Massimo Ferrari

This paper aims at focusing on Cassirer's relationship with Hegel during the crucial period when Cassirer is outlining and completing the Philosophy of Symbolic Forms in the early 1920s. The main thesis is that Cassirer has never abandoned his original Neo-Kantian approach, despite the fact that it has been enriched within the perspective of a philosophy of culture indebted to some extent also to Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. However, Cassirer maintains that Kant's critical idealism must be contrasted with Hegel's absolute idealism, keeping thereby open the process of the spirit that cannot close itself in a definitive logical structure. This critical stance is shared by some contemporaries of Cassirer such as Dilthey, Windelband, and above all Natorp. We have thus to read Cassirer's project against the historical backdrop of the ‘Hegel-Renaissance’ in Germany, a circumstance that, according to the author, can contribute to a more adequate understanding of Cassirer's opus magnum.

This paper explores the philosophical relationship between Clarence Irving Lewis and Moritz Schlick, questioning their understanding of verificationism. At stake is not only the crucial point of the possibility of verifying statements regarding, for instance, the other side of the moon, but also the proper status of ethical values in opposition to, or in connection with, scientific propositions grounded in experience. This latter aspect can better explain how both Lewis and Schlick understand the notion of experience in general, posing the conceptual framework within which Pragmatism and Logical Empiricism established a dialogue in the 1930s but still worthy of closer inquiry.

Thomas Uebel’s penetrating book represents the latest outcome of a series of investigations on Otto Neurath and the “forgotten” Vienna Circle he has published over the last ten years. Within the recent galaxy of studies devoted to logical empiricism, the re-evaluation of Neurath’s all too neglected work as well as of the “first” Vienna Circle are unquestionably very much indebted to Uebel’s contributions, which may be considered, in turn, an original development of Rudolf Haller’s pioneering studies on Austrian philosophy and on its leading role in the rise of the Vienna Circle. In particular, the attention paid by Haller to Neurath’s surprising epistemological actuality and moreover the “new light” he shed on the “first” Vienna Circle 1 constitute the core of Uebel’s wide program of historical and, at the same time, philosophical research. An ambitious, but successful programm, that nowadays appears to us as essentially accomplished

The paper is devoted to an overview of Cassirer’s work both as historian of philosophy and historian of science. Indeed, the “intelletcual cooperation” between history of philosophy and history of science represents an essential feature of Cassirer’s style of philosophizing: while the roots of a wide exploration stretching from Renaissance thought to modern physics go back to the Neo-Kantianism of the Marburg School, the results of a similar cross-fertilization of research fields have deeply contributed to shaping new standards of inquiry. Cassirer’s relationship with the Warburg milieu in Hamburg and late in his life with the American intellectual scenario are surely worthy of closer investigation. Distinguished scholars such as Meyerson, Brunschvicg, Burtt, Koyré, Metzger, Lovejoy, Kristeller, have disussed, appreciated, critizised Cassirer’s still today fascinating studies devoted to Pico della Mirandola, Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, to mention but a few. To explore some of these aspects focusing both on affinities and differences within a cosmpolitian intellectual community can provide a better understanding of philosophy and history of science in the first half of 20th century. Cassirer’s legacy requires, therefore, a new assessment.

The ignorance about Otto Neurath’s thought and action within the Vienna Circle as well as within the “scientific philosophy” definitely belongs to the past. In the last two decades the rediscovery of Neurath’s legacy represents one of the most significant aspects of the historical and theoretical studies on logical empiricism. As Friedrich Stadler has recently pointed out, “the rediscovery of Neurath [is] not merely a phenomenon of academic nostalgia, but itself constitutes research into the conditions and possibilities of changing a paradigm in the philosophy of science”1. Particulary in the last ten years this re-evaluation has been the subject of numerous books and contributions, which offer a radically new view of the life, the philosophy of science and knowledge, the political and economical thought of Otto Neurath, and, last but not least, of his enthusiastic activity for the Encyclopedia-project. It is sufficient for the readers of this Yearbook to recall the enlightening reconstruction of the emergence of Neurath’s naturalism within the Vienna Circle offered in 1992 by Thomas E. Uebel and the extensive, critical description of Neurath’s work and life which was published in 1996 by Nancy Cartwright, Jordi Cat, Lola Fleck and Thomas E. Uebel

As recent scholarship has repeatedly shown, the history of Vienna Circle is to some extent rooted in the tradition of Austrian Philosophy which Neurath considered as not involved in the “Kantian interlude”. Nevertheless, it seems that the heritage of Leibniz and, in particular, of his “reform of logic” has been hitherto neglected. Indeed, Leibnizianism (along with Herbartianism) represents a main feature of this tradition stretching from Bolzano to quite forgotten figures as Exner and Zimmermann, and still influent on the Brentano circle. This paper attempt to highlight the role played by Leibniz in framing of the “scientific world conception”, focusing in particular both on Carnap’s and Neurath’s stance towards the characteristica universalis underlying the project of the encyclopedia Leibniz aimed to realize.

Schopenhauer und Nietzsche haben eine bedeutende Rolle in Schlicks philosophischem Werdegang gespielt. Es geht um einen bis dato wenig berücksichtigten Umstand, dem freilich nicht bloß eine biographische Bedeutung zukommt. Denn Schopenhauer und Nietzsche sind zwei Hauptfiguren, die nicht nur die Bildungszeit Schlicks prägten, sondern auch seine spätere philosophische Tätigkeit, und zwar bis auf die Wiener Zeit, verschiedenartig beeinflusst haben. Dieser Einfluss lässt sich besser verstehen, wenn das übliche Bild von Schlick als subtilem Ausleger der Relativitätstheorie und als Vater der wissenschaftlichen Weltauffassung erheblich modifiziert bzw. ergänzt wird. Wie Edgar Zilsel anlässlich der brutalen Ermordung Schlicks bemerkte, war neben der wissenschaftlichen Arbeit auch „eine zweite Linie“ deutlich, die „ganz ebenso zu seinem Werk gehört“. Nach Zilsel.

Abstract“Growth” or “Revolution”? Ernst Cassirer and History of Science. Ernst Cassirer's contributions to history of science have been long time neglected. The aim of this paper is to show the historical and philosophical framework of Cassirer's engagement in this field, starting from his seminal work about the problem of knowledge in science and philosophy of the modern age. Moreover the author suggests that Cassirer's late studies about Galilei and the origins of mathematical science are of some interest in order to comprehend both his commitment to contemporary history of science (from Burtt to Koyré) and his intellectual heritage for our agendas in a post‐Kuhnian era.