DOCSLIB.ORG

Grumbles and Quibbles from Mitteleuropa

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grumbles and Quibbles from Mitteleuropa teorema Vol. XXX/1, 2011, pp. 103-113 ISSN: 0210-1602 [BIBLID 0210-1602 (2011) 30:1; pp. 103-113] Grumbles and Quibbles from Mitteleuropa Kevin Mulligan Hanjo Glock’s judicious, lively, reliable and extraordinarily wide- ranging account of analytic philosophy contains many good things. Several of his numerous, interesting and well-argued criticisms of available accounts of the history of analytic philosophy are spot on – for example, his objections to Michael Friedman’s influential Parting of the Ways [Friedman (2000)]. I was also pleased to find that he (henceforth “HG”) endorses a conception of analytic philosophy (henceforth “AP”) which is in part “genetic”.1 In accor- dance with the Editor’s instructions, my quibbles focus on only two frag- ments of HG’s rich analysis. I. AUSTRO-ANGLO ? HG sketches a view of the origins of AP according to which the latter is at bottom “Anglo-Austrian” and Austrian (Austro-Hungarian) philosophy is to be sharply distinguished from German philosophy. Versions of this view have been set forth, as he notes, by Neurath, Haller, Dummett, Barry Smith and Peter Simons. (I, too, have defended a similar view). HG accepts that many of the claims put forward by proponents of the Neurath-Haller thesis are correct and important. But he disagrees with what he calls three of their suggestions: “first, that there is a single, unified and unique current of ‘scien- tific`, proto-analytic philosophy which dominated Austrian philosophy; sec- ondly, that the proto-analytic/analytic movement was entirely alien to Germany; and thirdly, that this movement was universally characterised by realism and hostility to Kant” [p. 75]. HG says that “the idea that there was a single Austrian tradition going back to Bolzano is a propagandistic invention of Neurath’s” and refers, as does Haller, to the realist strand from Bolzano, Brentano and his heirs to Pol- ish philosophy and the empiricist strand from Mach and Boltzmann to the Vienna Circle [p. 75]. The claim about Neurath is unfair; although he was in- deed capable of propaganda he takes great pains in his remarkable 1935 “Le développement du Cercle de Vienne et l’avenir de l’empirisme logique” to 103 104 Kevin Mulligan distinguish the many complicated ways in which very different conceptions within Austrian philosophy of empiricism and the empirical, of logic, analy- sis, metaphysics and realism fed into the complex traditions which led to logical empiricism [cf. Neurath (1935) pp. 8, 12, 34, 38-39, 58]. HG goes on to stress the undeniable, large differences between the two strands but does not mention the complex interactions and similarities be- tween the strands: Brentano, who was in many respects Boltzmann’s phi- losophical mentor, wrote a critical book about Mach’s Erkenntnis und Irrtum, Mach is the object of extensive critical discussions by Höfler, Meinong, Musil and others; Husserl’s phenomenology was, as he himself points out, profoundly influenced by Mach. HG says: “there could not be a greater con- trast than that between the patently metaphysical ideas of Bolzano and Mei- nong, on the one hand, and the anti-metaphysical zeal of Carnap and Neurath, on the other” [p. 75]. It is true that Carnap and Neurath thought that what they called “Metaphysik” was profoundly misguided and did not, like Bol- zano and Brentano, go in for proofs of the existence of God. But it is also true that it is important to distinguish the analyses and theories of a philosopher from his interpretation or account of their status. The Aufbau’s of the world we find in Meinong, Husserl and Carnap (like those of Russell, Whitehead and Nicod) form a common enterprise and manifest a variety of agreements and disagreements peculiar to the enterprise. Carnap is quite explicit about the similarities and differences between the types of struc- ture appealed to by his Austrian predecessors (“formal ontology”, “the theory of objects”) in their “constitutions” and “constructions” of the world and his own preferred tools such as equivalence relations. The fact that Husserl’s later Aufbau is (sometimes) interpreted by him in idealist fashion, Meinong’s in a realist fashion and Carnap’s in a metaphysically neutral