Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap and Herbert Feig are the most prominent of the positivists to formulate views on the mind-body problem (aside from Hempel’s one-off treatment in 1935). While their views differed from each other and changed over time they were all committed to some form of scientific physicalism, though a linguistic or conceptual rather than ontological form of it. In focus here are their views during the heyday of logical positivism and its immediate aftermath, though some initial scene-setting of (...) Schlick’s and Carnap’s pre-positivist views will help to understand the final opposing positions of Carnap and Feigl. (shrink)

This article considers the evolution of Feigl's attempt at establishing a stable form of scientific realism. I will argue that Feigl's work in that area should be appreciated for two reasons: it represents a telling case against the view of there being an unbridgeable ‘analytic-continental divide’ in the context of twentieth-century philosophy; it contradicts the idea that scientific realism is at odds with logical empiricism. It will be shown that Feigl developed his scientific realist position from within (...) the logical empiricists’ Vienna Circle. This, in turn, necessitates a fresh approach toward the contemporary scientific realism debate. (shrink)

The literature of science speaks of many things in the heavens and on earth that neither the man in the street nor the scientist in his laboratory, can directly see with his eyes or touch with his fingers. Scientific hypotheses refer to atoms and genes, cosmic rays and electrostatic charges. No one can deny the importance of these hypothetical constructions; without them we could neither understand nor manage the world which we directly experience. They simplify the system of laws that (...) relate observable variables to one another. They suggest further research and enable us to predict what will be found if certain operations are carried out. The sporadic and disjointed collection of observed objects and events, and the occurrence of the unusual ones which we call illusions, are explained by correlating them with a hypothetical physical or physiological state of affairs that has order and spatio-temporal continuity. (shrink)

I wish to examine the “justification” or “vindication” of inductive procedure that has been set forth in various places by the late Professor Reichenbach and by Professor Feigl, most recently by the latter. Although Professor Feigl has explicitly referred to this kind of a “vindication” as “trivial,” it is nevertheless evident, from the stress placed upon and the space devoted to this proposal, that both Professors Feigl and Reichenbach attach considerable importance to it. Thus Professor Feigl (...) says:It has to be shown that the normal inductive procedure is reasonable, not merely by definition in the light of common usage, but that this definition itself is not merely a result of linguistic habituation or of an arbitrary fiat. This can be achieved, as I have tried to show..., largely in agreement with Reichenbach's ideas, if the adoption of the rule of induction is made a matter of practical justification rather than a matter of theoretical justification. (shrink)

In the 19th century, "Psychophysical Parallelism" was the most popular solution of the mind-body problem among physiologists, psychologists and philosophers. (This is not to be mixed up with Leibnizian and other cases of "Cartesian" parallelism.) The fate of this non-Cartesian view, as founded by Gustav Theodor Fechner, is reviewed. It is shown that Feigl's "identity theory" eventually goes back to Alois Riehl who promoted a hybrid version of psychophysical parallelism and Kantian mind-body theory which was taken up by (...) class='Hi'>Feigl's teacher Moritz Schlick. (shrink)

Cet ouvrage collectif constitue la première étude, en France, consacrée exclusivement à la théorie psychophysique de Herbert Feigl, membre historique du Cercle de Vienne, élève de Moritz Schlick, puis émigré aux États-Unis dans l’entre-deux-guerres. Publié sous la direction de Bernard Andrieu, à qui l’on doit déjà la traduction française (avec Christine Lafon et Fabien Schang) de l’essai de Feigl de 1958 intitulé The « Mental » and the « Physical » (Le « mental » et le « physique (...) », Paris, L’.. (shrink)

THE Identity Theory of Herbert Feigl is an elaborate and painstaking attempt to overcome the perplexities of the mind-body problem which Anglo-Saxon philosophers have inherited from Descartes and which has been compounded by the empiricist heritage of Hume. In common with influential contemporaries such as Russell, Ryle, Strawson and Hampshire, Feigl believes that the substance dualism of Descartes is an incoherent doctrine. There can be no adequate account of the nature and status of the person if mind and (...) body, conscious immaterial self and extended corporeal substance are regarded as distinct and disparate entities. It is paradoxical however and indicative of the pervasive influence of the Cartesian framework, that the Identity Theory combines an explicit rejection of dualism with an uncompromising acceptance and even extension of another feature of that framework, in that it hinges on a more comprehensive reliance on the knowledge claims of science than even Descartes was prepared to sanction. (shrink)

