next up previous
Next: A Timely Delay Up: The Vienna Roundabout. On Previous: The Vienna Roundabout. On

Viennese Traditionalism

R. Haller is right in pointing out that an ,,universalism essentially determined by tradition''gif linked the two separate and mutually hostile departments under Leo Gabriel's and Erich Heintel's direction more or less behind their back. Protecting the time-honored procedures of academic philosophy against intrusion by scientific influences was among the basic strategies on both sides of the corridor whose connecting door was firmly kept shut. The recurring pattern was simple and easily remembered. Modern science is undoubtedly peerless in its efficiency but it has gone wrong in reaching out into domains it is not equipped to master and which by right belong to the area of competence of professional reflexion on the provenience and fundaments of Man and World. The newly proposed methodological abstractions are to be called into question in such a process and it was held to be absurd to claim that a set of logical tools is adequate for this task of evaluating its own effects. ,,Fundamental philosophy'' was felt to be necessary to inquire into the foundations of such an uncritical methodological monism. Its establishment provides a clear line of demarcation which E.Heintel was quick to exploit by applying the term ,,neopositivism'' to a puzzling collection of philosophical methods. ,,Under the name of ,neopositivism' I subsume (i) ,logical empiricism' influenced by Principia Mathematica and issued from the ,Vienna Circle', (ii) ,language analysis'gif particularly widespread in Anglsaxon countries and (iii) philosophy of sciencegif insofar as it advances philosophical claims.''gif As a consequence of this exotic terminology former students of Heintel up to this day use ,,positivism'' as a term of abuse for such diverse thinkers as early and late Wittgenstein, W.v.O.Quine, N.Goodman or H.Putnam.gif

,, ,Separation' of neopositivism from metaphysics, fundamental philosophy and therefore from philosophy in general is to be welcomed as a positive achievement because it effectuates a distinction of different levels of meaning. But there will not be lasting peace as long as the discussion concerning this delimitation is not itself led in the spirit of fundamental philosophy.''gif The quote exhibits some of the more advanced features of the strategy used against the trespasses of modern science into the realm of established philosophy. In a first move recourse is taken to the insight that different levels of meaning demand different methods of disclosure. Fair enough, but in the same breath ,,neopositivism'' is with one stroke of the pen excluded from philosophy.This straightforward manouvre needs some meta-methodological back-up though. Excluding different approaches from the field of legitimate discussion obviously is an activity which has to be subjected to criteria of validity itself. Now it is fairly obvious that such criteria can only be counted on to yield the ,,right'' results if they are biased in favor of the desired outcome and this is precisely what Heintel openly admits. As long as those excluded by his idiosyncratic terminology do not acknowledge that justice has been done to them no peace will be achieved. I am aware of the fact that the last two decades have taught us that there is something called ,,theory-dependent observation'' and that we would never arrive at any cognitive conclusions if our arguments were not invested with prejudices. Nevertheless it still is essential to distinguish between the inescapable use of presuppositions in an open dialogue and straightforward statements like Heintel's, arrogating for fundamental philosophy the role of ultimate arbiter and custodian of some threatened order.

It would, however, be precipitate to overlook that Heintel's strategy carried some conviction because it very effectively managed to combine two motives (one methodological, the other with regard to content): reflexivity and awareness of the historical dimension. This has to be developed next. The strategy outlined above is designed to counter the confusion of different ,,levels of meaning'' threatening when scientific pretension goes unchecked. Motives from the Enlightenment as well as from Romanticism are combined to reveal two basic flaws in ,,neopositivism'': its lack of methodological self-awareness and its contemptive ignorance of the historical dimensions of philosophical thought. Turning the argument concerning traditional philosophy's obsoleteness around Heintel proposes that philosophia perennis has in fact long ago surpassed the stage of ,,pre-critical dogmatism''gif this ,,modern nominalism''gif is reenacting. By this appeal to hermeneutically enlightened critical reflection a very efficient systematical device is forged, simultaneously performing two separate tasks: opening up previously unattended possibilities behind any given position and immediately specifying them as already familiar from one's acquaintance with traditional thought. By means of this strategic move the custodians of the classical heritage turn out to be at the same time experts in methodological reflection. As illustration of the general idea take Heintel's treatment of Wittgenstein's famous proposition 7 from the ,,Tractatus''. He diagnoses a ,,yearning after the unutterable'' transcending positivistical restrictions and patronizingly states that ,,it is Wittgenstein's tragedy that the routes to a speculative and universal critique of language remained closed to him.''gif Disregarding the universalistic tinge of this remark for the moment it doubtlessly expresses a metaphilosophical sentiment many non-analytic philosophers and laymen share with regard to Wittgenstein's dramatic denouement. In offering to transform more or less stubborn silence into the eloquence of an elaborate hierarchy of distinctions structuring the realm of meaning Heintel certainly answered a widespread need.

A somewhat loftier version of the same promise was employed by L. Gabriel whose Integrale Logik has nothing whatever to do with modern achievements in the discipline, completely lacking any understanding of its symbolism and procedures. Gabriel's crucial move again consists in a global rejection of analytical approaches which he criticizes as ,,merely negative abstractions of logical form''gif, devoid of the all-encompassing synthetic power his Gestalt-logic is supposed to supply. A comprehensive mapping out of structurally ordered dimensions of meaning issuing in an holistic panorama of human existence and history as such is regarded as the only worthwhile philosophical project. R. Haller is certainly right in calling this an ,,absolute Austrian compromise in the realm of thinking''gif but it would once more be short-sighted to overlook the intuitive appeal such attempts at explaining the universe exerted (and still exert). Shrugging them off as woolly talk would be self-defeating. Holism is a key factor of this anti-analytical rhetoric. Heintel's ,,most general definition'' of the transcendental point of view consists in stating ,,that there is nothing which is not simultaneously mediated and unmediated''gif whereas for Gabriel philosophy's subject matter is ,,the world as a whole''gif. Amidst such globalistic talk it is conveniently forgotten (by friends and foes alike) that it arises out of a particular social context itself. It addresses itself to some previous experience in order to carry conviction. This leads me to consider Viennese traditionalism of the sixties as a final blooming of an opposition triggered by the Viennese Circle itself. Even if it was no longer in evidence the antibodies produced by this virus were a testimony to its latent effectiveness.


next up previous
Next: A Timely Delay Up: The Vienna Roundabout. On Previous: The Vienna Roundabout. On

hh
Sun Jan 4 15:50:34 MET 1998