fashion should not lead us to overlook the existence of a shared, novel – Austro-Anglo – philosophical project. HG says “there could not be a greater contrast...between Brentano’s long list of synthetic a priori truths and the blanket repudiation of the syn- thetic a priori by Wittgenstein and the logical positivists” [pp. 75-76]. I as- sume “Brentano” here is a slip and should be replaced by “Husserl”. Then, while of course accepting that the contrast between those who accept and those who reject synthetic a priori truths is undeniable and great I add the ob- servation that the range of sentences which Husserl and other phenomenolo- gists took to express synthetic a priori truths (and to be made true by “essential connexions”) overlaps to a remarkable extent with the range of sentences which, according to Wittgenstein, (can) express or function as so called grammatical propositions. (“Orange lies between red and yellow”, “Meaning something is not a process” etc.). Here there is a – great ? – con- trast between Wittgenstein and the phenomenologists, on the one hand, and Kant, on the other hand. The handful of synthetic a priori judgments allowed Grumbles and Quibbles from Mitteleuropa 105 for by Kant and his followers contrasts with the great variety of grammatical propositions à la Wittgenstein and of the synthetic or material a priori à la Husserl & Co. The variety of the synthetic a priori à la Husserl is a conse- quence of his account of the nature of synthetic a priori propositions, which is, as he points out, distinctly unkantian. He had, after all, the advantage of having read Bolzano on analyticity. The thesis that there was an “Anglo-Austrian axis of light” [p. 74] is said to ignore “the intimate cultural, political and academic connexions be- tween Germany and the Habsburg Empire....There was no cultural or aca- demic chasm between the German states and Imperial Germany (after 1871) on the one hand, and the German speaking parts and constituencies of the Habsburg empire and its successor states on the other” [p. 76]. HG may be right about academic mobility (further evidence in favour of this claim is given by the Austrian philosopher Heinrich Gomperz (1936); Scheler – see below – disagrees). Whether or not there was a “cultural chasm” between the two parts of the German-speaking world, is there not at least a “great con- trast” between, on the one hand, the culture in which flourished Hofmannsthal, Rilke, Trakl, Schnitzler, Kafka, Kraus, Musil, Svevo, Kraus, Mahler, Schönberg, Webern, Roth, Berg, Klimt, Schiele, Kokoschka, Loos, Doderer, Broch, Canetti, Billy Wilder, Zimmermann, Brentano, Kerry, Ehrenfels, Gomperz, Meinong, Twar- dowski, Marty, Witasek, Husserl, Weininger, Mauthner, Wittgenstein, Neurath, Schütz, Kaufmann, Waismann, Bergmann, Popper, Hering, Mach, Carl Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Boltzmann, Freud, Les- niewski, Lukasiewicz, Ludwig von Mises, Richard von Mises, Fleck, Malinowski, Heider, Karl Menger, Schumpeter, Bühler, von Neumann, Hayek, Wertheimer, Gödel, Tarski and, on the other hand, the contemporaneous culture of Germany? Writing in 1915/16, Max Scheler, one of the first philosophers to talk of “Austrian philosophy” (hence my preference for the label “the Scheler- Neurath-Haller thesis”; cf. Smith (2001)) says that before the war intellectual contacts (Berührungen des höheren Geisteslebens) between Germany and Aus- tria were rare and almost completely absent in philosophy, economics and the humanities. The situation began to change, he asserts, quite rapidly in philoso- phy and literature just before the outbreak of war [Scheler (1982), p. 463]. Whatever the truth of the matter about mobility, chasms, contrasts and contacts, there is a compromise between the Anglo-Austro analytic axis claim and HG’s view that the proto-analytic/analytic movement was not en- 106 Kevin Mulligan tirely alien to Germany. On this third view [cf. Mulligan (1997), p. 86; (2001), p. 23] proto-analytic/analytic philosophy is associated above all with Austria- Hungary and southern Germany. It is in Würzburg that Brentano, Stumpf, Marty and, later, Bühler and the members of the Würzburg School of psychol- ogy first flourished. It is in Munich that Lipps, Scheler and Pfänder, under the influence of the Brentanians and then of Husserl, brought into existence