frank’s corrections, bemoaned the lack of a response from Hahn, and
asked Neurath to ªx some references.62 This Neurath did (“I only made
few changes”); in addition he made some last minute decisions about type-
face in consultation with Frank, arranged for the placement of promo-
tional materials at the back of the brochure and ªnalized an advantageous
contract with the publisher.63 (The promotional materials extended over
ªve pages and included the programmatic statement of the Verein Ernst
Mach.)64 Carnap received the proofs on August 23, noting a delay in pro-
ceedings. He wrote to Neurath: “I am waiting for your corrections, also

59. “Waismann wollte für die Bibliographie den Inhalt des Wittgensteinschen Buches
(und seines eigenen) angeben. Er hat trotz Mahnung bisher nicht geantwortet. Er wollte
noch Wittg.s Einwilligung einholen, da wir ihn füher als ‘Nahestehenden’ bezeichnen
wollten. Bei der jetzigen Form der Nennung von Wittg. (vgl. MS S.45) kann er meiner
Meinung nach keinen Einspruch erheben. Frage: sollen wir Wittg. in der beabsichtigten
Form auch aufnehmen, wenn Waismann nicht antwortet, oder sogar auch, wenn Wittg.
abgelehnt hat?” Carnap to Hahn/Frank/Neurath, July 26, 1929, RC 029-15-14 ASP.

60. “Broschüre fertig gemacht!” RC 025-73-03 ASP.
61. “Broschüre druckfertig an Neurath!” RC 025-73-03 ASP.
62. These comments featured in an addition, dated August 6, to the second page of a
letter originally dated July 30. Carnap to Neurath, July 30–August 6, 1929, RC 029-15-
13 ASP.

63. “Ich habe nur wenig geändert.” See letters Neurath to Carnap, August 14 and Au-

gust 23, 1929, RC 029-15-07, 029-15-04 ASP.

64. They are discussed in greater detail in section 5 below.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto

Feigl’s to whom I sent it right away. Once the proofs are revised I will read
them so that they can be back at the printers on September 8 at the earli-
est. This way the thing can be ready for Prague after all.”65

Carnap returned to Vienna on September 10. His diary notes: “In the
evening to Neurath. There Hahn and Feigl. Hahn and Neurath read their
lectures for Prague. Hahn’s is very good; Neurath hard to understand.”66
As for the “brochure”, however, all was sunshine. In an undated letter
from the end of August apparently, Neurath had noted, amongst various
plans for Prague: “Something else. In the ªnal correction I want to add,
somewhere where we speak of the masses who show a critical attitude, the
word ‘socialist’. It would be strange to avoid it altogether, especially since
we talk about the ‘liberals’.”67 Since Carnap had acceded to Neurath’s re-
quest, no issues remained.68 His diary for the next day, Wednesday, Sep-
tember 11, ªnally notes giving the approval to print: “To the printers.
Checked corrections. Neurath arrives. Imprimatur. With Neurath to the
publishers Wolf. [unreadable] lunch, afterwards to a café. Then sat by the
Ring. I talk about Flitner.”69 This entry makes evident the sense of ‘mis-
sion accomplished’ that Carnap and Neurath shared that afternoon.

Of course, other things still needed to be done before one was ready for
Prague. For Thursday, September 12, Carnap’s diary reads: “Prepared
axiomatics for Prague, ªnally! (In Wieseneck and Munich done nothing
for it.)”70 Then, in the entry for Saturday, September 14, we read: “13.30–

65. “Ich erwarte noch Deine Korr., ferner die von Feigl, dem ich sie gleich zugeschickt
habe. Nach dem Umbruch werde ich noch die Revision lessen, die dann frühestens am 8.
Sept. wieder bei der Druckerei ist. So kann die Sache doch noch für Prag fertig warden.”
Carnap to Neurath, August 25, 1929, RC 029-15-02 ASP.

66. “Abends noch zu Neurath. Dort Hahn und Feigl. Hahn und Neurath lesen ihre
Vorträge für Prag vor. Hahns ist sehr gut; Neurath schwer verständlich.” RC 025-73-03
ASP.

67. “Noch etwas. Ich mochte in der Schlusskorrektur, dort wo wir von den Massen
reden, die kritisch sind, irgendwo das Wort ‘sozialistisch’ einfügen. Es ist komisch, wenn
wir es ganz vermeiden, zumal wir von den ‘Liberalen’ reden?” Neurath also asked whether,
if room was available, some advance publicity could be given to forthcoming publications
by Hahn and his own Social and Economic Museum in the brochure. Neurath to Carnap,
“ca. 29.8.29” in Carnap’s hand, RC 029-15-01 ASP.

68. “So it is that in many countries the masses now reject these [metaphysical and theo-
logical] doctrines much more consciously than ever before, and along with their socialist
attitudes tend to lean towards a down-to-earth empiricist view” (“The Scientiªc Concep-
tion of the World,” in Neurath 1973, 318).

69. “In die Druckerei; Korrektur nachgesehen. Neurath kommt. Imprimatur. Mit
Neurath zum Verlag Wolf. Mit ihm . . . gegessen, nachher ins Café. Nachher am Ring
gesessen. Ich erzähle von Flitner.” RC 025-73-03 ASP. Flitner was an old friend of Carnap’s
that Neurath knew. For more on Flitner see Gabriel 2004.

70. “Axiomatik für Prag vorbereitet, endlich! (Vorher in Wieseneck und München gar

nichts getan dafür.)” RC 025-73-03 ASP.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Perspectives on Science

21.30 to Prague with Feigl, who brings with him the parcel with the ªrst
brochures, Neider, Reidemeisterin, the Neuraths and Hahn (rides in sec-
ond [class]), to the Conference on the Epistemology for the Exact Sci-
ences.”71 History was in the making.

