1 Introduction
National characteristics and ideological connections between abstract ideas are admittedly hard to disentangle into a clear and one-dimensional line. Whatever we think about the philosophical legitimacy of this entire discourse, it plays without doubt a substantial part in contemporary socio-ethical and political discussions. Understanding the sources of these debates, their internal logic and fields of applications is thus not just current but important as well. In this paper, I will concentrate on reconstructing one such historical event from twentieth-century history of analytic philosophy that might shed some light on this discourse.1 What I have in mind is Otto Neurathâs crusade (or campaign) about the relation between Plato, the general Platonic attitude and Fascism/Nazism (as participants of the debate often used these two terms interchangeably, I will do the same here).
In Section 2, I reconstruct Neurathâs and Joseph A. Lauwerysâ papers on German (re)education and Plato with the replies that were published in The Journal of Education. Some lessons and main points will be presented that
2 The Long 1940s: Readings of Plato and the Nazi-Charge
When Neurath arrived in England on May 15, 1940, he had a recently acquired German passport and thus he was considered to be an âenemy alienâ. As such, he was interned in various prisons and camps for eight long months, as was his close colleague and future wife Marie Reidemeister.
Neurath found a well-prepared field: in the 1930s, Moritz Schlick, C.G. Hempel, Rudolf Carnap and Neurath himself went to England for lecture-tours. Neurath also organized the Fourth International Congress for the Unity of Science at Girton College, Cambridge together with Susan Stebbing on July 14â19, 1938. At this time, members of the British intelligentsia and many philosophers conducted specialized debates about the (supposed) relation between Fascism and German philosophy (conducted often on the pages of newspapers and magazines). It is not known whether Neurath knew about the discussion when he arrived in England, nevertheless he turned quickly to these questions.2
2.1 The First Papers on Germany and a Fear about Plato
The first explicit mention of Plato and the relation of his philosophy to contemporary trends is to be found in Neurathâs 1942 article, âInternational Planning
His co-author was Joseph A. Lauwerys, whose family emigrated from Belgium to England in 1914. Lauwerys, an ardent defender of basic English, earned various degrees and started to lecture on scientific method at the London Institute of Education. He was interested in films, modern media and became quickly an internationally recognized scholar and leader on comparative education; he became a member of a committee that discussed the possibilities of educational reconstruction after the war. As such, he was involved in the development of unesco, and he edited the World Year Book of Education from 1947 to 1970.5
Neurath and Lauwerys started to work together already in 1941 as they jointly organized the so-called âTerminologyâ workshop in Oxford, Neurathâs first major event as a scientific refugee in England. In 1944, they started to discuss publicly their common ideas on education and Nazism. The 54th edition of Putzgerâs atlas, the subject of Neurath and Lauwerys, shows already the explicit signs of Nazi intellectual occupation of cultural fields. As the earlier editions had a map of Palestine and others about the journeys of St. Paul, âthe new edition gives no honorable space to the Jews. Instead we find four pages devoted to straightforward propagandaâ describing the expansions of the âEternal Germanyâ.6 There were new maps showing the tours of Hitler and âone rather disgusting diagram tells the children in which places Nazis were killed during the troubles they themselves had startedâ.7
For Neurath and Lauwerys, the new atlas was much more aggressive and nationalist in its tone, placing Germany in a central place thus interpreting all the historical and geographic changes in Europe as related to the claims of Germany; by doing that, authors of the map often disclaimed the rights and values of others. Neurath and Lauwerys ended their article by calling attention to the difficulties of how to defeat Nazism with democratic tools: âWhat we
One month later, Neurath and Lauwerys (1944b) published the second part of their paper. In that short piece, they described various cases of historical figures that have been considered later as strong, modern, and great men despite their brutality, intolerance, and the persecution carried out in their names. They used as examples a book by Ernst Kantorowitz about Frederick ii, the Holy Roman Emperor, and the philosophy of Plato. Although the former did not play a significant role in their article, the archive files of Neurath contains a shorter piece, titled âThe Boy from Apuliaâ, which is a critical discussion of Kantorowiczâs book. Thus, before I move to the Plato articles, I will quickly overview this manuscript because it also sheds some light on Neurathâs target and audience.
When he was in England, Neurath did a strange social experiment: in his correspondence, he asked many of his persecuted, mainly Jewish friends about their opinion of Frederick ii. Most of them claimed that although turmoil played a significant role in his life, it was the external development of history that enforced upon him some form of necessary ruthlessness. Thus, in general, Frederick ii was a genius, a great man, who achieved important things and could stand up proudly against the waves of history. When Neurath told them all the stories of persecution, intolerance that were attributed to Frederick ii, and described to them the âbeastly cynicâ, all of his friends were shocked. Both Neurath and his friends read the same stories and books about Frederick ii, e.g. Kantorowiczâs biography, but his friends had âtotally forgotten the terrible stories published in this book ⦠strange, is it not?â8 What is the explanation of this magical loss of memory of those details that would question the greatness of historical figures?