the group of “realist phenomenologists” (Pfänder, Scheler, Reinach, Geiger, von Hildebrand), a group joined later in Göttingen by Stein and Ingarden. Just how much weight should be given to this suggestion will depend in part on the philosophical importance of the least familiar of these figures. I suggest that if Grice’s account of meaning and its developments are philoso- phically important, then so, too, is Marty’s carefully argued anticipation of this account. If the standard evaluation of the analyses of speech acts associ- ated with the names of Austin and Searle is correct, then Reinach’s anatomy of “social acts” such as promises, questions and orders deserves an important place in histories of twentieth century philosophy (even in those written in Oxford). If Wittgenstein’s account of the differences between causes and rea- sons is philosophically valuable, so too is the much more careful account given by Pfänder and other phenomenologists. If the descriptions of different language-games at the beginning of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investiga- tions are as valuable as they are often said to be, then it is time to salute the penetrating taxonomy and analysis of the very same uses of language to be found in Bühler’s 1934 Sprachtheorie. Finally, I predict that many friends of contemporary analytic metaphysics would find much to admire in the (largely untranslated from German and Polish) ontological investigations of Roman Ingarden.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analogies in Physics Analysis of an Unplanned Epistemic Strategy
    . Analogies in Physics Analysis of an Unplanned Epistemic Strategy Von der Philosophischen Fakultät der Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover zur Erlangung des Grades Doktors der Philosophie Dr. phil. Genehmigte Dissertation von Ing. grad. MA Gunnar Kreisel Erscheinungs- bzw. Druckjahr 2021 Referent: Prof. Dr. Mathias Frisch Korreferent: Prof. Dr. Torsten Wilholt Tag der Promotion: 26.10.2020 2 To my early died sister Uta 3 Acknowledgements I could quote only very few by name who have contributed to my work on this thesis, for discussing some of the developed ideas with me or comments on parts of my manuscript. These are in the first place my advisor Mathias Frisch and further Torsten Wilholt, who read critically individual chapters. Much more have contributed by some remarks or ideas mentioned in passing which I cannot assign to someone explicitly and therefore must be left unnamed. Also, other people not named here have supported my work in the one or other way. I think they know who were meant if they read this. A lot of thanks are due to Zoe Vercelli from the International Writing centre at Leibniz University Hannover improving my English at nearly the whole manuscript (some parts are leaved to me because of organisational changes at the writing centre). So, where the English is less correct Zoe could not have had a look on it. Of course, all errors and imprecisions remain in solely my responsibility. 4 Abstract This thesis investigates what tools are appropriate for answering the question how it is possible to develop such a complex theory in physics as the standard model of particle physics with only an access via electromagnetic interaction of otherwise unobservable objects and their interactions it was investigated what the tools are to do this.
    [Show full text]
  • INTENTIONALITY Past and Future VIBS
    INTENTIONALITY Past and Future VIBS Volume 173 Robert Ginsberg Founding Editor Peter A. Redpath Executive Editor Associate Editors G. John M. Abbarno Matti Häyry Mary-Rose Barral Steven V. Hicks Gerhold K. Becker Richard T. Hull Raymond Angelo Belliotti Mark Letteri Kenneth A. Bryson Vincent L. Luizzi C. Stephen Byrum Alan Milchman H. G. Callaway George David Miller Robert A. Delfino Alan Rosenberg Rem B. Edwards Arleen L. F. Salles Andrew Fitz-Gibbon John R. Shook Francesc Forn i Argimon Eddy Souffrant William Gay Tuija Takala Dane R. Gordon Anne Waters J. Everet Green John R. Welch Heta Aleksandra Gylling Thomas F. Woods a volume in Cognitive Science CS Francesc Forn i Argimon, Editor INTENTIONALITY Past and Future Edited by Gábor Forrai and George Kampis Amsterdam - New York, NY 2005 Cover Design: Studio Pollmann The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents - Requirements for permanence”. ISBN: 90-420-1817-8 ©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2005 Printed in the Netherlands CONTENTS Preface vii List of Abbreviations ix ONE The Necessity and Nature of Mental Content 1 LAIRD ADDIS TWO Reading Brentano on the Intentionality of the Mental 15 PHILIP J. BARTOK THREE Emotions, Moods, and Intentionality 25 WILLIAM FISH FOUR Lockean Ideas as Intentional Contents 37 GÁBOR FORRAI FIVE Normativity and Mental Content 51 JUSSI HAUKIOJA SIX The Ontological and Intentional Status of Fregean Senses: An Early Account of External Content 63 GREG JESSON
