Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
1.3
0.6
Journals
Philosophies
Special Issues
The Vienna Circle: Shaping Contemporary Analytic Philosophy and Its History
share announcement

The Vienna Circle: Shaping Contemporary Analytic Philosophy and Its History

A special issue of Philosophies (ISSN 2409-9287).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (25 May 2024) | Viewed by 5738

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Mirja Hartimo

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Philosophy, History and Art Studies, University of Helsinki, 00100 Helsinki, Finland
Interests: history of analytic philosophy; philosophy of sciene; philosophy of mathematics; phenomenology
Dr. Anssi Korhonen

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Philosophy, History and Art Studies, University of Helsinki, 00100 Helsinki, Finland
Interests: history of analytic philosophy; Bertrand Russell; metaphysics

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

An exciting trend in current analytic philosophy is the emergence of several topics that draw their inspiration partly from the work of Rudolf Carnap, a leading figure in the Vienna Circle. Approaches such as deflationary metaontology, conceptual engineering, logical pluralism, and related views on the normativity of logic are seen to have Carnapian roots; however, these topics are quite foreign to the once-prevalent but rather narrow reading of Carnap that derives from W. V. Quine’s and others’ appraisal of him in the 1950s and 1960s.

The case of Carnap raises questions about the potential narrowness of our understanding of the Vienna Circle in general.  While the reappraisal of the history of the Vienna Circle has been ongoing since the early 1980s, the more recent developments in analytic philosophy suggest that there might be even more interesting yet previously unnoticed views pertinent to present-day concerns.

This Special Issue collects such novel perspectives on the Vienna Circle. The covered topics range from rereadings of the doctrines of the members of the Vienna Circle, such as Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, and Moritz Schlick, but also less well known figures, including its female members or sympathizers. We look for constructive connections between the Vienna Circle and different philosophical traditions as well as new perspectives on various thematic questions, such as the development of contemporary logic and unity of science.

Topics relevant to this Special Issue include, but are not restricted to, the following:

  • The reception and impact of the Vienna Circle on contemporary analytic philosophy;
  • The relationship between logical positivism and other intellectual movements in Europe and the United States, such as phenomenology, existentialism, pragmatism, and critical theory;
  • Logical positivism and contemporary philosophy of science: legacy and relevance;
  • The Vienna Circle’s contributions to the philosophy of mathematics and logic;
  • Interdisciplinary and extradisciplinary perspectives on logical positivism and its heritage.

Dr. Mirja Hartimo
Dr. Anssi Korhonen
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Philosophies is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Vienna Circle
  • Carnap
  • Schlick
  • Neurath
  • history of analytic philosophy
  • logical empiricism
  • logical positivism

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (6 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