To summarize: what can be learnt from this new look at Carnap’s corre-
spondence and diary? The widely shared view that it was Neurath who
coined the term “Vienna Circle” can be taken as established. Beyond that,
Haller and Stadler are conªrmed in challenging the views that either the
brochure was an equal coproduction of Carnap, Hahn and Neurath or that
it was mainly the work of Neurath. But neither was it simply the product
of a two-stage process, with Neurath producing the ªrst and Carnap the
ªnal draft, as Haller and Stadler suggest. Rather, numerous stages in its
production can be distinguished:

1. The inception of the idea by Carnap with likely early input by

Waismann;

2. Carnap’s and Feigl’s ªrst efforts;
3. Neurath’s ªrst draft;
4. Carnap’s and Feigl’s second go (partly dictated by Feigl);
5. Neurath’s second draft (dictated to Carnap);
6. Carnap’s editing together of what had been produced so far;
7. the incorporation by Carnap of ªnal comments by Hahn, Feigl,

Frank and Neurath;

8. corrections in proof by Carnap, Feigl and Neurath;
9. last checks and joint imprimatur by Carnap and Neurath.

Only three days after the imprimatur the ªrst copies of the brochure were
ready for Prague—“just-in-time”.

4. The Reception of the Brochure
Turning now to the reception of the brochure, we ªnd that while it ap-
pears to have made as much public impact as intended, the type of impact
it did have was not always the one hoped for. This holds true not only for
the public at large, but already for the members of the Vienna Circle and
its sympathisers, as well as at least for one of the “leading representatives
of the scientiªc world-conception.”

When Schlick received his own copy of The Scientiªc Conception of the
World. The Vienna Circle, “bound in beautiful blue leather,” in October

71. “13 1/2–21 1/2 mit Feigl, der das Paket mit den ersten Broschüren mitbringt,
Neider, Reidemeisterin, Neuraths und Hahn (fährt II.) nach Prag, zur Tagung für
Erkenntnislehre der exakten Wissenschaften.” RC 025-73-03 ASP. “Reidemeisterin” is
Marie Reidemeister (sister of Kurt Reidemeister and much later Marie Neurath).

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto

1929 he was both delighted and disturbed: touched by the sentiment, he
reportedly did not like the “advertising style” and the “seemingly dog-
matic formulation.”72 Already some weeks earlier Waismann appears to
have registered criticisms of the brochure which may have reºected Witt-
genstein’s thoroughly negative attitude towards it.73 What was the reason
for Schlick’s and, indeed, Wittgenstein’s negative reaction? Was it merely
that they found their own views inadequately represented?74

In terms of strictly philosophical content, it is difªcult to see what
Schlick found so objectionable in the brochure. Thus it is hard to avoid
the conclusion that one major reason was that Schlick objected to how his
philosophy was contextualized there. Like Wittgenstein, it seems, Schlick
rejected the collectivisation of philosophical work that the manifesto had
praised (in the Preface and sections 1.2 and 4) and the thereby implicit de-
motion of their status from professor or individual genius to intellectual
co-worker.75 Even more so, the only thinly veiled references to the socialist
workers’ movement were abhorrent for Schlick of whom it is reported—
and documented—that he always rejected politicizing tendencies in the
Vienna Circle and in the Verein Ernst Mach.76

For his part, Wittgenstein was hostile to the undertaking from the start
and he remarked in a letter to Waismann that something like a Festschrift
would have honored Schlick in a far more appropriate fashion. Moreover,
he thought he detected unwelcome local tendencies in the popularizing
tone of the pamphlet: “I also think that the Vienna School should not
prostitute itself like all Viennese institutions want to do on all occasions.”
Last, but certainly not least, Wittgenstein was skeptical about the philo-
sophical stance expressed in the brochure: “‘Rejection of metaphysics!’ As

72. See Mulder 1968, 390. Mulder reported Schlick’s claim in a letter from the follow-
ing year “dass er sich weder mit dem reklamehaftem Stil, noch mit den etwas dogmatisch
anmutenden Formulierungen der Broschüre einverstanden erklaren kann.” While no quo-
tation marks are used here, Mulders formulation suggests that the terms used were
Schlick’s.

73. Carnap’s diary for Wednesday, September 25, reads: “Lunch with Waismann and
Rand. Criticism of the brochure.” (“Mittags mit Waismann und Rand. Kritik über
Broschüre.” RC 025-73-03 ASP.) The content of Waismann’s criticism is not further spe-
ciªed. For the text of a letter from Wittgenstein to Waismann of early June 1929 about the
brochure, see Mulder 1968, 389–90.

74. Menger noted that Schlick “certainly would notice (though in his overly modest
way probably not complain about) the fact that his own views were rather inadequately
represented” (Menger 1982, 92).

75. That certainly did not sit well with what one gathers was Wittgenstein’s self-image
and Schlick’s reportedly “aristocratic” personality (so characterized in Stadler 2001, 502–
3).

76. See Kraft 1950; trans. 1953, 194, fn. 4; Menger, “Introduction,” 1994, xiv; and

Stadler 2001, 347–348.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Perspectives on Science

if that was something new! The Vienna School must not say what it
achieves, but show it!”77 Clearly, Wittgenstein did not share the seemingly
uncomplicated anti-metaphysical attitude which the brochure expressed
and most likely was disturbed to see his own foundational reºections on
language and its relation to the world welded to its self-conscious scient-
ism.

