The Vienna Circle used to be seen as a uniform group of naïve philosophers who had unsuccessfully tried to revive dogmatic sense data empiricism in a logicist setting. Decades later, the astonishing plurality and diversity of positions and strategies of these philosophers are widely appreciated and, in fact, no one today believes that the Vienna Circle was ever committed to any form of dogmatic empiricism at all. The common ground shared by the members of the Vienna Circle included a concern for unification and interdisciplinary integration, the linguistic turn, and a non-cognitivist approach to values. Beyond these very general principles, however, there was plenty of room for pluralism and dissent. Perhaps the most striking illustration of the coexistence of commonalities and tensions in the Vienna Circle is the philosophical and personal relationship between Otto Neurath and Rudolf Carnap to whom this volume is dedicated.
How good was the title wiener kreis, partly because it says so little. In this way it was possible to give a name to rather different tendencies within a uniform togetherness, and as I had predicted, it became popular very quickly.1
What is true of the Vienna Circle as a whole is also true of that part of it which is often referred to by the term “left wing”, a subgroup formed by Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap, Hans Hahn, Philipp Frank, and Edgar Zilsel.2 The unique selling proposition of this group was supposed to be a more radical focus on unified science, physicalism, internationalism, and language planning, together with a strong tendency toward socialism. But do these alleged representations consistently belong to the group? At the least the case of Hans Hahn is
For me, the friendship with Neurath is one of the most meaningful and indispensable points in my life. I owe him a great deal, both personally and factually; above all, I owe him for having taught me to see the historical function of what I would otherwise have worked out only as an isolated scholar “on the icy slopes of logic”. My dream for the future is to collaborate productively with you on a much larger scale than before. One day, our names should stand side by side on the same page of history.7
[Neurath] went further and often presented arguments of a more pragmatic-political rather than of a theoretical nature for the desirability or undesirability of certain logical or empirical investigations. […] We in turn insisted that the intrusion of practical and especially of political points of view would violate the purity of philosophical methods.12
In principle, Carnap did not reject the sociological approach at all, and even considered the “scientific world conception” to be a fundamentally political undertaking.13 Still, he tried to keep theoretical knowledge and practical-political attitude separate. Consequently, he disagreed with Neurath on at least two levels: First, on a more methodological level, Carnap found some of Neurath’s writings poorly constructed, unfounded, charged with unnecessary polemics and careless amalgamations of theoretical assertions and mere opinion. These methodological weaknesses could largely be corrected in the editorial process. But there was also a second level of much stronger disagreement. Carnap, who had changed his earlier views under the influence of Tarski, demanded a serious commitment to (semantic) objectivity, a conception that Neurath always viewed with suspicion.
The main components of the philosophical and personal relationship between Carnap and Neurath emerged at the very beginning of their interaction, namely mutual stimulation and criticism, as well as the common goal of promoting the scientific world conception, while at the same time deep differences crystallized around the tension between logic and the sociology of science. This mixture of strong convergences and significant but subtle points of disagreement proved inspiring and, in the end, explosive. During their interaction in Vienna, the volatile setting of their relationship unfolded mostly
For Carnap, the intense interactions in Vienna, with a multitude of personal encounters and discussions, were followed by a more secluded way of life on the outskirts of Prague. He largely maintained a more “academic” lifestyle, with little or no further involvement in public intellectual discourse, even after his relocation to the United States in late 1935. Neurath, on the other hand, increasingly expanded his activities and promoted “visual education” far beyond Vienna.15 Facing a difficult time after his forced emigration to the Netherlands in 1934, Neurath managed to re-establish an institute for visual education, modelled on the highly successful Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsmuseum, which made him an integral part of Red Vienna (and a bogeyman for the Austrofascists). This episode ended abruptly, when the Nazis invaded the Netherlands in 1940. Neurath managed to escape to England at the last moment and was forced to start all over again. Irrepressible as he was, he soon resumed his research and initiated many activities until his untimely death in 1945.
