Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

European Pragmatism? Further Thoughts on the German and Austrian Reception of American Pragmatism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Directions in the Philosophy of Science

Part of the book series: The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective ((PSEP,volume 5))

  • 1847 Accesses

Abstract

This paper considers the relative lack of positive reception of American pragmatism in Central Europe before the middle of the twentieth century and investigates what distinguishes those thinkers that did acknowledge it positively. The point here is to articulate an hypothesis that must be defended on another occasion. It is that those mainly Austrian thinkers expressed sympathies for American pragmatism did so because they themselves had on independent grounds reached conclusion that at least partly overlapped with those that characterize pragmatism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ferrari (2014).

  2. 2.

    On the reception in England and particularly the role of Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller (and some brief remarks about the reception elsewhere), see Shook (2004).

  3. 3.

    See Ferrari (2010).

  4. 4.

    James (1907a, 1908).

  5. 5.

    James (1899, 1900, 1907b, 1909, 1914).

  6. 6.

    Schiller (1911).

  7. 7.

    See Jerusalem (1908a, b, 1909, 1910a, 1913). Another exception is (Vorbrodt 1913), a sympathetic exposition of the content of a monograph by the Swiss psychologist (Flournoy 1911).

  8. 8.

    For accounts of the mostly hostile reception, see Oehler (1977), Dahms (1992), and Ferrari (2005).

  9. 9.

    See Jacoby (1909, 1912a, b).

  10. 10.

    See the thoughtful assessment of the challenges facing pragmatism in Stein (1908).

  11. 11.

    For references see the papers listed in Fn. 8 above.

  12. 12.

    By contrast, in newly independent post-World War I Czechoslovakia philosophy saw a fairly intense reception of pragmatism which included Peirce; see Capek (1918) and Vorovka (1929); cf. (Shook 2004, pp. 52–53).

  13. 13.

    See Metz (1933) and Scholz (1934, 1936); see also Müller (1931).

  14. 14.

    Dewey (1930, 1931) and Dewey and Kilpatrick (1935).

  15. 15.

    See Baumgarten (1938) and Schneider (1938). The review is signed only “H.W.S” which, given the authority with which it is written I presume to stand for Herbert Wallace Schneider; on Schneider see Walton and Anton (1974).

  16. 16.

    Gehlen (1941); for the comparison see Dahms (1987).

  17. 17.

    Frank (1929).

  18. 18.

    See now Uebel (2014).

  19. 19.

    There was also Hans Kleinpeter, who gave a sympathetic reception to pragmatism from a Machian perspective in Kleinpeter (1911/1912) and noted Nietzsche as a precursor of pragmatism in Kleinpeter (1913). But as a high school teacher who, unlike Jerusalem, never received a call to teach at university, Kleinpeter’s voice carried less weight.

  20. 20.

    On Jerusalem see Eckstein (1935); for a recent assessment see Uebel (2012).

  21. 21.

    On Lebensphilosophie generally see, e.g., Schnädelbach (1984, ch. 4).

  22. 22.

    See Kusch (1995).

  23. 23.

    Schiller (1906).

  24. 24.

    See Jerusalem (1925, pp. 32–33).

  25. 25.

    In these passages Jerusalem also called upon similar ideas in Simmel (1900, pp. 58–66), which built on ideas first expressed in Simmel (1895). In later years, however, Simmel was critical of pragmatism: see Ferrari (2005).

  26. 26.

    “In the new pragmatic method … I have found a theory to which I have been led independently by my own investigations even before many of its American exponents” (Jerusalem 1910b, p. vi).

  27. 27.

    Shook overshoots the mark in claiming that “unlike France or England, Germany had no ongoing native movement struggling against rationalism” – be that Lebensphilosophie or, considerably more soberly, Jerusalem in Austria; see Shook (2004, pp. 51–52).

  28. 28.

    Consider the logician Ernst Mally’s response to Jerusalem’s Heidelberg congress talk in Elsenhans (1909, p. 814).

  29. 29.

    See also the clear endorsement of psychologism in Schiller (1907, p. xii).

  30. 30.

