IMG99

Ernst Mach

books on William James and pragmatism. During the last twenty ycars of his life hc bccainc the leading cxponcnt of American pragmatism in Austria.

Hc was attractcd morc to Machs biological ideas and comparative Iack of dogmatism than to his sensationalistie phenomenalism.⁶⁴ I.ikc James hc refused to abandon belief in an individual "ego” and in the “intcraction" of difTerent types of expcricnce.^r’⁵ His belief that formal logie should be understood in a psychological and historical contcxt provokcd strong opposition from Brentano and Ilusserl. Jcrusalcm’s polcmical replies sccm to have helpcd delay his acadcmic advanccmcnt to a regular professorship.⁰⁰ Hc later told about his personal contact with Mach:

I had already becomc accidcntally acquaintcd with [Mach] during a train trip bcforc hc transferred to Vicnna and soon got to know him tnuch better.

Mach had two rooms set up undcrncath the Univcrsity wherc hc could carry out cxpcrimcnts undisturbed. I Ic named them “the hole.” Their location was rather out of the way and not casy to find. In spite of that the number of visitors soon inerensed so much, that hr became annoyed, espe-cially sińce hc was almost always there alonc and had to open the door himself. One day he told me that f should always ring thrcc times, other-wise he would not open the door. Hc had arranged this signal with all his elose acquaintanccs in order to avoid bcing disturbed too often. So in this manner 1 often camc to “the hole” and spent many stimulating hours there.

On February iS in the year 1898 T camc in and congratulatcd him on his sixticth birthday, but added at the same timc that I hadn’t told anyone clsc about it. “For that 1 am cspccially thankful.” ans we red Mach, and that this was his rcal opinion I discovcrcd to my dccp sorrow ten ycars later. \ had madę all the arrangements in union with some of his friends and adrnirers for a special publication \Fcstschrijt\ honoring his scvcnticth birthday, which would have an international charactcr. The publisher had been found, contributions from William James, from Harold Ilbffdiug and others had been promiscd, then Mach hcard about the plans and protested so vigorously that we had to abandon the whole thing.⁵⁷

Heinrich Gomperz studied in Berlin and Vienna, reccived his doctor s dcgrcc in 1896, bccainc a privatdozcnt in 1900, and, likc Wilhelm Jerusalcm, had to wait for a Social Dcmocratic govcrnmcnt after World War I bcforc bccoming an extraordinarius and then an ordi-narius professor.⁸*

Gomperz bccamc an undogmatic, but nonethclcss, thoroughgoing

phenomcnalist whose inability to grasp how ontology could bc othcr than cxpcriencc oricntcd inclined him lo minimizc the dilTcrcnccs bc-twccn rival thcorics of rcality.*® In this rcspcct, hc may wcll havc in-flucnccd his fricnd Rudolf Carnap and the latter’s attempt to rcducc all "mctaphysicar systems to merę linguistic variations of one another.

Heinrich Gomperz was interested in cpistcmology, Oricntal rcligion, and in the history of plulosophy. He wrotc numerous books and arti-clcs, but ncvcr developed a systematic philosophy. He was witty and intelligent, but seems to havc lacked the ambition and dctermination to rcalizc his fuli intcllectual potcntial. Most members of the “Vicnna Circle” of the 192OS enjoycd his conversation but considcrcd him a skcptic.⁰⁰ His last major work was a thrcc-volume biography of his fatlicr, the last two volumes, though complctcd, havc ncver been pub-lishcd. Heinrich Gomperz remembered three of his teachcrs wcll.

1 hnd in Berlin, thoroughly enjoycd the mild and maturę wisdom of Friedrich Paulsen for whom philosophy was still a guide through lifc and, who, though hc had long sińce shifted from theology to philosophy, had yet remained a truć pastor of souls.

I had been indignant at the brilliant sophism of Franz Brentano who was soon penalized for his dogmatism by sccing men likc A. Meinong and E. Husscrl, dcfinitcly inferior to him in ability and who had been his dis-ciplcs, but whom hc now regarded as apostates, risc to a dcgrcc of famę and influence surpassing his own.

But it was only in the orał cxaminations for the Ph.D. that I first met the man whom I considcr to have been the most original and the most pcnctrating thinker with whom it has been my prmlege to associatc: the great Austrian physicist and cpistcmologist, Ernst Mach. And hc was in his modest way, a great personality as wcll as a great thinker. In a sense, one might style him the Buddha of science, for likc the great Hindu prophet hc held “no one and nothing dcar in this world”—c.\ccpt insight, and the facts and arguments on which it is based. Univcrsally kind and fricndly to all, hc yet never sccmcd interested in one person morę than another. A man for him was a bcing that had something to say and the only thing im port ant about him was whether what he had to say was wisc or foolish, truć or false. He appeared to mc as the incarnation of the scicn-tific spirit.⁰¹

vi IJ

Mach had written books on the history of two braoches of phy&ics, mechanics and hcat theory. Hc now wanted to write a similar book

161