And now, overburdened with other work, I am lagging behind because I cannot carve out as well as you or Frank or Schlick. Everything comes out a little rough. And I know that.19
As mentioned above, major differences between Carnap and Neurath are discernible from the beginning. Nevertheless, until 1935, Neurath not only welcomed the Aufbau as a foundational text for the new philosophical movement, but he also fully appreciated the “syntactic period” of Carnap’s work, which had culminated in The Logical Syntax of Language – the achievements of which Neurath regarded as the final building block of Logical Empiricism, leaving behind meaningless Wittgensteinian “elucidations”.20 In Carnap’s turn
After a long period, in which scholars talked about Logical Empiricism only in order to criticize the alleged shortcomings of this tradition – radical foundationalism and reductionism that fell short of all kinds of empiricist “dogmas” –, the 1980s brought a wave of renewed interest and led to a thorough historization and development of more balanced accounts of the Vienna Circle, starting with pioneering collections such as Dahms 1985, Rescher 1985, Uebel 1991, and Bell and Vossenkuhl 1992. This reassessment is still in full swing, both in terms of philosophical-historical embedding and systematic discussion of individual approaches. In Europe Rudolf Haller and his collaborators were a driving force in the first phase of the rediscovery;22 the Vienna Circle Institute, co-founded by Friedrich Stadler and directed by him for many years, became a centre of research after 1991.23 On the other side of the Atlantic, J. Alberto Coffa’s major monograph was a kind of initial spark, followed by works by Michael Friedman, Richard Creath, Alan Richardson, and others.24
The present volume is divided into three parts. The papers in the first part deal with aspects of the prehistory and the influences on both Carnap and Neurath before their first meeting in Vienna. It is now well known that, in addition to the work of Frege and Russell, Carnap was influenced by Neo-Kantian and other German philosophical currents. Recently, the perspective
The influence of Ernst Mach on most of the members of the Circle has long been acknowledged and was often stressed by Neurath himself.33 It is also manifested in the name Verein Ernst Mach. Much less well known is the influence of Richard Avenarius, although Neurath occasionally refers to him. Mach himself described the affinity of his views to those of Avenarius as “as great as can possibly be imagined where two writers have undergone a different process of development, work in different fields, and are completely independent of one another”.34 Lucas Baccarat examines the relation of Neurath’s criticism of the correspondence theory of truth to Avenarius’ criticism of “introjection”, with the result that the former can be seen as a linguistic version of the latter. This is not only a proof of ancestry, but also serves to elucidate the often misunderstood position of Neurath and is therefore a prerequisite for understanding the later debate on truth with Carnap: Neurath accused Carnap of making the “mistake of introjection” in adopting semantics.
Apart from philosophical influences, the main sources of Logical Empiricism were the newest developments in science, especially physics. Recent reconstructions of Logical Empiricism’s borrowings from physics tend to focus on Einstein’s theories of relativity and, to a lesser extent, quantum mechanics. As Jordi Cat’s paper points out, this limited focus loses sight of the various important commitments to Maxwell’s contributions to physics that can be found in both Carnap and Neurath. According to Cat’s insightful paper, since the establishment of connections to Maxwell was significantly different in each case, it
Written mainly in 1925,35 Carnap’s Aufbau marks the exact state of Carnap’s thought when he entered the Vienna scene. There is little doubt today that this massive endeavour has proven to be flawed in various ways, but the exact nature of the flaws is still a matter of debate. Touching on a crucial point in the debate, Thomas Uebel asks in his contribution to this volume whether a “structuralist” reading can save the Aufbau from the charge of reductive failure. Uebel answers the latter question in the negative, arguing that Carnap’s methodological solipsism, on any reading, is based on a faulty assumption about the epistemological order of human cognition. Uebel’s systematic approach corresponds to the historical course of events, since Neurath vehemently rejected methodological solipsism from the beginning.