    See Kusch (1995) for an exhaustive inventory of anti-psychologistic positions taken; pragmatism does not figure in his discussion.

  31. 31.

    E.g.: “The greatest perfection of mental economy is attained in that science which has reached the highest formal development, and which is widely employed in physical inquiry, namely, in mathematics. … No one will dispute me when I say that the most elementary as well as the highest mathematics are economically ordered experiences of counting, put in forms ready for use” (Mach 1882/1943, p. 195). See also Mach (1896/1986, pp. 410–411).

  32. 32.

    See the often-quoted letter to his wife, 2 November 1882, e.g. in Thiele (1978, p. 169).

  33. 33.

    Perry also noted about Mach that “his last work approached closely to the pragmatist position” (Perry 1936, p. 588); presumably he meant Erkenntnis und Irrtum of 1905. Note also that in 1903 Mach had dedicated the third edition of his Popular Scientific Lectures, containing seven new essays, to William James and retained the dedication for the fourth edition in 1910.

  34. 34.

    Mach to his Danish colleague Anton Thomsen, 21 January 1911, recalling their encounter in Prague and assessing James’s philosophy: “I cannot think of anyone with whom I was able to discuss matters as well and as fruitfully despite the divergence in our views [as with him]. He opposed me nearly in everything and yet I gained in nearly everything from his objections. … The main focus of his work lies certainly in his excellent psychology. I cannot quite agree with his pragmatism [nicht ganz befreunden]. ‘We must not drop the concept of God because it promises us too much.’ That is a dangerous argument. ‘It is not only the healthy ones who have the correct insight .’ There is truth in this, but it would be sad if the judgement of those who are healthy is directed by those who are not. The world must be intelligible primarily to those who are healthy” (Blackmore and Hentschel 1985, p. 86; trans. TU).

  35. 35.

    A correction is needed here: James did not mention Simmel in Pragmatism, but Jerusalem did in his “Translator’s Preface” (1908c, p. v); for the relevance of Simmel for Jerusalem see Fn. 25 above.

  36. 36.

    See Mach (1882/1943, 1883/1960, ch. 4, Sect. 4, 1884/1943, 1896/1986, chs. 25–34, 1905/1976, passim).

  37. 37.

    On Herrmann, see Haller (1986).

  38. 38.

    This is from a passage added in the 4th edition (1901), but the evolutionary perspective is clearly discernible already in the first edition version of the section “The Economy of Science”, to which this is an addition.

  39. 39.

    Fittingly, Mach also gave an evolutionary-economical rendition of Hume’s critique of the idea of causation as necessary connection in (1883/1960, p. 581) and a related dissolution of the nominalism-realism dispute in (1896/1986, p. 383).

  40. 40.

    Mach fully recognized that the principle of economy in science possessed a socio-historical dimension: “The first real beginnings of science appear in society, particularly in the manual arts, where the necessity for the communication of experience arises” (Mach 1882/1943, p. 191). How far this anticipates the so-called Zilsel thesis cannot be considered here.

  41. 41.

    See Holton (1992/1993, p. 11).

  42. 42.

    To be sure, there are differences to be noted between Peirce’s logical, James’s psychological and Mach’s methodological approach to the principles they formulated, but their convergence is undeniable and deserves to be noticed.

  43. 43.

    See the letter from James to Mach of 17 June 1902 in Thiele (1978, p. 171).

  44. 44.

    For a translation of the “Appeal” for the formation of this society, launched by Mach’s acolyte Joseph Petzoldt “between late 1911 and summer 1912” and signed amongst others by Mach, Jerusalem, Schiller, and positivist philosophers like Schuppe and Ziehen as well as by luminaries like Hilbert, Einstein and Freud, see Holton (1992/1993, pp. 12–15).

  45. 45.

    See Planck (1910).

  46. 46.

    “What then will be the position of the so-called laws of thought in logic? Well, in the light of Darwin’s theory, they will be nothing else but inherited habits of thought.” (Boltzmann 1905a/1976, 194)

  47. 47.

    See Vaihinger (1921, pp. 192 and 194–195).

  48. 48.

