Opciones para transmisión en línea

During the non-public and public phases of the Vienna Circle, the political situation in Vienna was tense and marked by large-scale conflicts and social change. In the early interwar period, Vienna was the center of many reformist movements. Many of these were organized under the larger organization called “The Free Union of Cultural Associations” (Stadler 1997, p. 180). While the Vienna Circle and Ernst Mach Society

with that of Mach, but rejects even more bluntly the concept of school philosophy, every solution of a problem is the construction of a procedure that can be of use to us in in the ordering and mastering of our experiences” (Frank 1930/1949, p. 101). The origin of Frank’s use of the term “school philosophy” and perhaps also Frank’s concern with it comes from Henri Bergson in his French introduction to James’ Pragmatism (Frank 1930/1949, p. 101).

were more scientifically inclined and competent than the other groups, they fit in well with these larger cultural movements:

What all the late Enlightenment currents had in common was a basic humanitarian-cosmopolitan perspective, an uncompromising orientation toward progress and reason, and the advocacy of social and cultural reform. In addition, the groups involved worked, both theoretically and in practice, on forming an anti-metaphysical worldview and shaping an ethical foundation for everyday life through non-revolutionary strategies that corresponded well to an ethos fundamentally radical-bourgeois in nature (Stadler 1997, p. 180).

Many members of the Vienna Circle participated in activities that fell under the purview of the Free Union. Frank was in Prague during much of this time but did participate in some components of the socialist-cultural movements: the Vienna Movement for Adult Education (1918-1934) and the “Austromarxists” group (Stadler 1997, p. 585).

The general political orientation of the Vienna Circle through its association with the Free Union is described by Stadler (ibid.) as having three essential components:

1. Human beings may determine their own lives;

2. Humanity has the capacity for determining their own circumstances, and;

3. Every liberating action presumes knowledge of the world that is best obtained with the scientific methods (Stadler ibid.).

Even though there was popular support for the work of the Vienna Circle and for the groups with which its members associated, the conservative elements in Austria worked to marginalize their gains. After the initial success of Red Vienna, anti-Semitism, National Socialism, and Catholic-nationalism gained popular strength33 (Beniston 2006; Romizi 2012). Vienna’s cultural conflict came to a head in 1934 when the parliamentary organization of the Social Democrats violently resisted the ruling government, headed by

33_{See Romizi 2013, Fleck 1996, and Uebel 2003b. Helmut Grubner’s Red Vienna is noteworthy for its} detail, and Eva Blau has a series of publications describing Neurath’s and Joseph Frank’s work during this time, see her 1999 book for a detailed discussion.

Dollfuss. Following the defeat of the Social Democrats, their organizations as well as those associated with communist organizations were banned (Fleck 1996). This included the Ernst Mach Society and hence the Vienna Circle.

At the same time, a political rift formed in the Vienna Circle. When the Ernst Mach Society was dissolved, Schlick wrote to officials of the Dollfuss regime twice, arguing not only that the Society was apolitical but also that it stood in solidarity with the regime (Stadler 1997, p. 347). This action was criticized by both Carnap from Prague and Neurath from Moscow (Fleck 1996; Stadler ibid.). There is no evidence to suggest what Frank’s view was regarding this specific matter, though one assumes that his sympathies lay with Carnap and Neurath34. The events leading up to this point were so dramatic that Neurath did not return to Vienna but instead joined Frank in Prague (Fleck 1996, p. 83). Thus began Neurath’s long exile. Just a few years after this, in 1936, Schlick was assassinated by a former student and apparent Nazi-sympathizer (Stadler 1997, p. 905). Tensions were again heightened following the murder of Schlick.35 A member of the department of philosophy at the University of Vienna blamed Schlick for his own murder:

...Dr. Nelböck cannot be regarded as a born psychopath, but that he only turned into one, according to certain signs, under the radically destructive philosophy which Prof. Schlick had been teaching at the university since 1922; that is to say that the bullet was not guided by the logic of some lunatic looking for a victim, but rather by the logic of a soul deprived of its meaning of life...I know several cases myself where young students have lost all faith in God, the world, and

34_{At that time Frank’s political associations suggest a position closer to that of Carnap, Hahn, Neurath, von} Mises, and Zizel than to Schlick. In particular, Schlick participated in many neoliberal activities,

specifically with Miles von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. He was never active in the left-wing circles in which Frank sometimes participated.

35_{This letter was written by Dr. Austriacus, a pseudonym for Johnn Sauter, “Privatdozent and} extraordinary professor” in the school of Law and Political Science at the University of Vienna.

humanity under the influence of Schlick’s philosophy (Sauter 1936 quoted from Stadler 1997, p. 871).

Sauter went on to call for the end of the Circle, citing “the challenge” it posed to the “Christian state.” In this way, Schlick was not the sole target of the author’s ire. In the same essay, Frank and Neurath were indicted as philosophical accomplices:

A close associate of Schlick, Professor Frank from Prague, therefore commented quite frankly, two years ago, that the “anti-metaphysical movement” in Europe was represented mainly by Schlick; the Vienna Circle was the “combat patrol of anti-metaphysical studies”...the board comprised well-known leading freemasons as well as Otto Neurath, communist minister in Munich during the soviet period and a close friend and collaborator of Schlick36 (Sauter 1936 quoted from Stadler 1997 p. 872).

