New Light on the Vienna Circle

Abstract

(1) In judgment of many historians of contemporary philosophy as well as of analytic philosophers of different lines, there is no doubt about truth of statement that philosophy of Vienna Circle is dead. And since it is dead, some think that only remaining task could be to find out cause (or causes) that led to downfall of this proud philosophical movement. Thus, one of latest versions of an answer to this question?Popper's autobiographic reconstruction of Circle's history?goes right into heart of matter: Everybody knows nowadays that logical positivism is dead. But nobody seems to suspect that there may be a question to be asked here?the question 'Who is responsible?' or, rather, question 'Who has done it?' And modest answer of Sir Karl is: fear that I must admit responsibility.1 There were, he echoes in wide agreement, insuperable internal dif ficulties (Passmore), which have led to collapse of logical positivism. Most of these difficulties had been pointed out?so Popper states?in my lectures and discussions, and especially in my Logik der Forschung And since some of members impressed by need to make changes they changed their ideas with such endurance and so widely that it led to the disintegration of Circle's tenets.2 Certainly this is a bold conjecture and we have to find out if it is a true historical statement or not. But attempt of a person to accuse himself as a murderer might not be reason enough to look at story he tells. And it was not Popper who led my interest in this direction. There are two reasons to investigate again seemingly closed case of tenets of Viennese Philosophers. The one is question of historical background of Circle which leads just into that philosophical school movement, and which may be called Austrian philosophy.3 The other reason is a completely different one. It is linked with problem of new philosophy of science, which departed with work of so called anti positivists, N. R. Hanson, S. Toulmin, T. S. Kuhn, I. Lakatos, and P. Feyerabend, and which confronts standard and received view of scientific progress. Those critics were all of conviction that American philosophy of science had been dominated for some forty years by a self-sufficient, anti historical logical empiricism inherited from Vienna Circle.4