Part 2 covers the most intense phase of philosophical collaboration between Carnap and Neurath, marked by the concerted publication of substantial papers on physicalism and the protocol sentence debate.36 The popular narrative of the interaction between Carnap and Neurath sees Neurath in the role of the energetic inventor, pushing forward new ideas which were then clarified and elaborated in detail by Carnap. On closer inspection, this narrative appears to be oversimplified, for it obscures important areas of disagreement between Carnap and Neurath. Neurath, for example, tended to use the term “physicalism” to denote a comprehensive attitude (“Gesamthaltung”)37 rather than the single, well-defined thesis of complete translatability of every proposition into a physical proposition. As Gergely Ambrus argues in his paper, for Neurath a purely phenomenal, private language would be meaningless in a strict sense. To support this claim, Neurath develops a “private language argument” (its relation to Wittgenstein’s famous argument is also discussed by Ambrus). Carnap, on the other hand, accepted the possibility of private languages as such, and based his argument on the uselessness of untranslatable phenomenal reports.
This leads directly to the problem of protocol sentences. Not only are they a crucial touchstone of physicalism (in the narrow sense), but the question of the nature and function of protocol sentences “comprises the questions dealt with under the terms ‘empirical foundation’, ‘testing’ and ‘verification’”.38 The focus of Joseph Bentley’s paper is on the unfolding of Neurath’s theory, which
The emergence of Carnap’s conception from the Aufbau is examined in detail in Johannes Friedl’s contribution. The gradual development is initiated by the departure from the Aufbau and fuelled by the contributions of Neurath, Popper and Schlick as well as by the emergence of Carnap’s meta-philosophy. Examining this mature conception, Friedl concludes that Carnap was not entirely successful in getting rid of traditional epistemological problems.
The discussions between Carnap and Neurath on the different conceptions of physicalism and of protocol sentences never led to a state of mutual agreement; nevertheless, these issues were replaced as a hot spot of controversy by the debate on semantics, especially the notion of truth, which lasted from the early thirties until Neurath’s death. Ulf Höfer and Hans-Joachim Dahms examine this debate, which took place almost exclusively in the correspondence and other unpublished sources. Höfer focuses on the exchange surrounding the conference in Paris in 1937 (Carnap’s last visit to Europe for decades) as a first climax of the debate. It was at this time that both positions were first elaborated in some detail, leaving behind the somewhat superficial debate on the name “semantics”. Dahms focuses on the debate on Russell’s Inquiry into Meaning and Truth, much of whose exact wording is discussed in the correspondence. This exchange with Neurath as prosecutor and Carnap as reluctant defendant, is unique in its level of detail, and takes on added significance since Neurath’s accusations of Russell’s “Aristotelian metaphysics” could easily be understood as directed against Carnap as well. Dahms concludes by drawing lessons from the current controversy on “fake news”. Like Höfer, Dahms sees the controversy on semantics as revealing a deep discrepancy with far-reaching consequences.
Part 3 of this volume deals with several other contexts and controversies that framed the interactions between Carnap and Neurath from the 1930s onwards. Christoph Limbeck-Lilienau examines the reactions of Carnap and Neurath to the Tractatus. It is well known that Neurath was from the outset extremely negative about the “metaphysical-mystical” aspects of the Tractatus, but it is another matter to identify the exact points of disagreement. In the case of Carnap, the relationship is more complicated; on his way to The Logical Syntax of Language, he tried to hold on to central insights of the Tractatus while at
Another aspect of the relationship with Wittgenstein is explored by Christopher Burke and Günther Sandner. Far from being a mere means of subsistence, Neurath himself saw Isotype as complementary to philosophical work, reflecting on the educational, social dimension of the scientific world conception. As such, the close affinities with the theoretical, doctrinal side are explored by Burke and Sandner, including an examination of the similarities and dissimilarities between Neurath’s pictorial language and the Tractatus’ picture theory.
Based on a close study of Carnap’s diaries and the Carnap/Neurath-correspondence, Friedrich Stadler sheds light on Kurt Gödel’s role in the Vienna Circle and later in the United States and corrects the widespread view of Gödel as a strange outsider and lone thinker, connected to the Vienna Circle only by chance.