Karl Menger and Kurt Gödel also did not like the collectivist tone of
the brochure nor the suggestion that all members shared the views pre-
sented in it. Even though he found it “well written and informative in var-
ious ways,” Menger let it be known that henceforth he only wanted to be
listed as “close” to the Vienna Circle, not as a member of it.78 Gödel re-
portedly felt deeply “alienated” too; however, as a junior member, it seems
he did not take any action.79 Yet Viktor Kraft felt similarly estranged for
similar reasons and did take action: in a later list of members he too ap-
pears only as “close” to the Circle.80

Richard von Mises, ªnally, declined to be named even amongst the
sympathizers, unlike Reichenbach, Walter Dubislav and Kurt Grelling
with whom he was associated in the Berlin Society for Empirical Philoso-
phy.81 For his part, Reichenbach tended to resist the stridency with which
some members of the Vienna Circle displayed their contempt for school
philosophy. This manifested itself not only in the negotiations about the
co-editorship of Erkenntnis, but also already during the preparations for
the Prague conference. Thus in Carnap’s diary we read for Tuesday, July 2:
“Evening and Wednesday morning long telephone calls with Neurath and
Hahn. Then Neurath calls Frank in Berlin. Difªcult agreement with the
Berliners about Prague.”82 And for Monday, July 15: “Neurath railing be-

77. “Aber ich bin auch dafür, dass sich die Wiener Schule bei diesem Anlass nicht
prostituieren soll, wie [es] alle Wiener Institutionen bei jedem Anlass tun möchten. . . .
‘Absage an die Metaphysik!’ Als ob das was Neues ware! Was die Wiener Schule leistet
muss sie zeigen, nicht sagen!” Quoted in Mulder 1968, 389.

78. Menger, 1982, 92, fn.16, and “Introduction,” 1994, xiv and p. xviii, fn.11; com-

pare Neurath 1930, 312 and the bibliography on 335.

79. Menger 1982, 92, fn.16, and “Introduction,” 1994, xviii, fn.11.
80. See Neurath 1973, 312. Menger recalled: “Like Schlick, Feigl and myself, Kraft by
no means shared all the political ideas and ideals of Neurath, although the latter some-
times presented to the public, perhaps unintentionally, the idea of a politically homoge-
neous Circle” (1994, 65). Kraft himself stressed the unpolitical nature of the Vienna Circle
and the Verein Ernst Mach in his 1950.

81. In his letter of 26 July 1929 to Hahn, Frank and Neurath, accompanying the ªrst
fully edited version of the text of the brochure, Carnap asked concerning the bibliography:
“Soll Mises trotz seiner Ablehnung S. 42 unter Wahrscheinlichkeit genannt werden?” RC
029-15-14 ASP. In the end, Mises, Wahrscheinlichkeit, Statistik, Wahrheit, Springer, Vienna,
1928, was mentioned twice, on pp. 32 and 47 of the bibliography.

82. “Abends und Mittwoch früh langes Telefonieren mit Neurath und Hahn. Dann ruft

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto

cause Reichenbach put the word ‘philosophy’ back into the invitation for
Prague.”83 Unlike Carnap, who easily surrendered his provisional title for
the brochure—“The Principles of the Viennese Philosophical School”—
Reichenbach was not ready to jettison the name ‘philosophy’ and even in-
sisted on calling his philosophy of natural science “Naturphilosophie.”84

Yet dissent also was not conªned to those on the outside of the writing
team. Menger reported that Hahn too was not too pleased with all the as-
pects of the brochure. Yet, having been “asked to be the principal signer of
the pamphlet” by Neurath and Carnap, he did so as “one of the conces-
sions he was occasionally prepared to make for the sake of peace” (Menger
1994, xiv and p. xviii, fn. 10). What Menger did not mention was that it
was natural for Hahn to be the principal signer, given that he was Schlick’s
deputy as president of the Verein Ernst Mach under whose aegis the bro-
chure was published. Since Menger did not specify which aspects of the
brochure displeased Hahn, it is difªcult to asses his remark. Moreover,
Menger appears to have made his remark unaware that Hahn contributed
comments and suggestions at several stages of its writing.

This raises the general question of who contributed which parts of the
brochure. Haller is surely right when he states that “it is pretty clear that
the basic conception, the title and the historical grounding derive from
Neurath, whereas the passages which refer to the constitution theory and
the given carry Carnap’s signature.”85 But even Carnap seems to have had
second thoughts.

5. Carnap’s Second Thoughts
Consider the fact that Carnap obviously wished to distance himself from
the contents of the brochure when he wrote to Schlick that it was written
“with more good will than quality,” (see fn. 27 above). This sounds
weightier than mere professional modesty. It is likely that this remark re-
ºects the criticism of the brochure that Waismann presented him with
just ªve days earlier. But with regard to just what did Carnap take that
criticism on board? May it have been the thought so aptly expressed by

Neurath Frank in Berlin an. Schwierige Einigung mit den Berlinern über Prag.” RC 025-
73-03 ASP.

83. “Taxi zu Neuraths. Er schimpft, weil Reichenbach wieder das Wort Philosophie in

die Prager Einladung gebacht hat.” RC 025-73-03 ASP.

84. See letter Neurath to Reichenbach, 22 July 1929, RC 029-15-15 ASP and compare

Reichenbach 1931.

85. “Betrachtet man den Inhalt

so ist ziemlich klar, daß sowohl die
.
.
Grundkonzeption, der Titel, wie die historische Begründung von Neurath stammen,
während die auf die Konstitutionstheorie und das Gegebene Bezug nehmenden Passagen
deutlich die Handschrift Carnap’s tragen” (Haller 1993, 70).

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Perspectives on Science

Menger that the brochure “blends ideals with insights—perhaps not quite
as freely as Neurath would have desired, but certainly too freely from
Schlick’s point of view”? (Menger 1982, 92). Clearly, these “ideals” were
political ones that Schlick did not share. But by 1929 this should not have
come as a surprise to Carnap, so embarrassment about this aspect of the
brochure would not seem to sufªce to explain his self-depreciating de-
scription of its production to Schlick.