Long time ago I thought that German Jews did not know the factual material, but that is not the case, in burckhardt and kantorowicz all these details are recorded, but their authors try to create an atmosphere of positive reaction towards the renaissance, the forerunner of which should be frederic ii. And this judgment of these two authors is so powerful in the German atmosphere, that very, very many Jews take the admiration of the Renaissance as granted and did not apperceive the details, they read themselves. I think that this preparedness to accept ruthlessness as something connected with
neurath, âThe Boy from Apulia,â K. 60, original emphases9great men, is in the German atmosphere more usual, than in others, where friendship, brotherhood, tolerance founded [â¦].
one may also explain that Hitler was a great man, in his period a certain ruthlessness normal etc. Organizer of centralized civil service, unification of national pattern etc., I know how to make a âhistoricalâ proper description.
neurath, âThe Boy from Apulia,â K. 60
Even though Kantorowiczâs book was translated into English,10 English and American citizens will not identify themselves with Frederick ii because they have âstrong democratic currentsâ, said Neurath and Lauwerys, but âin Germany the case is differentâ.11 For that reason, they did not use the case of Frederick ii in their articles; instead of him they utilized someone else as their focal point, someone who was well known both in the German and the English-speaking countries, namely Plato.
- (A)The purpose of the State is to preserve the purity of the race and to organize the people for war against foreign barbarians;
- (B)Ãlite classes of the people must be specially trained for fight and that they must be brought, as very young children, to scenes of slaughter and battle, so that, like young hounds, they may develop a proper blood lust.
- (C)In order to attain its supreme aims, the State must control all marriages, literature, and music and a strict censorship of books should be established.13
Given these points, they argued, even if after the war one would not explicitly talk about Nazism, racism, and Hitler, âthese German writers,â by disseminating uncritically the mentioned views of Plato, âwould be carrying on Nazi propaganda.â
Neurathâs and Lauwerysâ article was followed in the next month by a short critique put forward by F.W. Garforth14 who later become known as the author of various books on famous philosophersâ educational ideas (Mill, Dewey, and Locke). Garforth denied that Plato ever accepted (A) in the Republic. His main claim was that Platoâs Republic could not have been oppressive and totalitarian because the aim (and thus the educational background) of the philosopher kings was âthe vision of the Good (which is the source of all truth and understanding), of the Beautiful and the other Forms. [â¦] Platoâs goal for the State was the organization of government and of society according to the ultimate laws of realityâ.15
2.2 The Actual Paper on Plato and Its Reception
A month later, Neurath and Lauwerys replied to Garforthâs short note with a longer article centered on three major issues.16 First, they tried to restate (A) by claiming that even if Plato did not claim that explicitly, the implication
In conclusion, we feel it essential to stress once again that we do not think that the Republic represents the whole of Plato, nor that the preparation of a warlike caste on a racial system represents the whole of the Republic; but we do think that these and other proposals, which seem equally terrible and repellent from a democratic point of view, are to be found there by naïve readers.
neurath/lauwerys 1945a, p. 58
Although their initial aim in 1944 was to call attention to certain specific problems regarding the re-education of German people and de-Nazification of German cultural life, after Garforthâs defense of Plato and his Republic, Neurath
2.3 Responses to Neurath and Lauwerys and Their Self-Defense
After their response, the British intelligentsia took the lead and three separate âcorrespondence noteâ appeared in The Journal of Education. G.C. Field from the Department of Philosophy, University of Bristol, who published a book about Plato already in 1930, aimed at producing a devastating critique of Neurath and Lauwerys. He had some particular and general points: regarding the latter, Field claimed that âit is clear that Messrs. Neurath and Lauwerys completely misinterpret Plato on some of the most important pointsâ and âthey are displaying a sad lack of understanding [â¦] and [that] underlies their whole approach to the study of Platoâ.19 The main focus of the criticism was Neurath and Lauwerysâ suggestion that we should read Plato naively as possible. According to Field, this is a âfundamentally wrong approachâ as we cannot disregard our own preconceptions, hence Neurath and Lauwerys read Plato in their own context, thus they place the Republic in the âfor or against Nazismâ net of considerations.20
[t]here is nothing about âpurity of the raceâ in the sense that we have come to attach to the phrase in the Republic at all. It is true that Plato advocated the use of eugenic methods, to a degree that would shock modern sentiment, in order to breed for certain qualities. But that is quite a different thing. It is the qualities that he is interested in, not the ancestry which is only a means to these.
field 1945a, p. 161
So, from Fieldâs viewpoint, even though Plato had the idea of controlled quality-check in society and accepted the eugenic ideal of human-engineering, his conception is substantially and relevantly different because it was based
The other reply to the Neuraths came from C.E.M. Joad, a popular philosopher and public intellectual from London (also the Head of the Department of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, London), who was unsparing with general criticism, claiming that Neurathâs and Lauwerysâ paper was âvitiated by a simple errorâ and âif one wanted a short guide to what Plato did not believe, one could scarcely do better than read their articlesâ.21 He also repeated some claims from Garforthâs paper (that the aim of Platoâs state and its rulers was to understand and perceive the Good and the Beautiful), and tried to make a point regarding the nature and necessity of war in the Republic. Though Joad tried to create a distance between Plato and Nazism â despite the alleged similarities put forward by the Neurath â his main aim was to show that presence of war between nations was a pure empirical fact. This fact, according to Joad, was wisely acknowledged by Plato, and the fact that a society trained a special class for war was a measure of civilization, sparing the life of those in the community who were unable to fight.