    See, e.g., Jerusalem (1912) and Jacoby (1912c).

  49. 49.

    Vaihinger’s fictionalism embraced mathematics: “The basic concepts of mathematics … are contradictory fictions. Mathematics rest on a wholly fictitious basis, even on contradictions.” (1911, p. 71). This may not count as psychologism but is hardly an improvement on it.

References

  • Baumgarten, E. 1938. Die geistigen Grundlagen des amerikanischen Gemeinwesens. Bd. II. Der Pragmatismus: R.W. Emerson, W. James, J. Dewey. Frankfurt a.M.: Klostermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore, J., and K. Hentschel (eds.). 1985. Ernst Mach als Aussensseiter. Machs Briefwechsel über Philosophie und Relativitätsphilosophie mit Persönlichkeiten seiner Zeit. Vienna: Braumüller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltzmann, L. 1905a. Über eine These Schopenhauers. In Populäre Schriften, 385–402. Leipzig: Barth. Trans. 1974. On a thesis of Schopenhauer. In L. Boltzmann, Theoretical physics and philosophical problems, ed. B. McGuinness, 85–198. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltzmann, L. 1905b. Reise eines deutschen Professors ins Eldorado. In Populäre Schriften, 403–435. Leipzig: Barth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capek, K. 1918. Pragmatismus.cili Filosofie praktickeho zivota. Prague: F. Topic, 2nd rev. ed. 1925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahms, H.-J. 1987. Aufstieg und Ende der Lebensphilosophie: Das philosophische Seminar der Universität Göttingen zwischen 1917 und 1940. In Die Universität Göttingen unter dem Nationalsozialismus, ed. H. Becker, H.-J. Dahms, and C. Wegeler. Munich: Saur. In 2nd enlarged ed. 1998, 287–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahms, H.-J. 1992. Positivismus und pragmatismus. In Science and subjectivity, ed. D. Bell and H. Vossenkuhl, 239–257. Berlin: Akademieverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. 1930. Demokratie und Erziehung. Trans. E. Hylla. Breslau: Hirt. 2nd ed. Brauschweig: Westermann, 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. 1931. Die menschliche Natur, ihr Wesen und Verhalten. Trans. P. Sakmann. Stuttgart/Berlin: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J., and W.H. Kilpatrick. 1935. Der Projekt-Plan. Grundlegung und Praxis. Trans. G. Schulz, E. Wiesenthal. Weimar: Böhlau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckstein, W. 1935. Wilhelm Jerusalem. Sein Leben und Wirken. Vienna: Verlag von Carl Gerolds Sohn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elsenhans, T. (ed.). 1909. Bericht über den III. Internationalen Kongress für Philosophie zu Heidelberg, 1. bis 5. September 1908. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, M. 2005. Da sponda a sponda. ‘Spirito tedesco’ e ‘tecnica americana’. In Politiche della Tecnica. Immagini, Ideologie, Narrazioni, ed. M. Neda, 189–212. Genova: Name.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, M. 2010. Well, and pragmatism? Comment on Michael Heidelberger’s paper. In The present situation in the philosophy of science, ed. F. Stadler et al., 75–83, Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari, M. 2014. Pragmatism and European philosophy: The French-Italian connection, Chapter 43. In New directions in the philosophy of science, ed. M.C. Galavotti, D. Dieks, W.J. Gonzalez, S. Hartmann, Th. Uebel, and M. Weber. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flournoy, T. 1911. La Philosophie de William James. Saint Blaise: Foyer Solidariste.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, P. 1929–1930. Was bedeuten die gegenwärtigen physikalischen Theorien für die allgemeine Erkenntnislehre? Die Naturwisswenschaften 17(1929): 971–977 and 987–994, also Erkenntnis 1(1930): 126–157. Trans. 1949. In Frank, P. Modern science and its philosophy, 90–121. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehlen, A. 1941. Der Mensch. Seine Natur und seine Stellung in der Welt. Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt. Rev. ed. Bonn: Athenäum, 1950. Reprinted in 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haller, R. 1986. Emanuel Herrmann. Zu einem beinahe vergessenen Kapitel österreichischer Geistesgeschichte. In Fragen zu Wittgenstein und Aufsätze zur österreuichischen Philosophie, 55–68. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G. 1992. Ernst Mach and the fortunes of positivism. Isis 83: 27–69. Reprinted in Holton, G. 1993. Science and anti-science, 1–55. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, G. 1909. Der Pragmatismus. Neue Bahnen in der Wissenschaftslehre des Auslands. Leipzig: Dürr. Repr. (edited by Lars Mecklenburg) In Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 50 (2002): 603–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, G. 1912a. William James und das deutsche Geistesleben. Die Grenzboten LXXI(5): 217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, G. 1912b. William James’ Angriff auf das deutsche Geistesleben. Die Grenzboten LXXI(3): 109–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, G. 1912c. Der amerikanische Pragmatismus und die Philosophie des Als Ob. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 147: 172–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. 1899. Der Wille zum Glauben und andere populärphilosophische Essays. Trans. Th. Lorenz. Stuttgart: Fromann.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. 1900. Psychologie und Erziehung. Ansprachen an Lehrer. Trans. F. Kiesow. Leipzig: Engelmann, 2nd ed. 1908.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. 1907a. Pragmatism. A new name for some old ways of thinking. London: Longmans, Green & Co. Reprinted in Buffalo: Prometheus, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. 1907b. Die religiöse Erfahrung und ihre Mannigfaltigkeit. Trans. G. Wobbenner. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 2nd ed. 1914.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. 1908. Pragmatismus. Ein neuer Name für alte Denkmethoden. Trans. W. Jerusalem. Leipzig: Klinkhardt. Repr. Hamburg: Meiner, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. 1909. Psychologie. Trans. M. Dürr. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. 1914. Das pluralistische Universum. Trans. J. Goldstein. Leipzig: Kröner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, W. 1905. Der kritische Idealismus und die reine Logik. Ein Ruf im Streite. Vienna: Braumüller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, W. 1908a. Der Pragmatismus. Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 25th January. Reprinted in Jerusalem 1925, 130–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, W. 1908b. Philosophenkongress in Heidelberg. Die Zukunft, 10th October, 55–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, W. 1908c. Vorwort des Übersetzers. In Pragmatismus. Ein neuer Name für alte Denkmethoden, ed. W. James, iii–x. Trans. W. Jerusalem. Leipzig: Klinkhardt. Reprinted in Hamburg: Meiner, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, W. 1909. Apriorismus und Evolutionismus. In Bericht über den III. Internationalen Kongress für Philosophie zu Heidelberg, 1. bis 5. September 1908, ed. T. Elsenhans, 806–815. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, W. 1910a. William James. Die Zukunft, 5th November. Reprinted in Jerusalem, W. 1925. Gedanken und Denker. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Neue Folge, 2nd ed., 154–159. Vienna: Braumüller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, W. 1910b. Preface to the English translation. In Introduction to philosophy, ed. W. Jerusalem, v–vii. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, W. 1912. Die Logik des Unlogischen. Die Zukunft, 25th May. Reprinted in Jerusalem W. 1925. Gedanken und Denker. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Neue Folge, 2nd ed., 173–186. Vienna: Braumüller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, W. 1913. Zur Weiterentwicklung des Pragmatismus. Deutsche Literaturzeitung 34: cols. 3205–3226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerusalem, W. 1925. Gedanken und Denker. Gesammelte Aufsätze. Neue Folge, 2nd ed. Vienna: Braumüller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinpeter, H. 1911/1912. Der Pragmatismus im Lichte der Machschen Erkenntnislehre. Wissenschaftliche Rundschau 2(20): 405–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinpeter, H. 1913. Der Phänomenalismus. Eine naturwissenschaftliche Weltanschauung. Leipzig: Barth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusch, M. 1995. Psychologism. A case study in the sociology of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, E. 1872. Die Geschichte und die Wurzel des Satzes von der Erhaltung der Arbeit. Prague. Trans. History and root of the principle of the conservation of energy. Chicago: Open Court, 1911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, E. 1882. Die ökonomische Natur der physikalischen Forschung. Leipzig. Trans. The economical nature of physical inquiry. In E. Mach, Popular scientific lectures. Chicago: Open Court, 1893, 5th ed. 1943, 186–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, E. 1883. Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch dargestellt. Leipzig: Brockhaus. 