To be sure, the brochure was not without its imperfections in terms of
production standards alone. Carnap’s proof reading ensured the absence of
simple typos, but some mistakes did creep into the text and the bibliog-
raphy. First, as the editors and translators of the brochure pointed out, in
the quotation from Russell’s Our Knowledge of the External World, “Russell
wrote about ‘logical atomism’, not speciªcally of ‘logical analysis’” (Anon.
1929, 306, and Neurath 1973, 318, fn. 3). Second, it may also be noted
that while strictly speaking correct, the reference to Popper-Lynkeus’
“(allgemeine Nährpºicht, 1878)” is misleading.86 In his book of 1878,
Popper-Lynkeus did present his plan for a “general peacetime labour draft”
for the ªrst time, but his book of that title was published only in 1912
(Popper-Lynkeus 1924, 85–98; 1912; 1923). Third, the date of the publi-
cation of the “Kautsky-Festschrift,” mentioned as source for Bauer’s “Das
Weltbild des Kapitalismus” in the bibliography, was wrongly given as
1929 when it was 1924.87

In addition, we may note that Neurath wrote to Hahn several years
later inquiring about the provenance of the information about Brentano
that was reproduced in the brochure. Later that year Neurath also wrote to
Walter Hollitscher, a student of Schlick’s who had just gained his Ph. D.,
with a similar query. “The brochure about the Vienna Circle contains
wrong stuff about Brentano as regards his chair, his resignation etc., every-
thing was different. Who we got it from I cannot ascertain anymore; cer-
tainly it wasn’t me as given scant biographical information I would not in-
vent concrete numbers, but rather some behaviour or such like. I want to
ask you to ªnd out if you can where this mistake could have come from.”88

86. Anon. 1929, 303. Note the missing capital in “allgemeine”: this indicates the con-

cept, not the book of the same title (as the translation has it).

87. Missing in English translation; see the original of Anon. 1929, 32, or the reprint of
the brochure in Neurath 1981, 316. The full reference is: Otto Jenssen (ed.), Der lebendige
Marxismus. Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstag von Karl Kautsky, Thüringer Verlagsanstalt, Jena,
1924.

88. “In der Broschüre der Wiener Kreis steht falsches Zeug über Brentano drin, was
Professur, Niederlegung usw. anbelangt, alles war anders. Wer das uns damals eingeºüstert
hat, konnte ich leider nicht mehr feststellen, von mir ist’s sicher nicht, da ich bei so
geringer biographischer Kenntnis keine konkreten Zahlen erdichte, dann schon lieber ein
Behavior oder so was. Ich bitte Sie nun gelegentlich festzustellen, woher dieser Fehler

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto

Hollitscher responded fairly quickly: “The passage in the brochure The
Scientiªc World Conception. The Vienna Circle that deals with Brentano does
not contain any errors, according to sources I consulted, experts I asked
and my own modest knowledge. . . . Since there is no error, the issue of its
literary source has become moot.”89 Understandably, Neurath left it there.
But that is not the end of the matter (Anon. 1929, 302). Independently,
Haller and Heiner Rutte, the editors of his Gesammelte philosophische und
methodologische Schriften, note that in the Brentano passage one factual error
had crept in (Neurath 1981, 302 fn). Brentano did not change faculties af-
ter he resigned from his professorship and he took up a lectureship in-
stead: both were in the philosophical faculty of the University of Vienna.90
So Neurath had been right to feel “haunted” by this passage, even though
the error was hardly massive.

It is unclear, however, whether Carnap even recognized any of the prob-
lems so far mentioned. More to the point, by contrast, would seem be
omissions in the bibliography concerning Schlick’s ground-breaking
Raum und Zeit in der gegenwärtigen Physik. Neither sections I-II nor sections
IV and VIII are mentioned by title, unlike the other ones.91 But this too
appears to be too minor a blemish to account for Carnap’s comment about
the brochure to Schlick. So let’s turn to Schlick’s complaint about its “ad-
vertising style” and “seemingly dogmatic formulations”: may Carnap’s
qualms betoken his belated attention to these features?

Here it is important to note what precisely was at issue. Typically, one
thinks of Schlick’s later complaints about the exclamatory style of the ªrst
version of Neurath’s Empirische Soziologie which in 1930 Schlick rejected
for the series he edited with Frank, Schriften zur wissenschaftlichen Weltauf-
fassung.92 (A later version was accepted—but still not appreciated—and

stammen kann.” Neurath to Hollitscher, November 27, 1934, in Goller and Oberkoºer
2000, 144.

89. “Die Stelle in der Broschüre Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis,
die von Brentano handelt, enthült, wie ich durch Nachschlagen, Befragen von Fachleuten
und meines eigenen bescheidenen Wissens feststellen konnte, keinerlei unrichtige
Angabe. . . . Da ein Irrtum also nicht vorliegt, ist die Frage nach der literarischen
Irrtumsquelle gegenstandslos.” Hollitscher to Neurath, December 8, 1934, in Goller and
Oberkoºer 2000, 145.

90. Brentano resigned his chair in order to take up Saxony citizenship so as to avoid
complication arising from the fact that his marriage as a former priest would not be recog-
nized in Austria; the Austrian authorities disappointed his understanding that he would be
reappointed as professor after some time.

91. Missing in English translation; see the original of Anon. 1929, 43, or the reprint of

the brochure in Neurath 1981, 334–335.

92. On this episode, see Manninen 2001, 65–77 and Uebel 2007, chap. 6.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Perspectives on Science

published in 1931.)93 But apart from the political overtones of the intro-
ductory and closing passages of the brochure (which Carnap tried to keep
as implicit as possible), there is relatively little sloganeering in it. To be
sure, it is not written in the thoughtful style of Hahn’s opening lecture to
the Prague conference—to which Menger once compared it unfavourably
(Menger, “Introduction,” 1994, xiv)—but in its programmatic pro-
nouncements it is not that much more dogmatic than two of Schlick’s
claims at the time. First, one year earlier, Schlick likewise had contrasted
the popular sense of the rise of a new metaphysics with “the true signs of
philosophical reºection in our day” which manifested itself “above all in
the sciences themselves, in their methods and principles” and cited with
approval Hume’s incendiary conclusion to his Enquiry Concerning Human
Understanding.94 And, second, one year later, that “we are at present in the
midst of an altogether ªnal change in philosophy, and are justly entitled
to consider the fruitless conºict of systems at an end” (Schlick 1930; trans.
1979, 155).