25 pages, 397 KiB  
Article
From Natural to Artificial: The Transformation of the Concept of Logical Consequence in Bolzano, Carnap, and Tarski
by Lassi Saario-Ramsay
Philosophies 2024, 9(6), 178; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9060178 - 23 Nov 2024
Viewed by 490
Abstract
Our standard model-theoretic definition of logical consequence is originally based on Alfred Tarski’s (1936) semantic definition, which, in turn, is based on Rudolf Carnap’s (1934) similar definition. In recent literature, Tarski’s definition is described as a conceptual analysis of the intuitive ‘everyday’ concept [...] Read more.
Our standard model-theoretic definition of logical consequence is originally based on Alfred Tarski’s (1936) semantic definition, which, in turn, is based on Rudolf Carnap’s (1934) similar definition. In recent literature, Tarski’s definition is described as a conceptual analysis of the intuitive ‘everyday’ concept of consequence or as an explication of it, but the use of these terms is loose and largely unaccounted for. I argue that the definition is not an analysis but an explication, in the Carnapian sense: the replacement of the inexact everyday concept with an exact one. Some everyday intuitions were thus brought into a precise form, others were ignored and forgotten. How exactly did the concept of logical consequence change in this process? I suggest that we could find some of the forgotten intuitions in Bernard Bolzano’s (1837) definition of ‘deducibility’, which is traditionally viewed as the main precursor of Tarski’s definition from a time before formalized languages. It turns out that Bolzano’s definition is subject to just the kind of natural features—paradoxicality of everyday language, Platonism about propositions, and dependence on the external world—that Tarski sought to tame by constructing an artificial concept for the special needs of mathematical logic. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Vienna Circle: Shaping Contemporary Analytic Philosophy and Its History)
20 pages, 359 KiB  
Article
Demythologising the Given: Schlick, Cornelius, and Adorno contra Husserl
by Andreas Vrahimis
Philosophies 2024, 9(6), 159; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9060159 - 22 Oct 2024
Viewed by 857
Abstract
After the attempt at collaboration between the Frankfurt School and the Vienna Circle failed in the late 1930s, Adorno stood at the forefront of critical theory’s polemics against ‘positivism’. Given these later polemical exchanges, some of the tendencies common to both movements have [...] Read more.
After the attempt at collaboration between the Frankfurt School and the Vienna Circle failed in the late 1930s, Adorno stood at the forefront of critical theory’s polemics against ‘positivism’. Given these later polemical exchanges, some of the tendencies common to both movements have remained overlooked. Among these is their opposition to the phenomenological tradition. This paper focusses on certain features common to Schlick’s and Adorno’s critical responses to Husserl. The Machians, including Adorno’s supervisor Hans Cornelius, were targeted by Husserl’s onslaught against psychologism in 1900. The young Schlick’s Machian background had motivated his contribution to the Psychologismusstreit, in the context of which he launched a series of objections against Husserl’s ‘independence theory of truth’. Adorno’s later doctoral dissertation under Cornelius was also motivated by the effort to defend his master against Husserl’s objections. Schlick’s criticisms intensified in later works, where Husserl’s epistemology of intuition is seen as yet another instance of the widespread confusion between knowledge and acquaintance. Schlick’s warnings against Husserl’s turn towards the irrationalist fashions of his day find their echo in Adorno’s ‘Metakritik’. Apart from their broad agreement in how they understand Husserl’s positioning within his context, Schlick and Adorno also develop a similar criticism of Husserl’s account of intuition as failing in its aspiration to discover unmediated givenness, which it confuses with mediated conceptual knowledge. Unfortunately, while Adorno explicitly acknowledges Schlick’s critique of Husserl, he also misconstrues it as a scientistic rejection of metaphysical nonsense, thus failing to acknowledge the proximity to his approach. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Vienna Circle: Shaping Contemporary Analytic Philosophy and Its History)
16 pages, 284 KiB  
Article
The Multiple Aspects of the Given—Ontological Remarks on Ernst Mach’s Empiricism
by Jan-Ivar Lindén
Philosophies 2024, 9(5), 151; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9050151 - 27 Sep 2024
Viewed by 697
Abstract
Philosophers often rely on sciences of their own time. This is especially true for scientists writing philosophical works. In the case of Ernst Mach, the scientific references are mainly to physics, physiology, evolutionary biology and—in a somewhat different manner—the new discipline of psychology. [...] Read more.
Philosophers often rely on sciences of their own time. This is especially true for scientists writing philosophical works. In the case of Ernst Mach, the scientific references are mainly to physics, physiology, evolutionary biology and—in a somewhat different manner—the new discipline of psychology. Like so many authors in the late 19th century, Mach had extreme confidence in the methods of the natural sciences. However, this trait, often called scientism or positivism, can easily be used in polemical accounts that obscure other aspects of Mach’s thought. Mach is well-known for both his analysis of sensations and his evolutionary conception of perception and knowledge. The tension between the ambition to clarify the empirical basis of perception on the one hand and the focus on the natural origins of human perception on the other hand is, however, considerable. A comparison of these two perspectives can contribute to an ontological understanding of experience that sheds new light on the much-discussed topic of sense data and at the same time clarifies the difference between experience and observation and the role of experimental science in this context. In some respects, Mach seems closer to William James than to his followers in the Vienna circle. The accusation of idealism made by Lenin in his influential critique of positivism overlooks the implications of this naturalist approach but offers the occasion to dwell on the ontological implications of something that can be called natural historicity. Comparisons with Aristotle, Bacon, Descartes and Kant situate the empiricist theory of perception. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Vienna Circle: Shaping Contemporary Analytic Philosophy and Its History)
18 pages, 258 KiB  
Article
Carnap and Wittgenstein: Tolerance, Arbitrariness, and Truth
by Oskari Kuusela
Philosophies 2024, 9(4), 114; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9040114 - 30 Jul 2024
Viewed by 787
Abstract