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Time: a Slightly Opinionated Introduction
    Philosophy of time: A slightly opinionated introduction Florian Fischer There are several intertwined debates in the area of contemporary philos- ophy of time. One field of inquiry is the nature of time itself. Presentists think that only the present moment exists whereas eternalists believe that all of (space-)time exists on a par. The second main field of inquiry is the question of how objects persist through time. The endurantist claims that objects are three-dimensional wholes, which persist by being wholly1 present, whereas the perdurantist thinks that objects are four- dimensional and that their temporal parts are the bearers of properties. The third debate in the field of contemporary philosophy of time is about tense- versus tenseless theory. Tensers are at odds with detensers about the status of the linguistic reference to the present moment. These are only very crude characterizations and it is even disputed by some ad- vocates of the corresponding positions that they are accurate. However this very sketchy picture already reveals a fundamental difference: The eternalism/presentism and endurance/perdurance discussions belong to the field of metaphysics, whereas tense is in the first instance a linguistic phenomenon. Among the many fields of philosophy, there are two that are more intimately interconnected than most but whose practi- tioners have too long pursued relatively independent paths. On the one hand, there are philosophers of language, who have devoted much attention to indexicals (`now', etc.), tem- poral operators (`it has been the case that', etc.), and tensed sentences. On the other hand, there are the philosophers of tensed and tenseless time (also called A-time or B-time, dynamic time or static time, etc.).
    [Show full text]
  • Gustav Bergmann on Ideal Languages
    Gustav Bergmann on Ideal Languages Nino B. Cocchiarella October 30, 1992 1 Bergmann and the Logical Positivists Bergmann began his philosophical career as a logical positivist. He was in u- enced in his early career by Rudolf Carnap in the latter's own early career. Carnap was one of my own teachers in his later years. For Bergmann, the logical positivists \were all either metaphysical materi- alists or phenomenalists" (The Metaphysics of Logical Positivism [MLP], ix). He rejected metaphysical materialism and, initially, adopted phenomenalism. Later, he rejected phenomenalism (which, together with materialism, he re- garded as a \one-level world") and came to regard himself as \a realist of the phenomenological variety," which he described as a \two-level world of minds and bodies in which the former are capable of intending the latter as well as themselves and each other (ibid.). Question: What is the di erence, if any, between metaphysical mind-body dualism and Bergmann's \two-level world" of minds and bodies? Question: Does Bergmann mean by a two-level world of mind and body only that the mental world is not reducible to the material and that otherwise there is only one world (with two levels)? The principle goal of logical positivism (as stated in the 1929 \Manifesto" of the Vienna Circle) was uni ed science (Einheitswissenschaft), by which was meant: 1. a framework in which all knowledge of reality accessible to humanity could be represented This lecture was presented at Indiana University at the Gustav Bergmann Memorial Conference, October 30{31, 1992. The other speakers were: Reinhardt Grossmann (Indiana University), Herbert Hochberg (University of Texas at Austin), Erwin Tegtmeir (University of Mannheim), Robert Turnbull (Ohio State University), and Fred Wilson (University of Toronto).
