Journal for the History of “Was There a Sun Before Men Existed?” Analytical Philosophy A.J. Ayer and French Philosophy in the Fifties Volume 1, Number 9 Andreas Vrahimis In contrast to many of his contemporaries, A. J. Ayer was an ana- Editor in Chief lytic philosopher who had sustained throughout his career some Mark Textor, King’s College London interest in developments in the work of his “continental” peers. Ayer, who spoke French, held friendships with some important Parisian intellectuals, such as Camus, Bataille, Wahl and Merleau- Editorial Board Ponty. This paper examines the circumstances of a meeting be- Juliet Floyd, Boston University tween Ayer, Merleau-Ponty, Wahl, Ambrosino and Bataille, which Greg Frost-Arnold, Hobart and William Smith Colleges took place in 1951 at some Parisian bar. The question under dis- Ryan Hickerson, University of Western Oregon cussion during this meeting was whether the sun existed before Henry Jackman, York University humans did, over which the various philosophers disagreed. This Sandra Lapointe, McMaster University disagreement is tangled with a variety of issues, such as Ayer’s Chris Pincock, Ohio State University critique of Heidegger and Sartre (inherited from Carnap), Ayer’s Richard Zach, University of Calgary response to Merleau-Ponty’s critique of empiricism, and Bataille’s response to Sartre’s critique of his notion of ‘unknowing’, which Production Editor uncannily resembles Ayer’s critique of Sartre. Amidst this tangle Ryan Hickerson one finds Bataille’s statement that an “abyss” separates English from French and German philosophy, the first recorded an- Editorial Assistant nouncement of the analytic-continental divide in the twentieth century. Daniel Harris, CUNY Graduate Center Design Douglas Patterson and Daniel Harris ©2012 Andreas Vrahimis “Was There a Sun Before Men Existed?” mer was involved with Ayer during the last month of his stay in Paris.6 Ayer recounts this in his autobiography: A.J. Ayer and French Philosophy in the Fifties Isabel had many friends in Paris and introduced me to them. It was Andreas Vrahimis through her that I met the writer Georges Bataille, whom I vainly tried to persuade that time was not merely a human invention. [Ayer, 1977, 288] 1. Ayer, Merleau-Ponty, and Bataille Walk into a Bar From this we can surmise that Ayer had been acquainted with In his lecture “Les conséquences du non-savoir,” presented on 12 Bataille since 1945, and had already engaged in philosophical dis- January 1951, Georges Bataille mentions that during the previous cussion with him. It is quite peculiar and interesting that the topic night a meeting took place between himself, Alfred Jules Ayer and of the conversation mentioned in Ayer’s autobiography, i.e. the Maurice Merleau-Ponty at some Parisian bar. This was preceded question of whether time was a human invention, seems to resem- by Ayer’s presentation of a lecture titled “The Idea of Truth and ble closely the topic of the long conversation they had in 1951 Contemporary Logic” (hitherto unpublished). Among the audi- (which we will be discussing in detail later on). [Nick Trakakis, ence of the lecture were Bataille himself, Merleau-Ponty, as well as 2007] concludes from this that Ayer must have mistakenly con- the physicist Georges Ambrosino and the philosopher Jean Wahl.1 fused the dates of his meeting with Bataille. Given that Ayer re- Bataille reports having met Ayer and having sustained, through counts his relationship with Delmer as having taken place during “reciprocal interest” [Bataille, 1986, 80] a conversation that contin- the last months of his stay in Paris, and also given that Delmer ued until three o’clock in the morning. According to Bataille, was indeed acquainted with Bataille, Trakakis’ explanation is most Merleau-Ponty and Ambrosino had also taken part in the conver- likely flawed. Ayer did in fact encounter Bataille prior to 1951, and sation. this encounter involved a debate on a similar topic to the one they Bataille’s record of the event differs somewhat from Ayer’s ac- discussed in 1951. What is also confirmed by Ayer’s account is the count of their meeting. In his autobiography (1977), Ayer recalls fact that the encounter between the two men was not, as Bataille’s first meeting Bataille in 1945, rather than 1951. While serving in account would imply, undertaken within the confines of an aca- the British Army’s Special Operations Executive during the Sec- demic setting. Rather the two met socially through a common ond World War, Ayer had been involved in organizing French re- friend and lover. sistance movements and, with the liberation of France, was sent Their encounter outside the conventions of professional aca- over to the intelligence section of the British Embassy in Paris. demic practice makes