Since no one stepped in to defend Neurath and Lauwerys against any of the charges, they had to reply on their own. In the second part of âPlatoâs âRepublicâ and German Educationâ, they turned some of their former general weapons against the specific authors: Neurath and Lauwerys claimed earlier that Plato is an especially dangerous figure in the sensitive web of educational studies on the continent, because his texts are often read with âundue reverenceâ. Field was concerned with the idea that this is just an unnecessary rhetorical move since no one in Britain considers Plato as an authoritative philosopher and, because of this, no uncritical judgment would be present in the debate. Neurath and Lauwerys pointed out that the vehement and many-sided correspondence notes perhaps pull in the other direction; that is, Garforth, McNicholas, Joad, and perhaps also Field take Plato to be an authoritative figure, even if âthey may feel inclined to disclaim having done soâ.22
Two major points should be emphasized here from Neurath and Lauwerysâ answer to Field. He claimed that Neurath and Lauwerysâs method is entirely mistaken on, at least, two levels: it ignores the historical and social conditions
We were chided for not taking sufficiently into account the social and historical circumstances which decisively influenced Plato. Apparently the argument is that, if we only remember that to him a State without slavery was unthinkable, &c., we shall see why he wrote as he did. Tout comprendre, câest tout pardonner. Is it? One may understand completely and how rattlesnakes bite, and yet consider them unpleasing animals not really suitable as pets for young people â and not really suitable either as specimens for observation by young students of zoology.
neurath/lauwerys 1945b, p. 222
Even though from a philosophical point of view Neurathâs general idea of a unified science would dictate that there isnât any principled difference between the human and the natural sciences, discussing rattlesnakes and philosophers regarding their actions and our normative stance towards them in the same breath might still be somewhat problematic, or unexpected. Nevertheless, their point is clear: even if we understand the origins and context of Platoâs thought, namely why and how he came to the conclusions that we consider anti-democratic and oppressive, it does not mean that we have to forgive him these thoughts. In other words, understanding something does not make it right. That is, even if it is understandable why Plato considered that certain ideas are worth following in his time, those ideas could still be regarded as anti-democratic and dogmatic, thus worthy of sharp criticism and warnings.
Does Prof. Field assume that in Platoâs time there were no democratic and cosmopolitan persons? Of course there were, just as there are to-day, even though Mein Kampf is a work which will probably be described by philosophers in years to come as a book to be interpreted in the light of the social and historical circumstances of the twentieth century and as being in harmony with the situation in the years 1920â1940.
neurath/lauwerys 1945b, p. 222
Neurath and Lauwerys replied to Joad as well: they pointed out that they did not mean those things that he attributed to them. They took up again the question of war and claimed that if Plato and the Nazis understand the structure and nature of war better than Neurath and Lauwerys â as Joad stated in his reply â then they are ârather proud and pleased to be told thatâ.24 And finally after they accused Joad of using structurally similar arguments to those considerations that were put on the table by the Nazis, Neurath and Lauwerys thought that they could rest their case.25
2.4 How to Close the Debate? The Death of Neurath
Closing the debate, however, was not a real possibility for them. As the discussion became more vehement and somehow more personal, McNicholas, Paul Prentice and Field took up the gloves again. Field made references to various issues and claimed repeatedly that Neurath and Lauwerys missed all of his points, and he thus came up with new ones. He called attention to important nuances, such as that understanding the context of a historical figure may not necessarily involve forgiveness, or that being anti-democratic does not commit oneself to being a Nazi and âshouting âYah! Naziââ may not improve the quality and strictness of the debate. By describing further logical possibilities of certain philosophical points of an interpretational question, Field came to the
Before the journalâs editor ended the correspondence, Neurath and Lauwerys were able to react once more to these attacks. In August, they took a step back and called the participantsâ attention to the fact that the whole issue at the start was about the re-education of Germany and not about Platoâs philosophical, historical, and philological interpretation. Plato became relevant for them only as a typical author in this context: âGerman youth, not acquainted with democratic arguments, are unlikely to learn from the Republic anything about that co-operation of free citizens or that tolerance towards people of different types which are the foundation of life in free societiesâ.27 From the Republic, German youth would learn mainly how to praise absolutistic and dogmatic ideals, such as âthe Stateâ, âthe nationâ, âthe artsâ, âthe raceâ, âthe warâ and so on.
This final note is much more relaxed and timid; they emphasized their democratic concerns and raised the possibility that they have put too much weight on Platoâs work in the educational context. Neurath and Lauwerys were perhaps right in lowering their tone. Seemingly, they made many people angry by their style, by putting Plato and the Nazis on the same table, and thus they stepped on too many important scholarsâ toes.
Interestingly, no reply or correspondence note appeared in the journal
Neurath and Lauwerys. In an unpublished âLetter to the editorâ, Neurath noted that â[t]hree against us, we hope very much that also scholars exist â perhaps not traditional philosophers â who will protect us within the framework of this periodical otherwise one gets perhaps a wrong impression of the public opinion on this point. What would a Gallup poll show us ⦠etc something like that, kindly, but nevertheless decisive.â28 The published version of this remark was much more polished (perhaps the above quotation is Neurathâs original and the published is a joint work), but more concerned at the same time: âWe seek comfort, however, in the thought that quite possibly a Gallup Poll might show that many of your readers agree with our description of, and analytical remarks on, Platoâs Republic, though they have not yet written to youâ.29 Neurath and Lauwerys were indeed much concerned whether they will get any support from the public and from similar-minded scholars, or will they remain alone in the crusade â and thus the fact that people will see them only as two
sir, â I do not feel inclined to join in the controversy about Platoâs Republic, though I strongly agree with Neurath. My reason for not joining is that I have a long history of philosophy in the press, which incidentally, sets out a similar point of view, and I prefer the fuller statement which is possible in a book.