The key to understanding the complaint about the brochure’s “adver-
tising style” rather seems to lie in what its present-day reader does not
usually get to see. The brochure not only contained the long and detailed
bibliography (which reprints and translations tend to drop) but, at the
end, it also contained the additional material whose inclusion Neurath
had arranged. Schlick’s complaint was most likely concerned with these
additions and their effect on the overall appearance of the brochure. Con-
sider: 64 pages long, it featured the following. Title page (replicating the
cover) on p. 1; copyright notice on p. 2; dedication on p. 3; table of con-
tents on p. 5; preface (“Geleitwort”) on p. 7; the text on pp. 9–30; over-
view of literature and bibliography on pp. 31–58; name index on p. 59;
the Aufruf of the Verein Ernst Mach, “An alle Freunde der wissen-
schaftlicher Weltauffassung!” (To all friends of the scientiªc world con-
ception!), on p. 60; a list of lectures given and planned by the Verein
on p. 61; the programme of the Prague Conference on the Epistemology
of the Exact Sciences on p. 62; an advance advertisement for two
further publications of the Verein, Hahn’s “Überºüssige Wesenhei-
ten (Occams Rasiermesser)” and Carnap’s “Von Gott und Seele. Schein-
fragen der Metaphysik und Theologie,” on p. 63; and, besides a notice
that all books mentioned in the bibliography can be ordered through

93. See the comments by Schlick to David Rynin, quoted in Stadler 1997, 503.
94. Schlick, 1976; trans. 1979, 132–3 and 135. This Preface was originally written in
1928 for Waismann’s exegetical book on Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, which was to be the ªrst
volume of the Schriften zur wissenschaftlichen Weltauffassung (but only ever appeared posthu-
mously in its much changed 1938 version in 1976).

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto

the publisher of the brochure, an advertisement for one recently pub-
lished volume, Die bunte Welt, and a planned series, Technik und Mensch-
heit, of picture-statistical material prepared by the Gesellschafts- und
Wirtschaftsmuseum in Wien (Neurath’s Social and Economic Museum in
Vienna) on p. 64.95 Notably, just under 10% of the brochure was made up
of publicity materials.

This suggests why, for Schlick, the brochure lacked the self-contained
dignity which any philosophical treatise, no matter how revolutionary,
ought to possess: it set out to “sell” its point of view. What to us may ap-
pear not particularly remarkable—it was not uncommon practice then
and even his own Erkenntnislehre featured notices of other literature by his
publisher—was for Schlick a major blemish. Not just small print on the
last page or the inside back cover but two whole pages in large print ad-
vertising books (not even always clearly related to the philosophy es-
poused) and three pages of text with publicity material for the Verein
Ernst Mach—all that seems to have been far too “worldy” for Schlick’s
sensibility. Now combine Carnap’s dawning realization of the problematic
nature of this promotional aspect of the brochure for Schlick with the
growing suspicion that he had not succeeded in keeping politics and phi-
losophy separate enough on this occasion (and add awareness of the odd
mistake in the bibliography)—all this prompted perhaps by Waismann
over lunch on 30 September—and Carnap’s remark in his letter accompa-
nying the leather-bound copy for Schlick that it was written “with more
good will than quality” begins to ªnd an explanation that avoids straying
into minor details or undue doctrinal subtlety.

6. An Anticipation of Future Debates
If the above explanation were to hold, what would follow? It is conceiv-
able that Carnap’s second thoughts led him to reºect unfavourably on
Neurath’s inclusion of the publicity materials (which he did not veto
when they gave the imprimatur). But it seems that even apart from this,

95. The text of the promotional blurb on p. 60 is nearly identical with (in essentials
fully identical to) that of a handbill for the founding of the Verein Ernst Mach that is re-
printed in Stadler 1997, 332–3. The list of lectures on p. 61 likewise is identical with that
on the handbill, albeit with the addition of Hahn’s “Überºüssige Wesenheiten (Occam’s
Rasiermesser)” and the separation of those already given from those yet to come. (Not re-
printed in any form in the brochure is the “tear here” subscription slip at the bottom of the
handbill). Hahn’s “Überºüssige Wesenheiten” was published the following year (trans.
Hahn 1980, 1–19), but Carnap’s “Von Gott und Seele. Scheinfragen der Metaphysik und
Theologie” never appeared and was published only posthumously (in Carnap, 2004).

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Perspectives on Science

still before it came to those ªnal arrangements for the brochure, that there
did not obtain total agreement between Carnap and Neurath.

Let’s enter the dynamic between them with the help of the following

passage:

Since the meaning of every statement of science must be statable by
reduction to a statement about the given, likewise the meaning of
every concept, whatever branch of science it may belong to, must
be statable by step-wise reduction to other concepts, down to the
concepts of the lowest level which refer directly to the given. . . .
Investigations into constitutive theory show that the lowest layers
of the the constitutive system contain concepts of the experience
and qualities of the individual psyche; in the layer above are physi-
cal objects; from these are constituted other minds and lastly the
objects of social science. (Anon. 1929, 309.)

This clearly endorses the position of “methodological solipsism” which
Carnap adopted in the Aufbau of 1928. To distinguish this position from
straightforward phenomenalism, Schlick’s distinction between cognition
(Erkennen) and experience (Erleben) was adverted to next: objective,
intersubjectively sharable knowledge concerned only the structural but
not the qualitative aspects of experience.

Note that no mention is here made of the “materialistic construction
system” that Carnap envisaged in the Aufbau as well (Carnap 1928; trans.
1967, repr. 2002, § 59). Yet in a newspaper article of 13 October 1929,
we can read the remark of Neurath’s that “all concepts are formed in the
same fashion, in which on the basis of certain rules of control everything
that is asserted is reduced to singular experiences which everybody can
test.”96 The formulation is somewhat obscure, but the thought seems to be
that all concepts had to observe the requirement of intersubjective intelli-
gibility. This suggests a rather different basic level of the constitution sys-
tem than that indicated by allusion to the Aufbau in the cited passage
from the brochure. Relatedly, the published text of Neurath’s Prague ad-
dress speaks of “scientists with a materialist basis,” of “sociology on a ma-
terialist basis,” of “materialistic empiricism,” and of “the scientiªc world
conception in a materialistic basis” (Neurath 1930–31; Neurath 1983, 43
and 47). There is clearly some tension here: it seems that even between

96. “. . . eine Art Einheitswissenschaft anzustreben, in der nach einer Weise alle Briefe
gebildet werden, in der auf Grund bestimmter Kontrollregeln alles, was man behauptet,
auf die Einzelerfahrung zurückgeführt wird, die jeder überprüfen kann” (“Wissen-
schaftliche Weltauffassung,” Arbeiterzeitung, Wien, 13. Oktober 1929; repr. in Neurath
1981, 347).