The political and pedagogical dimensions of the scientific world conception are also examined in the article by Adam Tuboly. In 1944, together with Joseph A. Lauwerys, Neurath published ideas on the re-education of Germany after the war. The thesis of totalitarian tendencies in Plato, as put forward by Neurath/Lauwerys, met with rejection from a broad front of the British intelligentsia – with the important exception of Bertrand Russell – in defence of Plato. Tuboly analyses this increasingly surreal debate and Neurath’s efforts to uncover the roots of totalitarianism, an enterprise that had always been a driving motive for this “undaunted fighter who dreamt of a better and more humane world”.39
We are grateful to the Austrian Science Fund (fwf) for funding the research projects that formed the framework within which the conference took place: P 31716 “Carnap in Context ii: (Dis)continuities” (Christian Damböck) and P 30377 “The Carnap/Neurath-Correspondence” (Johannes Friedl, Ulf Höfer). The University of Graz and the University of Vienna (Institute Vienna Circle) gave financial support. Thanks are also due to Udo Thiel, Werner Sauer and especially Ingeborg Röllig (all University of Graz) for their support, not only in organizational matters. Special thanks also go to Mark Nader Basafa for his tremenduous copy editing work that highly improved the quality of this volume. The title of this volume and the conference on which it is based is
“Wie gut war der Titel wiener kreis, zum Teil, weil er so wenig aussagt. So konnten recht differenzierende Neigungen innerhalb eines doch einheitlichen Zusammenseins mit einem Namen versehen werden, der sehr rasch populär wurde, wie ichs prophezeite” (Neurath to Carnap, August 3, 1939, asp-rc 102-53-04).
Cf. Uebel 2004.
This is due not only to his premature death in 1934: Hahn remained sceptical about physicalistic protocols as well as the idea of Unified Science, a concept he made fun of by misspelling the German expression “Einheitswissenschaft” (Unified Science) as “Einheizwissenschaft” (einheizen = to heat something/to light a fire under someone); cf. Neurath to Carnap, June 16, 1945, asp-rc 102-55-11.
Cf. Verein Ernst Mach (1929/2012), p. 103. Also later, Carnap adhered to this classification (Carnap 1932/33, p. 181). Beside this formal restriction, it is worth mentioning that Zilsel, in his contribution to the protocol sentence debate (Zilsel 1932/33), fits badly with the other “left-wingers” concerning his admission of the “ineffable”.
This is not only true of publications: in the whole correspondence between Carnap and Neurath there are only a very few mentions to be found. Among those who rejected this classification is – unsurprisingly – Moritz Schlick, who disallowed this terminology flatly, calling it “ridiculous”; cf. Friedl 2013, p. 171, n. 8.
The first letter handed down is Neurath to Carnap, October 19, 1923 (rc 029-16-07). The contact was mediated by Franz Roh, a mutual close friend.
“Die Freundschaft mit Neurath ist für mich einer der ganz bedeutungsvollen Punkte im Leben und mir unentbehrlich. Ihr verdanke ich menschlich und sachlich viel. Besonders, daß ich gelernt habe, die historische Funktion dessen zu sehen, was ich sonst nur als isolierter Gelehrter ‚auf den eisigen Firnen der Logik‘ erarbeiten würde. Produktive Kooperation mit Dir in weit größerem Maßstab noch als bisher ist mein Traum für die Zukunft. Unsere beiden Namen sollen einmal auf einem Blatt der Geschichte nebeneinander stehen” (Carnap to Neurath, February 10, 1932, asp-rc 029-12-63).
Carnap 1928/2003, § 4; cf. Neurath 1930/1983, p. 47.
Neurath 1931/1983, p. 65.
Neurath 1928/1981, p. 296.
Carnap 1963, p. 22–23.
See Damböck 2022.
“Otto Neurath hat derzeit keinen gleichgesinnten Gegner, mit dem er sich herumraufen könnte” (Olga Neurath to Carnap, January 12, 1932, asp-rc 029-12-72).
These activities are documented in Sandner 2014, e.g. Neurath’s engagement in Moscow between 1931 and 1934 (pp. 227–233).