This short note was written by Bertrand Russell whose History of Western Philosophy was published in the United States in 1945, and a year later in England.30 Though Fascism and Nazism do not surface explicitly during the discussion of Platoâs ideas, Russell indeed seems to suggest that Platoâs utopia is entangled with totalitarian and oppressive ideas. But for Russell, the Republic was much like a Communist state than a Fascist, and his whole terminology in Chapter 14 of the book is based on the comparison with threatening Communist notions. It is still understandable though that Russell did not want to engage readers and colleagues on the pages of The Journal of Education within such a limited range. Ironically, his monumental book did not earn him that kind of respect and recognition from the academic and professional historian/philosopher audience that he might have wished for.31
Even after the end of the war, Neurath prepared talks, lectures and articles about the topic. Shortly after his debate with the British intelligentsia, the whole issue was continued by Russellâs abovementioned book, and even with Karl Popperâs The Open Society and its Enemies.32 Though there were differences between Neurath and Russell and Popper, their general line of thinking and concerns went in similar directions and they could have supported each
3 Points and Lessons of the Debate
Neurath was often poked because of his temper and indefatigable search for a bit of intellectual fight. Nonetheless, he could also be smooth and pliant to make and maintain friendships. In between was the Neurath who wanted to make a scientific point that naturally requires some sort of friction but without further ado or unnecessary intellectual mocking. He wrote about this to Carnap as follows: âYou see I am a little doubtful, about âcoercionâ exerted by me. Reason: when writing in a very conciliant [conciliatory] way (no noise, no bullying), e.g. in the Plato article, the people who answer, answer exactly in the tone of irritation.â34 Although Neurath did not provide further explanations to Carnap, one might sense that the irritation of those who replied to Neurath goes back at least to two factors: namely treating Plato in such an authoritative and sensitive manner that they would not admit, and by reproducing exactly those features of Plato that Neurath was criticizing.
3.1 Authorities
What was the reason for the irritation of British scholars? After all, Neurath and Lauwerysâs tone was indeed modest in their papers, especially compared to Neurathâs general style in correspondence and in his polemical publications. Nonetheless, he touched upon sensitive points and pressed such issues that were in the air for years, and many people had a chaw at it in their publications already. But as it was just a wide possibility during the '30s that some of Platoâs views might present some sort of similarity to Fascist and Nazi views; in the '40s â when millions of people were killed at war, when persecution of selected groups of people became explicit and internationally well-known â drawing
One might say that no one likes to be told by a strange, eccentric, and somewhat aggressive figure that your hero is no better in fact than a Fascist or a Nazi â especially at a time when Fascists and Nazis are killing your friends and colleagues on the front on a daily basis. In fact, all the defenders of Plato seemed to state that Plato is not their hero â theoretically they do not consider Plato as an authority (in their views, dogmatic dependence on the thoughts of others was a feature of citizens of oppressive states). I say âtheoreticallyâ, because it quickly turned out in the debate that Plato was not just a randomly chosen philosopher who was defended by British scholars as a simple historical figure. In his reply article, Field claimed, for example, that âI am quite serious in stating that no one I know or have heard of treats Plato [as?] âauthoritativeââ.36 Take now the above-mentioned Prentice. He jumped into the debate by proudly stressing that he is an âardent admirerâ of the Republic, and that he âfeel[s] piqued for the honour of that great work. Nothing would ever persuade me,â said Prentice, âthat anything but good, and good of deep and lasting character could be derived from its studyâ.37 He goes on to call Platoâs book a âmasterpieceâ, and calls attention to the defectiveness of Neurath and Lauwerys, who were simply ignorant and missed the Republicâs âessential and vitalizing message as it comes floating down the ages, and makes for nobility of character, of will, of soulâ.38
To some it seems incredible that anything but the highest honour can be accorded this work [Platoâs Republic] when seen as a whole, but, alas! we recall that time of old when a voice came from heaven, and the people that stood by and heard it said that it thundered. It was only a few others who said an angel speaks to him.
prentice 1945, p. 228
But when we read Prenticeâs elated statements and uncritical admiration for the wisdom that has been dripped through the centuries by Platoâs philosophy, it might be easy to see what Neurath and Lauwerys had in mind when they talked about people who treated Plato âauthoritativelyâ. Even while no participants of the debate ever defined this term, Prentice should definitely be a match. And though one swallow does not make a summer, perhaps all the participants against Neurath and Lauwerys came close to what they had in mind, simply by aggressively attacking a point in their original paper that had only a secondary importance, namely that Plato was just an instance of re-education, and the issue was about re-education of Germany in general. They picked up on Plato, instead of defending Frederick ii or anyone else from the original papers. Neurath might have been justified in thinking that he had his fingers on the pulse of British intelligentsia and there was indeed a point to discuss.
3.2 Methods of Defending Plato
Whether Neurath was right about Plato regarding the particular interpretational questions of philology and systematic philosophy in general is one question. Whether he found similar patterns of effect in the contemporary scene is another. And in fact, even though Neurath did not say so, he would have been in a good position to claim that the way people started to defend Plato is exactly that type of dangerous reasoning he raised against his voice.