Resumen: El presente trabajo aborda críticamente la propuesta de Herbert Feigl al problema mente-cuerpo dentro del marco general de su filosofía. Para esto, se describe de forma sucinta (a) el contexto de las teorías fisicalistas dentro del cual emerge su propuesta, remarcando sus diferencias con las posturas de Carnap (1932), Place (1956) y Smart (1959), y (b) algunos elementos relevantes de la evolución de su propio pensamiento, con especial énfasis en la herencia de la filosofía anterior que le permitió (...) al filósofo austriaco construir un marco teórico propio, caracterizado principalmente por la defensa de un realismo científico de carácter “semántico”. Respecto de estos antecedentes, se exponen las diferencias entre las ideas centrales de su texto de 1934, centrado en la idea de doble-lenguaje, y su propuesta definitiva expuesta en su texto más influyente de 1958, centrado en su teoría del doble conocimiento. Adicionalmente, a lo largo del texto, se sustenta la idea de que la filosofía de la mente de Feigl es una propuesta de valor e interés contemporáneo, aunque no especialmente original, cuya comprensión depende notoriamente del marco más general de su filosofía y las tradiciones que la cruzan. Abstract: This work critically addresses Herbert Feigl's proposal to the mind-body problem within the general framework of his philosophy. For this, we describe succinctly (a) the context of the physicalist theories within which his proposal emerges, highlighting its differences with the positions of Carnap (1932), Place (1956) and Smart (1959), and (b) some relevant elements of the evolution of his own thought, with special emphasis on those elements inherited from previous philosophy that allowed the Austrian philosopher to build his own theoretical framework, characterized mainly by the defense of a “semantic realism” in science. Against this background, we will expose the differences between the central ideas of his 1934 text, centered on the idea o double-language, and his definitive proposal presented in his most influential text of 1958, centered on his theory of double knowledge. Additionally, throughout the article, we support the general view that Feigl's philosophy of mind is a proposal of contemporary value and interest, although not especially original, whose understanding depends notoriously on the more general framework of his philosophy and the traditions that crossed it. (shrink)

A new direction in philosophy Between 1920 and 1940 logical empiricism reset the direction of philosophy of science and much of the rest of Anglo-American philosophy. It began as a relatively organized movement centered on the Vienna Circle, and like-minded philosophers elsewhere, especially in Berlin. As Europe drifted into the Nazi era, several important figures, especially Carnap and Neurath, also found common ground in their liberal politics and radical social agenda. Together, the logical empiricists set out to reform traditional philosophy (...) with a new set of doctrines more firmly grounded in logic and science. Criticism and decline Because of Nazi persecution, most of the European adherents of logical empiricism moved to the United States in the late 1930s. During the 1940s, many of their most cherished tenets became targets of criticism from outsiders as well as from within their own ranks. Philosophers of science in the late 1950s and 1960s rejected logical empiricism and, starting in the 1970s, presented such alternative programs such as scientific realism with evolutionary epistemology. A resurgence of interest During the early 1980s, philosophers and historians of philosophy began to study logical empiricism as an important movement. Unlike their predecessors in the 1960s-for whom the debate over logical empiricism now seems to have been largely motivated by professional politics-these philosopher no longer have to take positions for or against logical empiricism. The result has been a more balanced view of that movement, its achievements, its failures, and its influence. Hard-to-find core writings now available This collection makes available a selection of the most influential and representative writings of the logical empiricists, important contemporary criticisms of their doctrines, their responses, as well as the recent reappraisals. Introductions to each volume examine the articles in historical context and provide importantbackground information that is vital to a full understanding of the issues discussed. They outline prevalent trends, identifying leading figures and summarize their positions and reasoning, as well as those of opposing thinkers. (shrink)

THE Identity Theory of Herbert Feigl is an elaborate and painstaking attempt to overcome the perplexities of the mind-body problem which Anglo-Saxon philosophers have inherited from Descartes and which has been compounded by the empiricist heritage of Hume. In common with influential contemporaries such as Russell, Ryle, Strawson and Hampshire, Feigl believes that the substance dualism of Descartes is an incoherent doctrine. There can be no adequate account of the nature and status of the person if mind and (...) body, conscious immaterial self and extended corporeal substance are regarded as distinct and disparate entities. It is paradoxical however and indicative of the pervasive influence of the Cartesian framework, that the Identity Theory combines an explicit rejection of dualism with an uncompromising acceptance and even extension of another feature of that framework, in that it hinges on a more comprehensive reliance on the knowledge claims of science than even Descartes was prepared to sanction. (shrink)