All in all, there are about 500 letters known (plus several postcards and telegrams), now held by the Archive of Scientific Philosophy in Pittsburgh respectively the Vienna Circle Archive at the Noord-Hollands Archief in Haarlem. Publication of a substantial selection (edited by Christian Damböck, Johannes Friedl, Ulf Höfer) is in preparation. For a preliminary survey on the topical main points, see Hegselmann 1985.
The important exception is the discussion on protocol sentences: Neurath 1932/1983, resp. Carnap 1932/1987.
Carnap 2022b, entry from March 22, 1934.
“Und nun bin ich, überlastet durch andere Arbeit, im Hintertreffen, da ich nicht so gut ziselieren kann wie Du oder Frank oder Schlick. Alles kommt etwas grob heraus. Und ich weiß das” (Neurath to Carnap, October 9, 1932, asp-rc 029-12-24).
Cf. Neurath 1936/1981, p. 697.
Neurath to Carnap, April 1, 1944, asp-rc 102-55-08. Neurath identified another source of bad influence (beside Tarski) in Popper.
In addition to the publication of the first volumes of Neurath’s Gesammelte Schriften (see below): Haller 1986, Haller 1993, and Haller and Stadler 1993.
Of Stadler’s extremely numerous publications, we confine to Stadler 1997. The two series Publications of the Vienna Circle Institute and Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, founded by Stadler, are still central organs of relevant research today.
Coffa 1991, Giere and Richardson 1996, Richardson 1998, Friedman 1999, Hardcastle and Richardson 2003, Friedman and Creath 2007, Richardson and Uebel 2007; also worth mentioning are Cartwright, Cat, Fleck and Uebel 1996, Parrini, Salmon and Salmon 2003, Uebel 2007.
The most up-to-date overview is provided by Uebel and Limbeck-Lilienau 2022.
Publications focussing on Carnap and/or Neurath: Awodey and Klein 2004, Carus 2007, Wagner 2009, Symons, Pombo and Torres 2011, Creath 2012, Cat and Tuboly 2019, leaving aside publications that deal with non-philosophical aspects of the extremely versatile Neurath, especially his work on visual education (Isotype), economics, and sociology.
The first five volumes of this edition, long out of print, have been reprinted and supplemented by three newly edited volumes. The whole series is now available as Otto Neurath – Gesammelte Schriften, Vienna, lit Verlag, 2021–2022. Carnap 2019 is the long-awaited first volume of his Collected Works.
Cf. Hegselmann 1985.
A selection of this correspondence is to appear with Meiner Verlag, Hamburg. A first draft of the complete correspondence is available online in the Virtual Archive of Logical Empiricism (valep):
Carnap 2022a and 2022b; further volumes are in preparation. Also in preparation is an edition of the entire scientific correspondence of Carnap.
Carnap (in preparation).
Still in one of his last papers Neurath calls himself “a hard-boiled Machian” (Neurath 1946/1983, p. 237) and states that “[m]any of us, besides myself, have been brought up in a Machian tradition, e.g., Frank, Hahn, von Mises” (Ibid., p. 230).
Mach 1906/1959, p. 46f.
For the history of origins of the Aufbau, see Damböck 2021.
Neurath to Carnap, June 21, 1935, asp-rc 029-09-45.
Carnap 1932/1987, p. 457.
Popper 1973, p. 56.
References
asp-rc = Archives of Scientific Philosophy, Rudolf Carnap Papers, University of Pittsburgh.
Awodey, S. and Klein, C. (eds.) (2004) Carnap Brought Home. The View from Jena, Chicago: Open Court.
Bell, D. and Vossenkuhl, W. (eds.) (1992) Wissenschaft und Subjektivität/Science and Subjectivity, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Carnap, R. (1928/2003) The Logical Structure of the World, Chicago/La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.
Carnap, R. (1931/1934) The Unity of Science, translated by M. Black, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
Carnap, R. (1932/33) ‘Erwiderung auf die Aufsätze von E. Zilsel und K. Duncker’, Erkenntnis 3, pp. 177–188.