The goal of [the philosopher kingsâ] education is the vision of the Good (which is the source of all truth and understanding), of the Beautiful and the other Forms. In the light of this vision they are to govern. Hence it may truthfully be said that Platoâs goal for the State was the organization of government and of society according to the ultimate laws of reality.
garforth 1945, p. 16
What do we see here? Garforth tries to highlight the differences between Plato and the Nazis: while Nazis go directly for war (mainly for itself and for power),
I see, how well known philosophers in Germany always quote Plato, when speaking of the ideal state, and I imagine how many young people accepting that, became weakened against Fascism. Plato is the only author in antiquity and in history, with some fame as moralist, who thought pure and simple cruelties pure and simple oppression as ideal. Children should look from horseback, when the parents disembowel enemies in battles, that they get, as he says the proper âtaste of blood like young houndsâ. He supports censorship, allows only millitary [sic] music, doctors have not [do not have] to help ill people who are responsible for their illness, better for them and for the community when they die, all people of Hellenic blood should be united and then start the conquest of the barbarians, the âenemies by natureâ that is the way to be irresistible and to do, what is the highest ideal of the leading groups: the purity of blood.
How can we expect that an enthusiastic youth full of preparedness to selfsacrifice, prepared to think of happiness as something dirty, English utilitarian, can reject the voice of the highly admired Plato-Hitler?
neurath to Carnap, September 25, 1943; in Cat/Tuboly 2019, p. 589
Actually, similar ideas (i.e. instantiating a Platonic defense of Plato) could be observed in Joadâs reply, though he is a hard nut to crack. He obviously defends Plato against Neurath and Lauwerys, usually by pointing out that there might be striking similarities between Plato and the Fascists, e.g. that both
envisage an authoritarian State in which the best make the laws and the many achieve happiness and virtue as lie within their compass, by cheerfully obeying the laws and giving their services, thus enabling the State to function and the best to realize the purposes which are appropriate to the best.
joad 1945, p. 164
For Neurath and Lauwerys, this should suffice, actually, as they obviously think that the major aim of the people could not be âcheerfully obeying the laws and giving their servicesâ and reaching happiness simply by serving. Independently of the fact that this seems to be one of the characteristics of Fascist states, if Platoâs state is built on these ideas, it goes against the enlightenment vision of Neurath.
But Joad tried to highlight the differences of Plato and the Nazis. First, he mentions that Nazi leaders select themselves and points towards ambiguous ideas as no clear standard is provided about why they should lead. On the other hand, âin Platoâs State the criterion by reference to which the best are selected is that of knowledge or wisdomâ.39 Joad continues by stating that in Platoâs view, âthere is an absolute good and an absolute justiceâ. As I noted above, this is exactly the conception that Neurath repudiates as metaphysical, nonsensical, and even dangerous! What is the absolute good, and how to grasp it? How to know who has the right intellectual means to grasp the third realm of Good and Justice? Plato would of course say that citizens are ordered in accordance with their nature and capabilities. Joad presents Platoâs views as follows: âJustice, the contended doing of the job for which he is fitted, is the highest morality of which the ordinary man is capableâ.
The main difference here between Plato and the Nazis seems to be that in a Nazi state people are ordered into hierarchies in accordance to their blood
Whatever one thinks about achieving happiness by fulfilling externally enforced conditions and laws, this is exactly the view that Neurath and Lauwerys stressed as dogmatic, suppressive, and dangerously resembling the Nazi ideas. Even if Platoâs and the Naziâs views are somewhat different regarding how to arrive at their hierarchical and oppressive social arrangements, there are very similar and substantial structures that make Platoâs educational and political ideas dangerous for broad dissemination without further ado.41
neurath/lauwerys 1945b, p. 224, my emphasis
We regret that so well-known a lover of freedom as Dr. Joad should use such an argument. It is a dangerous one, for some Nazis (for instance the brutes in charge of concentration camps) argue as follows: in periods when healthy people have to be sacrificed, one cannot pay attention to sentimental pleas in favour of the weak, the sick, or those of lower race. What Dr. Joad says is, we believe, in harmony with a Platonic attitude, and it is precisely this which many people, and only in western societies dislike lock, stock, and barrel. For that attitude pays no attention to the sanctity of each single individual within a society.
Instead of stating a negative dependence-relation between healthy and non-healthy people about when shall we consider any of them against the other, Neurath and Lauwerys suggested in an unpublished correspondence article (in connection to their note above that âeach single individual within a societyâ matters) the following: âWe should perhaps open a debate about the question, whether it would be advisable, to have a kind of âhandicappersâ who take care of these people by giving them additional support. A deaf-mute person could perhaps get more books than other people, more opportunities to visit galleries and big shows, to have particular clubs with peculiar facilities.â42 That is, instead of deepening and widening the gap between healthy and non-healthy citizens, Neurathâs aim was to empower the masses by localized and special educational means.
Turning the wheel against Joad, Neurath and Lauwerys claimed that what Joad seems to ask rhetorically could be asked equally (and indeed was) by Nazis. They do not say, of course, that Joad is a Nazi or that he is like them; they only say that the attitude, or the type of question that is exemplified by Joadâs utterance plays into the hand of radicals, dogmatists and extremists. That is indeed what Neurath and Lauwerys feared, namely that using Platoâs ideas and conceptions (either for defending him in the debate or externally) amounts exactly to creating such a general climate of opinions that not only weakens Nazism but also even contributes to it.