    [Show full text]
  • Gustav Bergmann (1906 – 1987) During the Years 1946 – 1958
    Review of: Bergmann, Gustav, Collected Works Vol. I Daniel von Wachter Homepage of the author: http://von-wachter.de Email: replace “ABC” in [email protected] by “von-wachter” Address: Dr. Dr. Daniel von Wachter, Institut für Philosophie, Universität München, PF 42, D-80539 München, Germany. This is a preprint version of: Wachter, Daniel von. 2006. "Review of: Bergmann, Gustav, Collected Works Vol. I." In Cambridge and Vienna. Frank P. Ramsey and the Vienna Circle (Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, vol. 12), edited by M. C. Galavotti. Berlin, 219-222. This document is available at http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de. (Format A5; print 2 pages per sheet) Logical Positivism, the Linguistic Turn, and the Reconstruction of the Questions of Ontology Bergmann, Gustav, Collected Works Vol. I: Selected Papers I, edited by E. Tegtmeier, Frankfurt/Lancaster: Ontos-Verlag, 2003. ISBN 3-937202-17- X, pp. 350, hardcover € 99,00 (€ 67,00 subscription). 1 This volume makes available 17 papers published by Gustav Bergmann (1906 – 1987) during the years 1946 – 1958. The edition of Bergmann’s works in three volumes by the publisher “Ontos-Verlag” (www.ontos- verlag.de) is now complete. Volume II contains papers from 1960 – 1981, volume III contains Bergmann’s book Realism from 1967. Bergmann was born in Vienna (Austria) in 1906. When he received his doctorate in mathematics from the University of Vienna in 1928, he had already been invited to join the Vienna Circle, where he was especially influenced by Schlick, Waismann, and Carnap. He went to Berlin to work as an assistant to Albert Einstein and then returned to Vienna.
    [Show full text]
  • How Hochberg Helped Us Take the Ontological Turn
    The University of Manchester Research How Hochberg helped us take the ontological turn Document Version Submitted manuscript Link to publication record in Manchester Research Explorer Citation for published version (APA): Macbride, F. (2014). How Hochberg helped us take the ontological turn. Dialectica, 68, 163-9. Published in: Dialectica Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on Manchester Research Explorer is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Proof version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Explorer are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Takedown policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please refer to the University of Manchester’s Takedown Procedures [http://man.ac.uk/04Y6Bo] or contact [email protected] providing relevant details, so we can investigate your claim. Download date:26. Sep. 2021 HOW HOCHBERG HELPED US TAKE THE ONTOLOGICAL TURN Fraser MACBRIDE Please do not cite this version. The published version is, ‘How Hochberg helped us take the ontological turn’, Dialectica, 2014, 68, 163-9 Analytic philosophy has taken an ‘ontological turn' and Herbert Hochberg has played a significant part in helping bring us to where we stand now. This special issue on predicables and relations, two of his abiding concerns over the last 50 years, is dedicated to him.
    [Show full text]
  • Frege, Russell and #1A7DA86
    Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein Michael Potter Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein were founders (although not by any means the sole founders) of the analytic tradition in philosophy; but they did not found the philosophy of language, which has roots stretching back much further. Their principal contribution, indeed, could be regarded as being in the opposite direction: it is not so much that they applied philosophical methods to the study of language as that they applied linguistic methods to the study of certain problems in philosophy. In the course of this work they did develop ideas which shed light on language and how it functions. However, even this must be heavily qualified, since their main contributions were much more to the philosophy of logic (the study of the inferential role of sentences) than to the philosophy of language (the study of how language means what it does). In the summary of their contribution that follows we shall focus on the morals that can be drawn from it for modern work in the philosophy of language. Frege It is worth noting straightaway that mathematics played an important role in shaping the philosophical ambitions of all three of the philosophers we shall be considering. Frege was a mathematician for all of his professional life; Russell began as one and much of what he wrote had the philosophy of mathematics as its focus; and Wittgenstein, although he did not train as a mathematician, announced when he arrived at Cambridge in 1911 that it was the philosophy of mathematics that he wanted to study with Russell.