Carnap, R. (1932/1987) ‘On Protocol Sentences’, Noûs 21, pp. 457–470.
Carnap, R. (1934/2002) The Logical Syntax of Language, translated by A. Smeaton, Chicago: Open Court.
Carnap, R. (1963) ‘Intellectual Autobiography’, in P.A. Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, La Salle/Ill.: Open Court, pp. 1–84.
Carnap, R. (2019) Early Writings (Collected Works , vol. 1), Carus, A.W., Friedman, M., Kienzler, W., Richardson, A., Schlotter, S. (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carnap, R. (2022a) Tagebücher, Band 1: 1908–1919, hrsg. von C. Damböck, unter Mitarbeit von B. Arden, R. Jordan, B. Parakenings und L.M. Rendl, Hamburg: Meiner.
Carnap, R. (2022b) Tagebücher, Band 2: 1920–1935, hrsg. von C. Damböck, unter Mitarbeit von B. Arden, R. Jordan, B. Parakenings und L.M. Rendl, Hamburg: Meiner.
Carnap, R. (in preparation) Tagebücher 1936–1970, hrsg. von C. Damböck, unter Mitarbeit von B. Arden, P.L. Bauer und B. Parakenings, Hamburg: Meiner.
Cartwright, N., Cat, J., Fleck, L. and Uebel, T. (1996) Otto Neurath. Philosophy between Science and Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carus, A.W. (2007) Carnap and Twentieth-Century Thought. Explication as Enlightenment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cat, J. and Tuboly, A.T. (eds.) (2019) Neurath Reconsidered. New Sources and Perspectives, Cham: Springer.
Coffa, A.J. (1991) The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap. To the Vienna Station, Wessels, L. (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creath, R. (ed.) (2012) Rudolf Carnap and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism, Dordrecht: Springer.
Dahms, H.-J. (ed.) (1985) Philosophie, Wissenschaft, Aufklärung. Beiträge zur Geschichte und Wirkung des Wiener Kreises, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
Damböck, C. (2021) ‘Die Entwicklung von Carnaps Aufbau 1920–1928’, in Damböck, C. and Wolters, G. (eds.), Der junge Carnap in historischem Kontext: 1918–1935/Young Carnap in an Historical Context: 1918–1935, Cham: Springer, pp. 19–53.
Damböck, C. (2022) ‘The Politics of Carnap’s Non-Cognitivism and the Scientific World-Conception of Left-Wing Logical Empiricism’, Perspectives on Science 30 (4), pp. 493–524.
Damböck, C., Sandner, G. and Werner, M. (eds.) (2022) Logical Empiricism, Life Reform, and the German Youth Movement/Logischer Empirismus, Lebensreform und die deutsche Jugendbewegung, Cham: Springer.
Friedl, J. (2013) Konsequenter Empirismus. Die Entwicklung von Moritz Schlicks Erkenntnistheorie im Wiener Kreis, Vienna/New York: Springer.
Friedman, M. (1999) Reconsidering Logical Positivism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, M. and Creath, R. (eds.) (2007) The Cambridge Companion to Carnap, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giere, R.N. and Richardson, A.W. (eds.) (1996) Origins of Logical Empiricism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Haller, R. (1986) Fragen zu Wittgenstein und Aufsätze zur Österreichischen Philosophie, Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Haller, R. (1993) Neopositivismus. Eine historische Einführung in die Philosophie des Wiener Kreises, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Haller, R. and Stadler, F. (eds.) (1993) Wien – Berlin – Prag. Der Aufstieg der wissenschaftlichen Philosophie, Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.
Hardcastle, G.L. and Richardson, A. (eds.) (2003) Logical Empiricism in North America, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hegselmann, R. (1985) ‘Die Korrespondenz zwischen Otto Neurath und Rudolf Carnap aus den Jahren 1934 bis 1945 – ein vorläufiger Bericht’, in Dahms (1985), pp. 276–290.
Mach, E. (1906/1959) The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical, trans. from the first German ed. by Williams, C.M., revised and supplemented from the fifth German ed. by S. Waterlow, New York: Dover 1959.