There are two interesting things to note in Fieldâs first reply as well. Recall that I mentioned above his ideas about âthe purity of raceâ. Field claimed that though there are certain ideas about eugenics in Plato as well, they are not based on ancestry, but on qualities in general.43 That is, while the only thing
Finally, Neurath and Lauwerysâs have brought here into discussion the Barbarians. âThe Nazis, too, say they are not interested in ancestry as such, but only in the qualities likely to be associated with the right kind of ancestryâ.45 It is certainly possible that âBarbariansâ had the right or required cognitive qualities in Ancient Greece, nonetheless, it is known that their treatment (even by Plato) were anything but democratic and just. After all, they did not have the right qualities, simply because they were Barbarians â that is, had the wrong ancestry.
4 Conclusion
The list could be continued, of course, by analyzing one by one all the replies and how they missed Neurathâs original point. But the general atmosphere of the whole debate could be seen perhaps already.
For a few more months in 1945, Neurath was concerned with his original ideas of re-education of Germany. He wrote up unpublished materials about these questions, published some papers under pseudonyms. He was even invited in June 1945 to a committee (chaired by Lauwerys) to talk about the re-education and de-Nazification of Eupen-Malmedy, a small region in eastern Belgium that was part of Prussia in the 18th century, went into hands of Belgians after World War One, and was annexed by the Germans during World War Two. That talk has something for us in this context. Neurath noted that the
It is not too difficult for sincere anti-Nazi teachers to fight Nazi cruelty and unquestioning obedience to their ideology, but they are very often helpless where they have to cope with the such less obviously dangerous elements, used by the Nazis, in the âbestâ pre-Hitler literature, which attracts the sensitive and decent children.
neurath, âEducation in Occupied Germany: Intricate Problems,â onn/k.74
Neurath claimed repeatedly that it is easy to spot the explicit and declaredly Nazi materials. Those items that are not Nazi per se but were used by Nazis for their causes, or produced such a general atmosphere in which Nazi thought could emerge more easily cause the problem.47 In Neurath and Lauwerysâs view, Plato was an important figure in this process by being âinfluenced by the overemphasis on certain things in the tradition of the âbestâ German literatureâ, emphasizing regularly âthe stateâ, âthe rulesâ, âthe moralsâ, âthe goodâ, âthe
It has to be noted thus that it was not Neurath who started the whole issue about certain philosophiesâ relevance to a more general oppressive and dogmatic attitude on the Continent. Even around World War I and during the interwar period, many of Englandâs well-known philosophers and public intellectuals tried to establish a certain connection between national characteristics and national philosophies, and between Plato and the intellectual rise of Nazism. About these events before Neurath, see Akehurst 2010 and Vrahimis 2015. For a balanced and general account of the debate about Nazism and Ancient philosophy in the context of education, see Tachibana 2012. See further Demetriou 2012 for the critical discussion of Plato, or better the âPlatonic legendâ between 1930 and 1960. After Neurath, it was Klaus Christian Köhnke who described in great detail the connection between establishing a âReichâ at the end of the 19th century and the rise of an âidealismâ that also led a major interest in Kant and Plato among German scholars. That situates Neurathâs story, or at least its origins, a few decades earlier. See Köhnke 1986.
Neurath 1942/1973, p. 430.
See the letters in the Carnap-Neurath correspondence in Cat and Tuboly 2019, pp. 512â685.
For more on Lauwerys, see Cowen 2020.
Neurath/Lauwerys 1944a, p. 421.
Neurath/Lauwerys 1944a, p. 421.
Otto Neurath, âThe Boy from Apulia,â onn, K.60.
It would be important and interesting to compare at this point Neurathâs ideas with those of Kate Manne 2018 who investigated how peopleâs sympathy is often oriented to the male persecutors against their female victims (she calls this attitude âhimpathyâ). I do not claim, of course, that there would be any substantial and direct link, but Neurath also seems to suggest that persecutors, who were âgreat menâ, often received much lighter treatment than one would expect. While Manne would go in the direction of a social analysis, Neurath opted for a more general educational and philosophical idea that goes back to Platoâs Republic. Comparing Neurath and recent feminism, however, is not without precedent; see Okruhlik 2004.
See Kantorowicz 1931.
Neurath/Lauwerys 1944b, p. 574.
Neurath/Lauwerys 1944b, p. 575.
See Garforth 1945.
Garforth 1945, p. 16.
Neurath/Lauwerys 1945a, p. 58.
Neurath/Lauwerys 1945a, p. 59.
Field 1945a, p. 161.
It might be of further interest that Field (1945a) begins his article by raising the question: what could be Platoâs opinion about Hitler and Mussolini. He claims that Plato seemed to reject ancient Tyrannies, thus he would reject Hitler and Mussolini as well as if there were not any differences in time, place, and context.
Neurath/Lauwerys 1945b, p. 222. Rev. P.J. McNicholas (1945b) was also involved in the debate as a defender of Joad, scrutinizing some of his points about the views of Plato regarding whether people are capable of changing their nature or not. See further McNicholas (1945a) where he also argued that war does not play such a morally significant role as Neurath and Lauwerys claimed.
See, e.g. Wieland 1766/1767.
Neurath/Lauwerys 1945b, p. 224.
