Elisabeth Nemeth

Eine plarmiäßig gestaltete Naturalwütschaft setzt an die Stelle der abstrakten Eiiüieit des Geldes und des Marktes eine konkrete Einheitlichkeit, die das Ergebnis von Beratungen und Entscheidungen ist. Da diese Eiiüieitlichkeit nicht auf ein Prinzip (das Geld) zurückgeführt werden kann, wüd in üir das "naturale Wesen aller Leistungen" einerseits und die Abhängigkeit der Wirtschaftsordnung von Machtverhältnissen andrerseits sichtbar. Ebenso soll die Eirüieitswissenschaft an die Stelle der abstrakten Eirüieit des phüosophischen Systems eine lebendige Verknüpfung des historisch gegebenen wissenschaftlichen Wissens setzen und es so als Ergebnis "schöpferischer Tat" sichtbar und verfügbar machen.

The present book aims at clarifying which of Neurath’s ideas remain of relevance today and how these are interrelated. The method chosen is to elucidate their biographical and general historical background and to put them into the framework of the academic and political controversies of their time. This contextual approach yields results that are not just of antiquarian interest. It also enables the reconstruction of the theoretical thrust and continuing practical relevance of a thinker whose ideas were obscured by the catastrophes of the twentieth century. Neurath wanted to demonstrate by his own work in economics that scientific thinking always offers a number of different alternatives and that one must proceed towards applications in full awareness of this fact. In this respect, Neurath’s thought is unusually demanding.With perplexity in political and intellectual life becoming ever more widespread as the twenty-first century progresses, it strikes us as very useful to step back and reconstruct a type of thinking in the social sciences that goes back to the discussion on the big conflicts of the twentieth century but which does not accept as inescapable the intellectual alternatives seemingly cemented in these conflicts.The book is structured so that it first addresses the question why the study of Neurath’s contributions to economics in the context of his time is a worthwhile endeavour today. After all, the overwhelming majority of today’s economists regard his contributions as out-dated and largely irrelevant for the continuing development of their discipline

In this paper I would like to discuss some normative aspects of Otto Neurath’s concept of scientific knowledge. I will take some reflections of Pierre Bourdieu, a sociologist known for his harsh criticism of “philosophers” as a point of reference. I have decided to employ his “non-philosophical” perspective because of its convergence with the very tradition to which the Institute Vienna Circle has aligned itself. That tradition derived the form and power of its beginnings from the unbiased attitude, the impartiality of its intellectual and scientific standpoint. This impartial attitude was all but naive I wish to claim; it was the result of a conscious effort to liberate the philosophical vision from the sediments of a history of perception and thought that had reached its end in the 19th century.1 Of course, that that history had come to its end was felt by many scientists, philosophers and artists at the beginning of this century. What distinguished the Vienna Circle was that its members reacted with new insights into the nature of knowledge, indeed with the attempt to develop the impartiality of the scientific point of view. What had been in the foreground up to that time receded into the background for those versed in modern formal logic and empirical science. The disciplinary boundaries, most notably those between the natural sciences and the humanities became blurred. What we know became so complex and rich that traditional forms of classification were revealed as inadequate. For Neurath “Unified Science” was the name for future forms of classification and “encyclopedia” the name for the “orchestration” of the individual sciences. What remained of “philosophy” focussed on the logical analysis of language and — long neglected — the historical and practical aspects of science. Taking these general developments as my background here I want to defend the thesis that working on the “impartiality” of the scientist’s point of view can be seen as a contribution to and work on the normative dimensions of knowledge. In the case of the Vienna Circle and Otto Neurath such a contribution has nothing to do with developing a scientific conception of ethics or rationality.2 Rather it represents an attempt to analyze the scientific approach to reality and to reinforce the social effects of this approach by making it more precise. Viewed in this context Neurath’s project of a “scientific world conception” coincides with some perspectives whose topicality cannot be overestimated, Pierre Bourdieu’s epistemological reflections on sociology among them