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto

Carnap and Neurath some compromises had to be found to paper over
what in fact were the beginnings of their differences in the Vienna Circle’s
protocol sentence debate over the form, content and status of the evidence
statements of science (see Uebel 2007).

May it be that—“for the sake of peace”—Carnap and Neurath at the
time agreed that the term “the given” as used in the brochure may, after
all, be interpreted in different ways? Compare how Carnap still broached
the matter in paper published in early 1932:

For our purposes we may ignore entirely the question concerning
the content and form of the primary sentences (protocol sentences).
In the theory of knowledge it is customary to say that the primary
sentences refer to ‘the given’, but there is no unanimity on the
question what it is that is given. At times the position is taken that
sentences about the given speak of the simplest qualities of sense
and feeling (e.g. ‘warm’, ‘blue’, ‘joy’ and so forth); others incline to
the view that basic sentences refer to total experiences and similari-
ties between them; a still different view has it that even the basic
sentences speak of things. Regardless of this diversity of opinion it
is certain that a sequence of words has a meaning only if its rela-
tions of deducibility to the protocol sentences are ªxed, whatever
the characteristics of the protocol sentences may be; and similarly,
that a word is signiªcant only if the sentences in which it may oc-
cur are reducible to protocol sentences. (Carnap 1931–32; trans.
1959, 63.)

The point at issue throughout was to keep talk of meaning related to an
empirical basis. Of course, that these reductive claims were too strong—
both here and in the brochure—turned out, in the end, to be independent
of just what “the given” was conceived to consist of (see Carnap 1936–37).
In the light of this, Carnap’s and Neurath’s compromise—if such it was—
may appear well-considered. At the time, however, it certainly helped
to support the misleading impression of the Vienna Circle as wholesale
foundationalist phenomenalist and to reinforce their reputation as mili-
tant neo-Machians—despite the explicit disclaimer in the brochure to
that effect (Anon. 1929; trans. 305).

7. The term “wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung”
Lastly, a word on the term “world conception” (Weltauffassung) which
the Vienna Circle much preferred over “world view” (Weltanschauung).
Though sometimes mooted to be so, it was not another creation of
Neurath’s. The book series edited jointly by Frank and Schlick since 1928
carried the title “Schriften zur wissenschaftlichen Weltauffassung” (Writ-

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Perspectives on Science

ings on the Scientiªc World-Conception), so the term clearly predates the
brochure. Neurath himself, moreover, is on record as claiming that the
name stems from Frank and Schlick.97 The intent behind the term was to
oppose, as Frank would have put it, “school philosophy.”

Both Hahn and Neurath explained the term’s meaning in their lectures
to the Conference on the Epistemology of the Exact Sciences in Prague.
Hahn put it best:

The name ‘scientiªc world conception’ is intended both as a confes-
sion of faith and as a delimitation of a subject:

It is to confess our faith in the methods of the exact sciences, espe-
cially mathematics and physics, faith in careful logical inference (as
opposed to bold ºights of ideas, mystical intuition, and emotive
comprehension), faith in the patient observation of phenomena, iso-
lated as much as possible, no matter how negligible and
insigniªcant they may appear in themselves (as opposed to the po-
etic, imaginative attempt to grasp wholes and complexes, as
signiªcant and as all-encompassing as possible).

And it is to delimit our subject from philosophy in the usual sense:

as a theory about the world claiming to stand next to the special
sciences as their equal or superior. For in our opinion, anything that
can be said sensibly at all is a proposition of science, and doing phi-
losophy only means examining critically the propositions of the sci-
ences to see if they are not pseudo-propositions, whether they really
have the clarity and signiªcance ascribed to them by the practitio-
ners of the science in question; and it means, further, exposing as
pseudo-propositions those propositions that pretend to a different,
higher signiªcance than the propositions of the special sciences.
(Hahn 1930; trans. 1980, 20)

By contrast with “world conception,” the term “world view” (Weltanschau-
ung) was, as Frank put it, “loaded with metaphysical connotations” (Frank,
“Introduction,” 1949, 38, fn. 24). So the scientiªc world conception was
not to be viewed as one metaphysical world view amongst others, but as
nothing more and nothing less than a properly sober, scientiªc attitude to-
wards cognitive issues. Needless to say, such a claim was no less controver-
sial then than it is today.98

It must also be noted that even though he was happy to edit a book se-

97. Neurath to R. von Mises, 3 November 1930. RC 029-14-02 ASP. This contradicts

one part of Frank’s own report in his “Introduction,” 1949, 38 (see note 43 above).

98. For some observations concerning “Weltanschauung” in the environment of

Carnap’s student years, see Gabriel 2004.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto

ries with “wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung” in the title, Schlick himself
used the term very rarely, if at all. One of these occasions was his Preface to
Waismann’s planned volume on Wittgenstein which was to open that se-
ries. There “the scientiªc conception of the world” was called “the true
philosophical advancement of mankind” (Schlick 1976, 132). And after
noting that this advancement also encompasses psychology and history,
Schlick remarked:

So anyone approaching our undertaking with the suspicion that
‘scientiªc world-conception’ in truth means simply a world-concep-
tion one-sidedly conªned to the natural sciences, has already re-
ceived his answer. The notion of a ‘scientiªc world-conception’ ad-
mits of no restrictive narrower deªnition here.99

So Schlick too pledged allegiance to the cause of the unity of science
which was celebrated in the manifesto that he found, as we saw, just a bit
too crude. Yet anticipatory traces of his dissent can be found already in
this Preface of 1928. Note that Schlick stressed, as did neither Frank or
Hahn or Neurath, that the scientiªc world conception was a philosophical
affair in a special sense: not a traditional philosophical system—and not
uniªed science—but an activity of “clarifying the propositions that ex-
press our knowledge of the world” (Schlick 1976, 138). Clearly, this is a
different conception of the scientiªc world-conception than that professed
in the brochure (and Schlick’s later reticence in using the term may be ex-
plained accordingly).