During the late 1940s and early 1950s, Joad followed Giles Romilly in accusing A.J. Ayerâs ethical emotivism (presented mainly in Language, Truth and Logic) of preparing such a moral vacuum in Oxford that was easily filled by Fascist values. That is, while Joad defended Plato against all of Neurathâs charges (which he considered both methodologically suspicious and philosophically erroneous), he immediately joined others in a very similar campaign against logical positivism without further ado. See further Joad 1950, Preston 2020, Tuboly 2020b.
Field 1945b, p. 294.
Neurath/Lauwerys 1945c, p. 394.
Neurath, âLetter to the editorâ (no date), onn, K.78.
Neurath/Lauwerys 1945b, p. 222.
For the note see Russell 1945, p. 224, for the book, see Russell 1945/1946.
See Popper 1945. On Popper and Neurath, see Soulez 2019. The Neurath-Popper relation, especially with respect to Platonism and Fascism, is an extremely interesting issue: given all their shared experiences, background, and the forthcoming similarities, it might be surprising that one does not find any references to Neurath in Popperâs book. Neurathâs name appeared only in the later editions when Popper started to react to his critics (one of which noted the similarities to Neurath). See Burke and Tuboly (2025).
It should be noted, which is not emphasized enough by any of the mentioned, that not every Plato scholar accepted the Plato-package as it stood. Hermann Cohen, for example, was one of the most distinguished Plato scholars of the late 19th century, but he explicitly rejected Platoâs political philosophy. See Cohen 1916/1923.
Neurath to Carnap, 24 September 1945, in Cat and Tuboly 2019, p. 670. The topic of Nazism and Platonism was a regular topic between Neurath and Carnap in the 1940s, especially as Neurath accused even Carnap of being a Platonist and thus exemplifying many of those overtly rigid, hierarchical, oppressive, and dehumanizing features that emerged in Germany.
At the end of the 1930s, H.B. Acton (1938) published sort of a summary paper about the âalleged Fascism of Platoâ. He argued that all of these charges are somewhat misleading and weak until we come into possession of a sufficiently detailed philosophy of Fascism. Without that conception, we cannot decide whether âthese likenesses [between Plato and Fascists] are mainly accidental, or are due to some deep-seated similarity of outlookâ (Acton 1938, p. 302). Although Acton defends Plato, his tone is much more calm and low-key than those who contributed to the issue in the '40s.
Field 1945b, p. 292.
Prentice 1945, p. 226.
Prentice 1945, p. 228.
The relation of Joad to (Platonic) idealism is a strange one. He did not accept (actually wrote an entire book against) Sir James Jeansâ and Sir Arthur Eddingtonâs idealism in physics â he thought that they have thrown the baby of scientific realism with the bathwater of mechanism. That is, in order to provide space for values in science (that was abolished in the mechanistic worldview of the 19th century), â[t]he wheel [of Jeans and Eddingtonâs views] has turned full circle, and in their enthusiasm for idealistic interpretations of phenomena many scientists seem anxious to deny the revelatory character of science altogetherâ (Joad 1932/1963, p. 12). His solution was that as science can reveal the real world, human intellect could grasp the third realm of objective, unchanging and absolute values. This is very similar to Platoâs views about forms and knowledge, thus it is not that surprising that Joad stood up to defend Plato against Neurath and Lauwerys. On Joad, the physicists, and for further context, see Tuboly 2020a.
Neurath/Lauwerys, âPlatoâs Republic, German Education and Human Brotherhood.â onn, K.73.
See Field 1945a.
Field 1945a, p. 161.
Neurath/Lauwerys 1945b, p. 222.
Neurath, âMeeting, Belgium committee ⦠chairman Lauwerys (1945).â onn/k.79.
I cannot analyze and discuss the so-called âGerman climateâ; in the 1940s, Neurath was virtually obsessed with the idea of a special German climate, a certain cultural and intellectual environment, which increased the willingness and inclination to accept National Socialist ideas and created a certain bias towards any cultural goods and products that could have been rendered under the National Socialist agenda, e.g. the philosophies of Plato and Kant. For further information, see Sandner (2011) and Burke and Tuboly (2025).
Acknowledgments
The research was supported by the mta Premium Postdoctoral Scholarship, and in the final stages by the mta Lendület Values and Science Research Group. Although this paper differs from the one presented at the Wege der Wissenschaftlichen Weltauffassung Rudolf Carnap and Otto Neurath (Graz, 26â27 September, 2019), I am indebted to Johannes Friedl and Christian Damböck for their invitation; this paper too benefited indirectly from the Graz-discussions. I am grateful for the helpful comments of Christopher Burke, Christian Damböck, Ulf Höfer, Günther Sandner, and Andreas Vrahimis.
References
Akehurst, T. (2010) The Cultural Politics of Analytic Philosophy: Britishness and the Spectre of Europe, New York/London: Bloomsbury.
Acton, H.B. (1938) âThe Alleged Fascism of Platoâ, Philosophy 13 (51), pp. 302â312.
Burke, C. and Tuboly, A.T. (2025). Otto Neurath in Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cat, J. and Tuboly, A.T. (eds.) (2019) Neurath Reconsidered: New Sources and Perspectives, Cham: Springer.
Cohen, H. (1916/1923) âDas soziale Ideal bei Plato und den Prophetenâ, Der Jude: Eine Monatsschrift 7, pp. 618â636.