    [Show full text]
  • Origin of Russell's Early Theory of Logical Truth As Purely General Truth
    Modern Logic Volume 8, Number 3 & 4 (May 2000-October 2001), pp. 21–30. ORIGIN OF RUSSELL’S EARLY THEORY OF LOGICAL TRUTH AS PURELY GENERAL TRUTH: BOLZANO, PEIRCE, FREGE, VENN, OR MACCOLL? JAN DEJNOZKAˇ Who most likely influenced Russell’s early theory of logical truth as purely general truth: Bolzano, Peirce, Frege, Venn, or MacColl? Russell’s theory of logical truth as invariance, or as truth under any interpretation, anticipates Alfred Tarski (1936), J. C. C. McKin- sey (1945), Rudolf Carnap (1947), Saul Kripke (1980), Joseph Almog (1989), and John Etchemendy (1990), and has antecedents in Bernard Bolzano and John Venn. Russell’s theory resembles Bolzano’s substitu- tional account of logical truth, which Etchemendy compares to Tarski’s satisfactional account of logical truth (Etchemendy [14, pp. 27-33])1. Tarski himself compares his closely related definition of logical con- sequence to Carnap and to Bolzano (Tarski [52, pp. 413-18, 417 n.+] following H. Scholtz). Russell’s theory of what is possible as what is sometimes the case is close to McKinsey [30, p. 83] and Venn [55, p. 40], with roots in Diodorus Cronus and Parmenides. Russell’s fundamental paper on modality, “Necessity and Possibility” (Russell [51]), which Russell read to the Oxford Philosophical Society on October 22, 1905 (Urquhart [54, p. 507]), was not published during his lifetime. It appeared in a volume of the Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell only in 1994 (Russell [34]). Had it been published in 1905 as the companion piece to “On Denoting” I believe it was, the course of modal logic — not to mention the course of Russell studies — might well have been different2.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography of the Writings of Gustav Bergmann
    Bibliography of the Writings of Gustav Bergmann 1928 Zur Axiomatik der Elementargeometrie. Weiner Akademie Der Wissenschaften, 26, (1928): 1-3. 1929 Über eine mit den Hypertorsen verwandte Flachenklasse. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 36, (1929): 259-268. Zur Axiomatik der Elementargeometrie. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 36, (1929): 269-284. 1930 Ebenen und Bewegungsgruppen in Riemannschen Räumen. Jahresbericht der Deutschen Mathematiker Vereiningung, 39, (1930): 54-55. (with E. Lukács) Ebenen und Bewegungsgruppen in Riemannschen Räumen. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 37, (1930): 303-324. (with E. Lukács) 1931 Zwei Bemerkungen zur abstracten und kombinatorischen Topologie. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, (1931): 245-256. 1932 Zur algebraisch-axiomatischen Begründung der Topologie. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 35, (1932): 502-511. 1935 Zur analytischen Theorie literarischer Wertmasstäbe. Imago, 21, (1935): 498-504. 1940 On Physicalistic Models of Non-Physical Terms. Philosophy of Science, 7, (1940): 151- 158. On Some Methodological Problems of Psychology. Philosophy of Science, 7, (1940): 205-219. The Subject Matter of Psychology. Philosophy of Science, 7, (1940): 415-433. 1941 The Logic of Probability. American Journal of Physics, 9, (1941): 263-272. Operationism and Theory in Psychology. Psychological Review, 48, (1941): 1-14. (with K. Spence) 1942 An Empiricist Schema of the Psychophysical Problem. Philosophy of Science, 9, (1942): 72-91. Syntactical Analysis of the Class Calculus. Philosophy of Science, 9, (1942): 227-232. Remarks Concerning the Epistemology of Scientific Empiricism. Philosophy of Science, 9, (1942): 283-293. The Indexical and Presentative Function of Signs. Philosophy of Science, 9, (1942): 372- 374. 1943 Notes on Identity. Philosophy of Science, 10, (1943): 163-166.
