Vienna Circle

Author(s):  
Friedrich Stadler

The Vienna Circle was a group of about three dozen thinkers drawn from the natural and social sciences, logic and mathematics who met regularly in Vienna between the wars to discuss philosophy. The work of this group constitutes one of the most important and most influential philosophical achievements of the twentieth century, especially in the development of analytic philosophy and philosophy of science. The Vienna Circle made its first public appearance in 1929 with the publication of its manifesto, The Scientific Conception of the World: The Vienna Circle (Carnap, Hahn and Neurath 1929). At the centre of this modernist movement was the so-called ‘Schlick Circle’, a discussion group organized in 1924 by the physics professor Moritz Schlick. Friedrich Waismann, Herbert Feigl, Rudolf Carnap, Hans Hahn, Philipp Frank, Otto Neurath, Viktor Kraft, Karl Menger, Kurt Gödel and Edgar Zilsel belonged to this inner circle. Their meetings in the Boltzmanngasse were also attended by Olga Taussky-Todd, Olga Hahn-Neurath, Felix Kaufmann, Rose Rand, Gustav Bergmann and Richard von Mises, and on some occasions by visitors from abroad such as Hans Reichenbach, Alfred Ayer, Ernest Nagel, Willard Van Orman Quine and Alfred Tarski. This discussion circle was pluralistic and committed to the ideals of the Enlightenment. It was unified by the aim of making philosophy scientific with the help of modern logic on the basis of scientific and everyday experience. At the periphery of the Schlick Circle, and in a more or less strong osmotic contact with it, there were loose discussion groups around Ludwig Wittgenstein, Heinrich Gomperz, Richard von Mises and Karl Popper. In addition the mathematician Karl Menger established in the years 1926–36 an international mathematical colloquium, which was attended by Kurt Gödel, John von Neumann and Alfred Tarski among others. Thus the years 1924–36 saw the development of an interdisciplinary movement whose purpose was to transform philosophy. Its public profile was provided by the Ernst Mach Society through which members of the Vienna Circle sought to popularize their ideas in the context of programmes for national education in Vienna. The general programme of the movement was reflected in its publications, such as the journal Erkenntnis (‘Knowledge’, later called The Journal for Unified Science), and the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Given this story of intellectual success, the fate of the Vienna Circle was tragic. The Ernst Mach Society was suspended in 1934 for political reasons, Moritz Schlick was murdered in 1936, and around this time many members of the Vienna Circle left Austria for racial and political reasons; thus soon after Schlick’s death the Circle disintegrated. As a result of the emigration of so many of its members, however, the characteristic ideas of the Vienna Circle became more and more widely known, especially in Scandinavia, Britain and North America where they contributed to the emergence of modern philosophy of science. In Germany and Austria, however, the philosophical and mathematical scene was characterized by a prolongation of the break that was caused by the emigration of the members of the Vienna Circle.

Author(s):  
Peter Murray

In 1922 Moritz Schlick (1882–1936) transformed the Verein Ernst Mach (Ernst Mach Society), a weekly reading group concerned with logical positivism, into an international assembly of academics known as der Weiner Kreis, or the Vienna Circle, which responded to recent developments within analytic philosophy by leading thinkers Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), Gottlob Frege (1848–1925) and Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951). Early members included Rudolf Carnap (1891–1970), Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) and Otto Neurath (1882–1945). In 1929, Neurath published Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis (The Scientific Conception of the World: The Vienna Circle), a pamphlet delineating the group’s rejection of metaphysics in favour of a scientific worldview predicated upon empirical phenomena.


1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 761-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen C. Kleene

I first heard the name of Kurt Gödel when, as a graduate student at Princeton in the fall of 1931, I attended a colloquium at which John von Neumann was the speaker, von Neumann could have spoken on work of his own; but instead he gave an exposition of Gödel's results of formally undecidable propositions [1931].Today I shall begin with Gödel's paper [1930] on The completeness of the axioms of the functional calculus of logic, or of what we now often call “the first-order predicate calculus”, using “predicate” as synonymous with “propositional function”.Alonzo Church wrote ([1944, p. 62] and [1956, pp. 288–289]), “the first explicit formulation of the functional calculus of first order as an independent logistic system is perhaps in the first edition of Hilbert and Ackermann's Grundzüge der theoretischen Logik (1928).” Clearly, this formalism is not complete in the sense that each closed formula or its negation is provable. (A closed formula, or sentence, is a formula without free occurrences of variables.) But Hilbert and Ackermann observe, “Whether the system of axioms is complete at least in the sense that all the logical formulas which are correct for each domain of individuals can actually be derived from them is still an unsolved question.” [1928, p. 68].This question Gödel answered in the affirmative in his Ph.D. thesis (Vienna, 1930), of which the paper under discussion is a rewritten version.I shall not describe Gödel's proof. Perhaps no theorem in modern logic has been proved more often than Gödel's completeness theorem for the first-order predicate calculus. It stands at the focus of a complex of fundamental theorems, which different scholars have approached from various directions (e.g. Kleene [1967, Chapter VI]).