Cowen, R. (2020) âJoseph Lauwerys (1902â1981)â, in David Phillips (ed.), British Scholars of Comparative Education: Examining the Work and Influence of Notable 19th and 20th Century Comparativists, New York/London : Routledge, pp. 53â70.
Demetriou, K.N. (2002) âA Legend in Crisis: The Debate Over Platoâs Politics, 1930â1960â, Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 19 (1â2), pp. 61â91.
Field, G.C. (1945a) âPlatoâs Republic and Its Use in Educationâ, The Journal of Education 77 (909), April 1945, pp. 161â162.
Field, G.C. (1945b) âCorrespondence on Platoâs Republic and German Educationâ, The Journal of Education 77 (911), June 1945, pp. 290, 292, 294.
Garforth, F.W. (1945) âCorrespondence on Nazi Text-Books and The Futureâ, The Journal of Education 77 (906), Jan. 1945, pp. 14, 16.
Joad, C.E.M. (1932/1963) Philosophical Aspects of Modern Science, London: Allen & Unwin.
Joad, C.E.M. (1945) âPlato Defendedâ, The Journal of Education 77 (909), April 1945, pp. 163â165.
Joad, C.E.M. (1950) A Critique of Logical Positivism, London: Victor Gollancz.
Kantorowicz, Ernst (1931) Frederick the Second 1194â1250, translated by Lorimer, E.O., New York: Richard R. Smith.
Köhnke, C.K. (1986) Entstehung und Aufstieg des Neukantianismus, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Manne, K. (2018) Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McNicholas, P.J. (1945a) âCorrespondence on Platoâs Republic and German Educationâ, The Journal of Education 77 (908), March 1945, p. 120.
McNicholas, P.J. (1945b) âCorrespondence on Platoâs Republic and German Educationâ, The Journal of Education 77 (910), May 1945, pp. 224, 226 .
Neurath, O. (1942/1973) âInternational Planning for Freedomâ, in Neurath, M. and Cohen, S. (eds.), Otto Neurath: Empiricism and Sociology, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 422â440.
Neurath, O. and Lauwerys, J.A. (1944a) âNazi Text-books and the Future [i]â, The Journal of Education 76 (904), Nov. 1944, p. 521â522.
Neurath, O. and Lauwerys, J.A. (1944b) âNazi Text-books and the Future [ii]â, The Journal of Education 76 (905), Dec. 1944, p. 574â576.
Neurath, O. and Lauwerys, J.A. (1945a) âPlatoâs Republic and German Education [i]â, The Journal of Education 77 (907), Feb. 1945.
Neurath, O. and Lauwerys, J.A. (1945b) âPlatoâs Republic and German Education [ii]â, The Journal of Education 77 (910), May 1945, pp. 222, 224.
Neurath, O. and Lauwerys, J.A. (1945c) âPlatoâs Republic and German Education [iii]â, The Journal of Education 77 (913), Aug. 1945.
Okruhlik, K. (2004) âLogical Empiricism, Feminism, and Neurathâs Auxiliary Motiveâ, Hypatia 19 (1), pp. 48â72.
Popper, K. (1945) The Open Society and its Enemies, London: Routledge.
Prentice, P.H.C. (1945) âCorrespondence on Platoâs Republic and German Educationâ, The Journal of Education 77 (910), May 1945, pp. 226, 228.
Preston, A. (2020) âAyerâs Book of Errors and the Crisis of Contemporary Western Cultureâ, in Tuboly, A.T. (ed.), The Historical and Philosophical Significance of Ayerâs Language, Truth and Logic, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming.
Russell, B. (1945) âCorrespondenceâ, The Journal of Education 77 (910), May 1945, p. 222.
Russell, B. (1945/1946) History of Western Philosophy, London: Allen & Unwin.
Sandner, G. (2011) âThe German Climate and Its Opposite: Otto Neurath in England, 1940â45â, in Grenville, A. and Reiter, A. (eds.), Political Exile and Exile Politics in Britain After 1933, Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, pp. 67â85.
Soulez, A. (2019) âDoes Understanding Mean Forgiveness? Otto Neurath and Platoâs Republic in 1944â45â, in Cat, J. and Tuboly, A.T. (eds.), Neurath Reconsidered: New Sources and Perspectives, Cham: Springer, pp. 435â449.
Tachibana, K. (2012) âHow Aristotleâs Theory of Education Has Been Studied in Our Centuryâ, Studia Classica 3, pp. 21â67.
Tuboly, A.T. (2020a) âKnowledge Missemination. L. Susan Stebbing, C.E.M. Joad and Philipp Frank on the Philosophy of the Physicistsâ, Perspectives on Science 28 (1), pp. 1â34.
Tuboly, A.T. (2020b) âA Cricket Game, a Train Ticket and a Vacuum to Be Filled: Ayerâs Logical Positivism as a Focal Point for Post-War British Cultural Strugglesâ, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 28 (6), pp. 1134â1150.
Vrahimis, A. (2015) âLegacies of German Idealism: From the Great War to the Analytic/Continental Divideâ, Parrhesia 24, pp. 83â106.
Wahl, R. (2019) âThe Reception of Russellâs A History of Western Philosophyâ, Russell: The Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies 39 (2019), pp. 45â56.
Wieland, M. (1766â1767) Geschichte des Agathon, 2 vols., Frankfurt/Leipzig.