their philosophical engagement unique in a During his stay in Paris, Ayer had become acquainted with nu- multitude of ways. It is a singular record of a quasi-private, non- merous Parisian literary and intellectual figures,2 including most formal dialogue between philosophers whose backgrounds are importantly Merleau-Ponty3 and Bataille. Ayer had met Bataille both quite diverse and at the same time related to some or other of through Isabel Delmer4 (who had also been Bataille’s lover);5 Del- the various forms of modernism that flourished in their contempo- rary cultural life. It is in this context that Bataille gives us the first Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy, vol. 1 no. 9 [1] recorded observation of a split between “Continental” and English patched to Vienna as a kind of British philosophical spy (posing as philosophical cultures in the twentieth century. a honeymooner)11 sent out by Gilbert Ryle in order to report on the Though Bataille’s pronouncement has been cited in recent at- latest trends in the development of Austrian philosophical ideas.12 tempts at revising this idea of the divide,7 the details of the context Once he was dispatched to Vienna, Ayer sat in with the circle (be- in which this pronouncement was made have largely been ignored ing one of only two non-Germans, along with W. V. O. Quine, to by scholars. In what follows, I reconstruct the dialogue between have ever participated in the Circle’s meetings) and, having taken Ayer, Merleau-Ponty, and Bataille by putting together pieces of a in their doctrines and discussions, produced Language, Truth, and puzzle that involves Ayer’s prior polemical engagement with Logic as a book that would introduce Logical Positivism to a Brit- Heidegger and Sartre, Merleau-Ponty’s critique of “objective ish audience. thought,” Ayer’s response to Taylor’s presentation of Merleau- Most of the book consisted of a restatement, in English, of the Ponty’s view of empiricism, and even Sartre’s objection to Bataille. core doctrines of the Vienna Circle, with alleged attempts by Ayer to fortify these doctrines in their re-statement. As part of his at- tempt at importing Viennese philosophy into Britain, Ayer re- 2. Ayer’s Criticism of Heidegger’s “Das Nichts” and the Brit- peated the Vienna Circle’s strict anti-metaphysical stance. In doing ish Reception of Logical Positivism so he redeployed a criticism of Heidegger that was already formed The various military intelligence posts Ayer had held during the by Rudolf Carnap. Second World War would allow him to enjoy a sufficient amount In his 1931 “Überwindung der Metaphysik durch Logische of leisure time. Thus he had been able to pursue an array of intel- Analyse der Sprache,” Carnap made the radical assertion that lectual interests. For example, during his stay in America, Ayer metaphysical concepts and statements are nonsensical. To demon- had produced some work in film criticism, reviewing films for the strate part of his case, Carnap takes the use of the word “nothing,” popular press.8 His stay in Paris following its liberation coincided as it is employed in Heidegger’s 1929 lecture “What is Metaphys- with a certain enthusiastically thriving cultural and intellectual ics?,” notoriously in the expression “Das Nichts selbst nichtet” (“The climate, in which Ayer was actively involved. The sudden rise to nothing itself nothings”), to be exemplary of meaningless meta- prominence of the then fashionable existentialism, contemporary physics. with the liberation of Paris, was not foreign to Ayer who was, dur- The term “nothing,” according to Carnap, is used by Heideg- ing its emergence, already acquainted with several of the promi- ger in a manner which complies with “historico-grammatical” nent figures associated with it. Ayer had produced a number of syntax, but not logical syntax. Carnap suggests that the conven- articles for Horizon magazine, reviewing this new trend and its tional rules of historico-grammatical syntax allow for well-formed major intellectual figures: Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus.9 sentences which appear to be meaningful (e.g. Heidegger’s talk of Ayer’s opinion of existentialism, and particularly of Sartre, had “nothing”), yet can be shown through the use of logical analysis to already been shaped by events in his life prior to the war, when he be meaningless insofar as they do not comply with logical had been involved in a different sort of intelligence mission. Be- syntax.13 Carnap’s claim is that there is no possible translation of tween November 1932 and the spring of 1933,10 Ayer was dis- Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy, vol. 1 no. 9 [2] Heidegger’s expression into “logically correct language” [Carnap, associated with the struggle of both the Vienna Circle