2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Warren Goldfarb

The philosopher Rudolf Carnap (1891–1970), although not himself an originator of mathematical advances in logic, was much involved in the development of the subject. He was the most important and deepest philosopher of the Vienna Circle of logical positivists, or, to use the label Carnap later preferred, logical empiricists. It was Carnap who gave the most fully developed and sophisticated form to the linguistic doctrine of logical and mathematical truth: the view that the truths of mathematics and logic do not describe some Platonistic realm, but rather are artifacts of the way we establish a language in which to speak of the factual, empirical world, fallouts of the representational capacity of language. (This view has its roots in Wittgenstein's Tractatus, but Wittgenstein's remarks on mathematics beyond first-order logic are notoriously sparse and cryptic.) Carnap was also the thinker who, after Russell, most emphasized the importance of modern logic, and the distinctive advances it enables in the foundations of mathematics, to contemporary philosophy. It was through Carnap's urgings, abetted by Hans Hahn, once Carnap arrived in Vienna as Privatdozent in philosophy in 1926, that the Vienna Circle began to take logic seriously and that positivist philosophy began to grapple with the question of how an account of mathematics compatible with empiricism can be given (see Goldfarb 1996).A particular facet of Carnap's influence is not widely appreciated: it was Carnap who introduced Kurt Gödel to logic, in the serious sense. Although Gödel seems to have attended a course of Schlick's on philosophy of mathematics in 1925–26, his second year at the University, he did not at that time pursue logic further, nor did the seminar leave much of a trace on him. In the early summer of 1928, however, Carnap gave two lectures to the Circle which Gödel attended, or so I surmise. At these occasions, Carnap presented material from his manuscript treatise, Untersuchungen zur allgemeinen Axiomatik, that is, “Investigations into general axiomatics”, which dealt with questions of consistency, completeness and categoricity. Carnap later circulated this material to various people including Gödel.


1985 ◽  
Vol 17 (51) ◽  
pp. 71-96
Author(s):  
Javier Echeverría

One of the main deficiencies of the twentieth century philosophy of science, in spite of evident achievements in the logical analysis and reconstruction of scientific theories, is the separation between formal sciences and those sciences with empirical contents. This distinction derives from Carnap and it was generally admitted by the Vienna Circle since the publication of “Formalwissenschaft und Realwissenschaft” in Erkenntnis in 1935. Later philosophy of science, in spite of other criticism of the neopositivist programme, has maintained this separation. It can be claimed that Realwissenschaften, physics in particular, have determined the development of later philosophy of science. Analyses of scientific theories most of the time refer to physical theories, and occasionally to biological ones. There is still a lot to be done in the field of mathematics and logic, in order to analyse and reconstruct their theories. But even if this task is undertaken, and some progress has been done lately, there is still a lot of work to do before a general theory of science can be proposed which transcends such a division between formal and empirical sciences, let alone the human or social sciences. This paper is intended as a contribution to supersede the first dichotomy between formal and physical sciences. One of the main problems in order to make some progress along these lines is that since its origins logical positivism had a deficient theory of knowledge, and the same happened with analytical philosophy developed immediately afterwards. This paper thus criticises examples of such a type of theory of knowledge, as expressed in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, and Russell’s Philosophy of Logical Atomism. The core argument is as follows: these theorizations are inadequate for scientific knowledge; this type of knowledge, particularly the notion of ‘sign’ cannot be adapted to the simple scheme proposed in those works. The criticism here undertaken is developed from a rationalist point of view, in a sense which is closer to Leibniz and Saussure, than to recent philosophers fascinated with the word ‘reason’. Some new proposals are put forward, necessarily provisional, which justify the term, which in turn could be perfectly substituted by another, of Semiology of Science.


Muzealnictwo ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 59 ◽  
pp. 39-47
Author(s):  
Aldona Tołysz

School museums – which had been founded mostly in the vicinity of educational institutions – used to collect teaching aids. So-called natural history cabinets were the most popular among them, recommended, inter alia, by the Commission of National Education in 1783. The tradition of collecting this type of exhibits was common until the middle of the 20th century. There are two types to be distinguished: school museums and pedagogical museums, which differ with respect to the character of their activity and the kind of exhibits. School museums collected basically objects of natural science, instruments for teaching geography, chemistry and mathematics as well as prints and facilities used during lessons. The second group also specialised in exhibits of natural science, but they were no longer used and usually of higher scientific value, including patterns and examples known in the education system. Among the earliest school museums created in the Kingdom of Poland were Warsaw collections of the Institute for Deaf and Blind People (1875), and those of the Eugeniusz Babiński’s so-called Realschule. At the beginning of the 20th century the idea was spreading, inspired inter alia by the exemplary activity of the Polish School Museum in Lviv (1903). The biggest number of school museums and collections were created in institutions founded by the Polish Educational Society (1906–1907). The survived resources give us relatively detailed information about the collections from Warsaw and Pabianice, which aspired to be categorised as pedagogical museums. The Secondary School for Boys of the Merchants Association in Łódź and the Pedagogical Museum in Warsaw (1917) had also in their possession some interesting collections. The latter one was based upon the collections of former governmental schools, in which – in accordance with a decree issued by Russian authorities – the scientific exhibits were to be collected.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document