This article discusses the relationship between Ludwig Wittgenstein’s and Rudolf Carnap’s philosophies of logic during the time of Wittgenstein’s interactions with the Vienna Circle and up to 1934 when the German edition of Carnap’s The Logical Syntax of Language was published. Whilst Section [...] Read more.
This article discusses the relationship between Ludwig Wittgenstein’s and Rudolf Carnap’s philosophies of logic during the time of Wittgenstein’s interactions with the Vienna Circle and up to 1934 when the German edition of Carnap’s The Logical Syntax of Language was published. Whilst Section 1 focuses on the relationship between Carnap and Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, including Wittgenstein’s accusation of plagiarism against Carnap in 1932, Section 2 discusses the relationship between Carnap’s principle of tolerance and Wittgenstein’s similar principle of the arbitrariness of grammar. I argue that, although Carnap’s claim in Logical Syntax to ‘go beyond’ Wittgenstein has certain justification in relation to the Tractatus, so does Wittgenstein’s priority claim. The relationship between Carnap’s philosophy of logic and the Tractatus is thus more complicated than is often recognized. If the reference point is Wittgenstein in the early 1930s, however, Carnap cannot be described as going beyond him, and by 1934, Wittgenstein had advanced further than Carnap would ever venture. Despite evidence that Carnap knew about Wittgenstein’s principle of the arbitrariness of syntax well before his first articulations of his principle of tolerance, the extent of the influence of Wittgenstein’s principle on Carnap remains unclear. What can be established with certainty is that Wittgenstein’s principle predates Carnap’s and that Carnap resisted acknowledging him despite being urged to do so. Arguably, Wittgenstein’s account of syntax as both arbitrary and non-arbitrary is also superior in clarity to Carnap’s misleading claim about a ‘complete freedom’ implied by the principle of tolerance, because such a freedom only exists for idle syntactical systems that are not put to work. In Section 3, I discuss the relationship between Carnap’s notion of expediency and Wittgenstein’s account of the correctness or truth of logical accounts. As my discussion of Wittgenstein’s account brings out, Carnap’s rejection of truth in logic for expediency as the goal of logical clarifications does not follow from the principle of tolerance and is not justified by it. It remains unclear what justifies Carnap’s rejection of truth as the goal of logical clarification. Again, Wittgenstein’s account seems preferable, given the vacuity of the claim that expediency constitutes the basis of choice between different logical languages and clarifications. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Vienna Circle: Shaping Contemporary Analytic Philosophy and Its History)
13 pages, 218 KiB  
Article
Regrounding the Unworldly: Carnap’s Politically Engaged Logical Pluralism
by Noah Friedman-Biglin
Philosophies 2024, 9(4), 110; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9040110 - 23 Jul 2024
Viewed by 807
Abstract
Recent discussions of logical pluralism trace its origins to Rudolf Carnap’s principle of tolerance; indeed, the principle is seen as one of Carnap’s lasting philosophical contributions. In this paper, I will argue that Carnap’s reasons for adopting this principle are not purely logical, [...] Read more.
Recent discussions of logical pluralism trace its origins to Rudolf Carnap’s principle of tolerance; indeed, the principle is seen as one of Carnap’s lasting philosophical contributions. In this paper, I will argue that Carnap’s reasons for adopting this principle are not purely logical, but are rather founded in the Vienna Circle’s manifesto—a programmatic document that brings the Circle’s philosophical work together with a program of social change. Building on work by Uebel, Romizi, and others, I argue that we must understand the principle in light of Carnap’s role in writing the manifesto, and thus as integrated into the larger philosophical and political goals of the Circle. This history illuminates the often-ignored relationship between Carnap’s logical pluralism and his political views. Finally, I turn to the political situation of the post-World War 2 period in the United States. During this time, the Circle’s emigres in the USA transitioned their work from active efforts to reform society to the technical work that we recognize as the foundation of American analytic philosophy today. In this final section, I argue that the reasons that Carnap distanced himself from the political foundations of his view were due in large part to McCarthy-era persecution of left-wing academics. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Vienna Circle: Shaping Contemporary Analytic Philosophy and Its History)
12 pages, 215 KiB  
Article
G. H. von Wright on Logical Empiricism
by Ilkka Niiniluoto
Philosophies 2024, 9(4), 108; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9040108 - 16 Jul 2024
Viewed by 743
Abstract
Georg Henrik von Wright (1916–2003) started his studies in theoretical philosophy at the University of Helsinki in 1934. His teacher, Professor Eino Kaila (1890–1958), was an associate of the Vienna Circle who had changed the course of Finnish philosophy with his own version [...] Read more.
Georg Henrik von Wright (1916–2003) started his studies in theoretical philosophy at the University of Helsinki in 1934. His teacher, Professor Eino Kaila (1890–1958), was an associate of the Vienna Circle who had changed the course of Finnish philosophy with his own version of logical empiricism. Under Kaila’s supervision, von Wright wrote his early studies on probability and defended his doctoral thesis The Logical Problem of Induction in 1941. Von Wright met Ludwig Wittgenstein in Cambridge in 1939 and 1947 and eventually became his successor there in 1948–1951. Later, von Wright characterized these two philosophers as his “father figures”: “Kaila had turned me into a logical positivist or empiricist. Wittgenstein, on the other hand, thoroughly eradicated this personality of mine.” This article studies von Wright’s changing relation to logical empiricism. The main sources include his correspondence with Kaila in 1937–1958 and his books Den logiska empirismen (in Swedish in 1943; in Finnish in 1945) and Logik, filosofi och språk (in Swedish in 1957, in Finnish in 1958). In his “Intellectual Autobiography” (1989), von Wright described the former book as “a farewell to the philosophy of my student years”. Wittgenstein’s influence can be seen in von Wright’s denial of the unity of science and his cool cultural pessimism as expressed in his critical essays. But it is also evident that logic and exact thinking continued to be central tools and ingredients of his subsequent and highly appreciated work as an analytic philosopher. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Vienna Circle: Shaping Contemporary Analytic Philosophy and Its History)
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-6
Back to TopTop