8. Concluding Remarks
It would lead too far to investigate further here in what respects beyond
the socio-political one Schlick may have have felt his own views misrepre-
sented in the brochure. But it is surely signiªcant that Schlick published
his own “Die Wende in der Philosophie” (“The Turning Point in Philoso-
phy”) in 1930 as the opening article in the ªrst issue of Erkenntnis. It takes
no great leap of the imagination to realise that this paper should be con-
sidered his own alternative, altogether more Wittgensteinian manifesto
(Schlick 1930). Likewise it is notable that when, one year later, Schlick’s
former students Feigl and Albert Blumberg ventured to familarise Ameri-
can colleagues with the new philosophy from Vienna, their presentation
relies nearly exclusively on the portrayal of Schlick’s and Wittgenstein’s
views, even more so that they did not even mention the doctrine of the
unity of science and that their introductory bibliography does not contain

99. Schlick 1976, 135, translation changed from “world-view”: Schlick used “Welt-

auffassung”.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Perspectives on Science

a reference to Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. And even though Feigl’s and
Schlick’s anti-metaphysical tendency is very pronounced, it is expressed as
a position within, not as directed against philosophy.100 Together with
other observations made above, this suggests that already in 1929 there
existed some of the differences between the residually philosophical and
the more scientistic factions of the Vienna Circle, differences that only in-
creased over the years and later became known as those between the “more
conservative wing” around Schlick and Waismann and the “left wing”
which included Carnap, Frank, Hahn and Neurath.101 Clearly, the differ-
ent participants had different ideas as to what precisely the revolution
meant that they were jointly advocating in philosophy.

References
Anon. 1929. Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis. Vienna:
Wolf. Trans. “The Scientiªc Conception of the World: The Vienna Cir-
cle.” Pp. 299–319 in Neurath 1973.

Carnap, R. 1936–37. “Testability and Meaning.” Philosophy of Science 3:

419–471 and 4: 1–40.

———. 1931–32. “Überwindung der Metaphysik durch logische Ana-
lyse der Sprache.” Erkenntnis 2: 219–241. Trans. “The Elimination of
the Metaphysics by the Logical Analysis of Language.” Pp. 60–81 in
A. J. Ayer, ed., Logical Positivism. New York: Free Press, 1959.

———. 2004. “Von Gott und Seele. Scheinfragen der Metaphysik und
Theologie.” Pp. 49–62 in Scheinfragen in der Philosophie und andere
metaphysikkritische Schriften, ed. by T. Mormann. Hamburg: Meiner.
———. 1963. “Intellectual Autobiography.” The Philosophy of Rudolf

Carnap, ed. by P. A. Schilpp. Lasalle, Ill.: Open Court.

———. 1928. Der Logische Aufbau der Welt. Berlin: Bernary. Trans. The
Logical Structure of the World. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1967. Repr. Chicago: Open Court, 2002.

———. 1934. Die Aufgabe der Wissenschaftslogik. Wien: Gerold. Trans.
“The Task of the Logic of Science.” Pp. 46–66 and 282–285 in
McGuinness 1987.

———. 1935. Die Logische Syntax der Sprache. Vienna: Springer. Trans.
Logical Syntax of Language. London: Kegan and Paul, 1937. Repr. Chi-
cago: Open Court, 2002.

100. Feigl and Blumberg 1931. The introductory bibliography is given in the ªrst

footnote there.

101. The ªrst use of these expressions in publications was Carnap 1936–37, 422, and

1963, 57–58.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

100

The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto

Feigl, H., and A. Blumberg. 1931. “Logical Positivism. A New Move-
ment in European Philosophy.” Journal of Philosophy 28: 281–296.
———. 1969. “The Wiener Kreis in America.” The Intellectual Migration
1930–1960, D. Fleming and B. Baylin, eds. Cambridge, Mass.: Har-
vard University Press. Repr. in Feigl, H. Inquiries and Provocations. Se-
lected Writings, 1929–1974, ed. by R. S. Cohen. Dordrecht: Reidel,
1981.

———. 1969. “The Origin and Spirit of Logical Positivism.” The Legacy
of Logical Positivism, P. Achinstein and S. F. Barker, eds. Baltimore: John
Hopkins Press. Repr. in Feigl, 1981.

Frank, P. 1929. “Was bedeuten die gegenwärtigen physikalischen
Theorien für die allgemeine Erkenntnislehre?” Die Naturwissenschaften
17: 971–977 and 987–984. Trans. “Physical Theories of the 20th Cen-
tury and School Philosophy.” Pp. 90–121 in Frank 1949.

———. 1949. Modern Science and its Philosophy. Cambridge, Mass.: Har-

vard University Press.

Gabriel, Gottfried. 2004. “Carnap Brought Home.” Pp. 3–20 in S.
Awodey and C. Klein, eds., Carnap Brought Home: The View from Jena.
Chicago: Open Court.

Goller, P., and G. Oberkoºer, eds. 2000. “Otto Neurath-Walter Holl-
itscher. Briefwechsel (1934–1941).” Pp. 141–210 in H. Hautmann,
ed., Die Alfred Klahr Gesellschaft und ihr Archiv. Beitrage zur oster-
reichischen Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Vienna: Alfred Klahr Gesell-
schaft.