In the same letter Sauter revealed that his sympathies were strongly aligned with Nazism: “Hopefully, the terrible murder in the Viennese university will serve to bring about a truly satisfactory solution of the Jewish question” (Stadler 1995, 1997 p. 876). We must remember that the author’s opinions were not unique in Vienna. In an interview, Gerald Holton emphasized the fervor that was whipped up during the the Anschluss:

Vienna greeted Hitler in such a way, that even, even the Austrians as a whole...there are some amazing stories of when the soldiers came into Austria in March ’38 they were told that the drivers in these open vehicles with the troops had to put goggles on because their eyes would be damaged by the flower bunches that were thrown at the soldiers as they entered (Holton 2014).

Similar sentiments began to appear in Prague. As R. Fürth, remembered in 1965, two of Frank’s close colleagues were eventually taken to concentration camps. In the same remembrance Fürth recalled that Frank

strongly resisted any attempts of Nazi sympathizers amongst staff and students at the University to apply any radical doctrines to the admission of students or the

appointment of staff…[By 1938, Frank], who seemed to understand better than most of us what was going on, had become very pessimistic about our future prospects (Fürth 1965 p. xvi).

The political situation that precipitated both Schlick’s murder and Frank’s struggles with his colleagues placed the members of the Vienna Circle and their intellectual sympathizers in a precarious position37. Following the rapid and tragic degradation of social and political life in continental Europe, a massive exodus of intellectuals began (Stadler 1995). By 1938 the exodus of intellectuals, Austrian Jews, and leftists of various stripes, including most members of the Vienna Circle, grew into a torrent. Viktor Kraft, who remained, was banned from his profession, and following the conclusion of the war was able to obtain only short-term positions. Further, in post-war Austria, philosophy departments were dominated by either Christian-worldview philosophy or systematic idealistic philosophy. And it is important to note – though this detail is often omitted in European histories– no one who emigrated was ever invited back38_(ibid.).

This history is important to remember when reading Frank’s philosophical work. It is easy to read that work and upon seeing his frequent discussions of sociology, history, and pragmatism, to be somewhat surprised. These sorts of interests are not what we have

37

“In the year 1936…Professor Schlick was assassinated near his lecture hall in the University of Vienna by a student. At the court trial the attorney for the defendant pleaded extenuating circumstances because the student was indignant about Schlick’s ‘vicious philosophy.’ Everyone who knew Schlick had been full of admiration for his noble, humane and restrained personality. The political implications of the expression ‘vicious philosophy’ were obvious. The student received a ten-year prison term. When, however, two years later, the Nazi troops occupied Vienna and arrested a great many people, Schlick’s murderer was released from prison” (Frank 1949a, p. 49).

38 _{Those were: Gustav Bergmann, Carnap (from Prague), Feigl, Frank (from Prague), Gödel, Felix} Kaufmann, Karl Menger, Richard von Mises (from Istanbul), Marcel Natkin, Neurath, Rose Rand, Josef Schächler, Waismann, Zilsel. For obvious reasons, they might not have wanted to return. However, it is clear that the political establishment in Austria did not encourage their return.

come to expect from the logical empiricists! However, understanding this historical context is essential for understanding the work of Frank and the other logical empiricists, and is especially important if we wish to contextualize their critiques of metaphysics. Don Howard has already described the importance of this context in an impressive fashion:

A proper appreciation of the Vienna Circle’s opposition to metaphysics would place political concerns at center stage and would present the philosophical critique as but a means whereby to pursue the political critique. We forgot that Carnap, like his colleague Neurath, was a socialist. We forgot that the Austrian Social Democratic Party, which Neurath served as Director of Vienna’s Social and Economic Muesum, defined itself in part by its promotion of a curious mix of Marx and Mach (yes, Ernst Mach) known as Austro-Marxism. We forget that Austro-Marxism, in particular, but also Marxism more generally had long targeted metaphysics as one of the chief intellectual tools for the defense of bourgeois class-interest, faulting specifically the non-dialectical character of metaphysical character of reifications such as “Volkgeist” (Neurath, Hahn, and Carnap 1929) (Howard, unpublished).

All of this was deeply formative for Frank, and would help to contribute to the dramatic turn he made in 1947 during the Harvard Period, when he began to examine the possible meaning of metaphysical statements (Frank 1949a, p. 51). At this time, Frank was deeply concerned with the role played by philosophical systems in the apparent legitimation of authority in central Europe. To better combat those systems, Frank decided that it was important to understand them empirically. Following Frank’s immigration to the United States, his work would be deeply motivated by these final experiences in Europe. Not only would the background to these events appear in many of his writings from 1938 on, only three of his forty-plus papers and books from this period were on physics (Stadler 1997, p. 632). The rest are either philosophical, social, biographical, or organizational. The intellectual focus of his work had changed. His

targets would be Thomism, Dialectical Materialism, and Nazism39. In response to these views, he would offer a synthesis of American Pragmatism and logical empiricism that was meant to undermine school philosophy. Eschewing technical work, Frank approached these questions from the perspective of the Scientific Conception of the World40. In some ways Frank was beginning to position himself as a public intellectual (Nemeth 2003), but it would also seem that he felt a social obligation to continue the work of the Vienna Circle. The Harvard Period begins with this social and intellectual turn.