Neurath, O. (1928/1981) ‘R. Carnap, Der logische Aufbau der Welt’, in Neurath (1981), vol. 1, pp. 295–297.
Neurath, O. (1930/1983) ‘Ways of the Scientific World-Conception’, in Neurath (1983), pp. 32–47.
Neurath, O. (1931/1983) ‘Sociology in the Framework of Physicalism’, in Neurath (1983), pp. 58–90.
Neurath, O. (1932/1983) ‘Protocol Statements’, in Neurath (1983), pp. 91–99.
Neurath, O. (1936/1981) Die Entwicklung des Wiener Kreises und die Zukunft des Logischen Empirismus, in Neurath (1981), pp. 673–702.
Neurath, O. (1944) Foundations of the Social Sciences (International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, vol. ii, no. 1) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Neurath, O. (1946/1983) ‘The Orchestration of the Sciences by the Encyclopedism of Logical Empiricism’, in Neurath (1983), pp. 230–242.
Neurath, O. (1981) Gesammelte philosophische und methodologische Schriften, 2 vols., Haller, R. and Rutte, H. (eds.), Wien: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky [Reprint Vienna: lit Verlag 2021].
Neurath, O. (1983) Philosophical Papers 1913–1946, edited and translated by R.S. Cohen, and M. Neurath, Dordrecht: Reidel.
Neurath, O. (2021/22) Gesammelte Schriften, 8 vols., Haller, R. and Stadler, F. (eds.), Vienna: lit Verlag.
Parrini, P., Salmon, W. and Salmon, M. (eds.) (2003) Logical Empiricism. Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
Popper, K. (1973) ‘Memories of Otto Neurath’, in Neurath, Empiricism and Sociology, edited by M. Neurath and R.S. Cohen, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 51–56.
Rescher, N. (ed.) (1985) The Heritage of Logical Positivism, Lanham: University Press of America.
Richardson, A.W. (1998) Carnap’s Construction of the World. The Aufbau and the Emergence of Logical Empiricism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richardson, A. and Uebel, T. (eds.) (2007) The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Russell, B. (1940) An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth, London: Allen and Unwin.
Sandner, G. (2014) Otto Neurath. Eine politische Biographie, Vienna: Zsolnay.
Stadler, F. (1997) Studien zum Wiener Kreis. Ursprung, Entwicklung und Wirkung des Logischen Empirismus im Kontext, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp [engl. ed.: The Vienna Circle. Studies in the Origins, Development, and Influence of Logical Empiricism, abridged and revised ed., Cham: Springer 2015].
Symons, J., Pombo, O. and Torres, J.M. (eds.) (2011) Otto Neurath and the Unity of Science, Dordrecht: Springer.
Uebel, T. (ed.) (1991) Rediscovering the Forgotten Vienna Circle. Austrian Studies on Otto Neurath and the Vienna Circle, Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.
Uebel, T. (2004) ‘Carnap, the Left Vienna Circle, and Neopositivist Antimetaphysics’, in Awodey and Klein (2004), pp. 247–278.
Uebel, T. (2007) Empiricism at the Crossroads. The Vienna Circle’s Protocol-Sentence Debate, Chicago/La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.
Uebel, T. and Limbeck-Lilienau, C. (eds.) (2022) The Routledge Handbook of Logical Empiricism, London/New York: Routledge.
Verein Ernst Mach (1929/2012) The Scientific World-Conception. The Vienna Circle, rev. trans., in Stadler, F. and Uebel, T. (eds.), Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis. Hrsg. vom Verein Ernst Mach (1929), Vienna: Springer, pp. 75–116.
Wagner, P. (ed.) (2009) Carnap’s Logical Syntax of Language, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wittgenstein, L. (1922/1961) Tractatus logico-philosophicus, translated by D.F. Pears and B.F. McGuinness, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Zilsel, E. (1932/33) ‘Bemerkungen zur Wissenschaftslogik’, Erkenntnis 3, pp. 143–161.