Hahn, H. 1930. “Die Bedeutung der wissenschaftlichen Weltauffassung,
insbesondere fur Mathematik und Physik.” Erkenntnis 1: 96–105.
Trans. “The Signiªcance of the Scientiªc World View [sic!], especially
for Mathematics and Physics.” Pp. 20–30 in Hahn, Empiricism, Logic
and Mathematics, ed. by B. McGuinness. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980.
———. 1930. Überºüssige Wesenheiten (Occam’s Rasiermesser). Vienna: Wolf.
Trans. “Superºuous Entities, or Occam’s Razor.” Pp. 1–19 in Hahn
1980.

Haller, R. 1984. “Was Wittgenstein a Neopositivist?” Fundamentae Scien-
tiae 5. Repr. pp. 27–43 in Haller, Questions on Wittgenstein. Routledge,
London, 1988.

———. 1986. Fragen zu Wittgenstein und Aufsätze zur Österreichischen

Philosophie. Rodopi: Amsterdam.

———. 1993. Neopositivismus. Eine historische Einführung in die Philosophie

des Wiener Kreises, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Hegselmann, R., and G. Sigwart. 1991. “Zur Geschichte der ‘Erken-

ntnis’.” Erkenntnis 35: 461–471.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Perspectives on Science

101

Kraft, Viktor. 1950. Der Wiener Kreis. Vienna: Springer. Trans. The Vienna

Circle, New York: Philosophical Library, 1953.

Manninen, Juha. 2001. “Das verbotene Buch des Wiener Kreises.” Topos

17: 65–77.

McGuinness, B., ed. 1987. Uniªed Science. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Menger, Karl. 1994. Reminiscences of the Vienna Circle and the Mathematical
Colloquium, ed. by L. Golland, B. McGuinness, A. Sklar. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.

———. 1982. “Memories of Moritz Schlick.” Pp. 83–103 in E. T. Gadol,

ed., Rationality and Science. Vienna-New York: Springer.

Mises, R. v. 1930. “Über kausale und statistische Gesetzmässigkeit in der

Physik.” Die Naturwissenschaften 18: 145–153.

Mulder, Henk. 1968. “Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis.”

Journal of the History of Philosophy 6: 386–390.

Neurath, O. 1930–31. “Wege der wissenschaftlichen Weltauffassung.”
Erkenntnis 1: 106–125. Trans. “Ways of the Scientiªc World Concep-
tion.” Pp. 32–47 in Neurath, Philosophical Papers, ed. by R. C. Cohen
and M. Neurath. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1983.

———. 1928. “Gründung des ‘Verein Ernst Mach.’” Der Pionier 3, no.

12: 9–10.

———. 1928. “R. Carnap, Der Logische Aufbau der Welt und Scheinprobleme
der Philosophie.” Der Kampf 21. Repr. pp. 295–297 in Neurath,
Gesammelte philosophische und methodologische Schriften, ed. by R. Haller
and H. Rutte. Vienna: Holder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1981.
———. 1930. “Verein ‘Ernst Mach,’ Wien.” Erkenntnis 1: 74.
———. 1933. Einheitswissenschaft und Psychologie. Vienna: Gerold. Trans.
“Uniªed Science and Psychology.” Pp. 1–23 and 274–278 in
McGuinness 1987.

———. 1973. Empiricism and Sociology, M. Neurath and R. S. Cohen, Eds.

Dordrecht: Reidel.

Popper-Lynkeus, Josef. 1912. Die allgemeine Nährpºicht als Lösung der

sozialen Frage. 2nd shortened ed., Mikola: Vienna, 1923.

———. 1878. Das Recht zu leben und die Pºicht zu sterben. Vienna. 4th ed.

Vienna: Röwith, 1924.

Reichenbach, H. 1931. Ziele und Wege der heutigen Naturphilosophie. Leip-

zig: Meiner.

Schlick, M. 1930. “Die Wende in der Philosophie.” Erkenntnis 1: 4–11.
Trans. “The Turning Point in Philosophy.” Pp. 154–160 in Schlick,
Philosophical Papers vol. 2, ed. by H. Mulder and B. van de Velde-
Schlick. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1979.

———. 1976.

zu Friedrich Waismann, Logik, Sprache,
Philosophie. Kritik der Philosophie.” Pp. 11–23 in F. Waismann, Logik,

“Vorwort

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

102

The Vienna Circle’s Manifesto

Sprache, Philosophie, ed. by G. P. Baker and B. McGuinness. Stuttgart:
Reclam. Trans. “Preface to Friedrich Waismann, Logik, Sprache,
Philosophie. Kritik der Philosophie.” Pp. 130–138 in Schlick, 1979.

Sommerfeld, A. 1929. “Einige grundsätzliche Bemerkungen zur Wellen-

mechanik.” Physikalische Zeitschrift 30: 866–870.

Stadler, Friedrich. 1982. Vom Positivismus zur Wissenschaftlichen Weltauf-

fassung. Vienna: Löcker.

——— 1979. “Aspekte des gesellschaftlichen Hintergrunds und Standort
der Wiener Kreises am Beispiel der Universität Wien.” Wittgenstein, der
Wiener Kreis und der Kritische Rationalismus, ed. by H.Berghel, A.
Hübner and E. Köhler. Vienna Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky. Trans. “As-
pects of the Social Background and Position of the Vienna Circle at the
University of Vienna.” Pp. 51–79 in Rediscovering the Forgotten Vienna
Circle, ed. by T. E. Uebel. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991.

———. 1997. Studien zum Wiener Kreis. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Trans. The Vienna Circle. Studies in the Origins, Development and Inºuence of
Logical Empiricism. Vienna-New York: Springer, 2001.

Uebel, Thomas. 2007. Empiricism at the Crossroads. The Vienna Circle’s Proto-

col Sentence Debate. Chicago: Open Court.

D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
i
r
e
c
t
.

i
t
.

e
d
u
p
o
s
c
/
a
r
t
i
c
e
–
p
d

f
/

1
6
1
7
0
1
7
8
9
4
9
5
p
o
s
c
.
2
0
0
8
1
6
1
7
0
p
d

b
y
g
u
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Download pdf