    [Show full text]
  • Ludwig Wittgenstein and Hermann Broch: the Need for Fiction and Logic in Moral Philosophy Christopher Bailes Washington University in St
    Washington University in St. Louis Washington University Open Scholarship All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) 5-24-2012 Ludwig Wittgenstein and Hermann Broch: The Need for Fiction and Logic in Moral Philosophy Christopher Bailes Washington University in St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd Recommended Citation Bailes, Christopher, "Ludwig Wittgenstein and Hermann Broch: The eN ed for Fiction and Logic in Moral Philosophy" (2012). All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs). 681. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/etd/681 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses and Dissertations (ETDs) by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures Dissertation Examination Committee: Paul Michael Lützeler, Chair Julia Driver Matt Erlin Erin McGlothlin Gillian Russell Lynne Tatlock Ludwig Wittgenstein and Hermann Broch: The Need for Fiction and Logic in Moral Philosophy By Christopher Wade Bailes A dissertation presented to the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2012 Saint Louis, Missouri Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures and Washington University in Saint Louis for their generous financial support. My dissertation benefited from various guest lecturers, conferences, and graduate seminars supported by the university, and would not have been financially feasible without the tuition waivers and more than adequate living stipends that kept me afloat.
    [Show full text]
  • Austrians Tend to Be Preoccupied with the Idiosyncrasies of Their Own Mentality. the Austrian Soul (Die Österreichische Seele)
    i PREFACE Austrians tend to be preoccupied with the idiosyncrasies of their own mentality. The Austrian soul (die österreichische Seele) and its various crises of identity have been the objects of all kinds of analyses, ranging from Erwin Ringel’s psychological inquiries to Helmut Qualtinger’s satirical caricatures, whose black humour is typical of the entertainment seen in the Austrian cabaret. The reasons for this self- questioning obsession are manifold and partially roorted in the multiculturalism of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Vienna of the fin de siècle was not only the capital but also the cultural meeting place for intellectuals from all corners of the Empire. This creative atmosphere was characterized by the exchange of ideas among various schools, circles, groups, and individuals, and nourished by Vienna’s thriving coffeehouse culture. The decline and eventual dissolution, in 1918, of the Habsburg Monarchy, reactivated once again the problematic issue of Austrian identity, an identity defined mainly in contrast to Germany, its neighbour to the north. Numerous scholars have tried both to define and to account for the existence of Austrian traditions in various cultural fields. The extensive work of philosophers such as Rudolf Haller and Barry Smith has substantiated the claim, expressed earlier by Otto Neurath in the manifesto of the Vienna Circle, that there are distinct Austrian traditions in philosophy. Literary critics such as Claudio Magris, Ulrich Greiner, and Robert Menasse investigated similar claims about typically Austrian features in literature. We invited leading experts on these topics to participate in an international conference, Writing the Austrian Traditions (May 12-14, 2000 at Woodsworth College, University of Toronto), in order to discuss some of the significant connections between Austrian literary and philosophical traditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction À L'ouvrage Gustav Bergmann: Phenomenological
    Introduction à l’ouvrage Gustav Bergmann : Phenomenological Realism and Dialectical Ontology, B. Langlet et J.-M. Monnoyer (eds) Bruno Langlet, Jean-Maurice Monnoyer To cite this version: Bruno Langlet, Jean-Maurice Monnoyer. Introduction à l’ouvrage Gustav Bergmann : Phenomenolog- ical Realism and Dialectical Ontology, B. Langlet et J.-M. Monnoyer (eds). Gustav Bergmann : Phe- nomenological Realism and Dialectical Ontology, Ontos Verlag, 2009, 978-3868380354. hal-02409289 HAL Id: hal-02409289 https://hal-amu.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02409289 Submitted on 13 Dec 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. (Introduction à l’ouvrage collectif Gustav Bergmann : Phenomenological Realism and Dialectical Ontology, Ontos Verlag, 2009) Introduction The essays collected in this volume were read at the Gustav Bergmann (1906-1987) th th International colloquium, held in Aix-en-provence, from De- cember 9 to December 11 2006, for the centennial anniversary of Berg- mann’s birth. The conference was organized within the framework of the Séminaire de Métaphysique (SEMa), which is hosted by the IHP (Institut d’Histoire de la Philosophie). The (non-official) purpose was to promote some liberal exchanges and debates between some Bergmann’s interpreters (American and European) focusing on the “actuality” of his thought; the official one was to greet the first meeting devoted to this philosopher in France, where he is still widely little-known.
    [Show full text]