9th ed. 1933. Trans. The science of mechanics. Chicago: Open Court, 6th ed. 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, E. 1884. Über Umbildung und Anpassung im natutrwissenschaftlichen Denken. Vienna. Trans. On transformation and adaptation in scientific thought. In Popular scientific lectures. Chicago: Open Court, 1893, 5th ed. 1943, 214–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, E. 1896. Die Principien der Wärmelehre. Leipzig: Barth. 2nd ed. 1900. Trans. Principles of the theory of heat. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, E. 1905. Erkenntnis und Irrtum. Leipzig: Barth. Trans. Knowledge and error. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metz, R. 1933. C.S. Peirce, collected papers vols I and II. Kant-Studien 38: 188–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, G. 1931. Charles Peirce (1840–1914). Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 40: 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oehler, K. 1977. Einleitung. In James, W. Der Pragmatismus. Eineuer Name für alte Denkmethoden, ed. K. Oehler, ix*–xxxv*. Hamburg: Meiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C.S. 1878. How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly 12: 286–303. Orig. “Comment render nos idees claires”, Revue Philosophique 7 (1879): 39–57. Reprinted in C.S. Peirce, The Essential Peirce Vol. I, ed. Peirce edition project. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992, 124–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, R.B. 1936. The thought and character of William James. As revealed in unpublished correspondence and notes, together with his published writings. Volume II philosophy and psychology. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Planck, M. 1910. Zur Machschen Theorie der physikalischen Erkenntnis. Physikalische Zeitschrift 11: 1180–1198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, F.C.S. 1903. Humanism. Philosophical essays. London: Macmillan & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, F.C.S. 1906. Jerusalem, Der kritische Idealismus und die reine Logik. International Journal of Ethics 16: 391–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, F.C.S. 1907. Studies in humanism. London: Macmillan & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiller, F.C.S. 1911. Humanismus. Beiträge zu einer pragmatischen Philosophie. Trans. R. Eisler. Leipzig: Klinkhart (later Kröner).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnädelbach, H. 1984. Philosophy in Germany 1831–1933. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, H.W. 1938. E. Baumgarten, Der Pragmatismus: R.W. Emerson, W. James, J. Dewey. Journal of Philosophy 35: 695–698 [signed H.W.S.].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, H. 1934. Collected papers von Ch. S. Peirce, Bd. I–II. Deutsche Literaturzeitung 55: cols. 392–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz, H. 1936. Collected papers von Ch. S. Peirce, Bd. III–V. Deutsche Literaturzeitung 57: cols. 137–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shook, J. 2004. F.C.S. Schiller and European pragmatism. In A companion to pragmatism, ed. J. Shook and J. Margolis, 44–53. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G. 1895. Ueber ein Beziehung der Selektionslehre zur Erkenntnistheorie. Archiv für systematische Philosophie 1: 34–45. Trans. 1982. On a relationship between the theory of selection and epistemology. In Learning, development and culture, ed. H.C. Plotkin, 63–72. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G. 1900. Die Philosophie des Geldes. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot. Repr. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, L. 1908. Der Pragmatismus. Ein neuer Name für alte Denkmethoden. Archiv für Philosophie. II. Abteilung: Archiv für systematische Philosophie 14: 1–39 and 145–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiele, J. (ed.). 1978. Wissenschaftliche Kommunikation. Die Korrespondenz Ernst Machs. Kastellaun: Henn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uebel, T. 2012. But is it sociology of knowledge? Wilhelm Jerusalem’s ‘Sociology of Cognition’ in context. Studies in East European Thought 64: 265–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uebel, T. 2014. American pragmatism and the Vienna circle: The early years. Journal for the History of Analytic Philosophy 3(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaihinger, H. 1911. Die Philosophie des Als Ob. Leipzig: Meiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaihinger, H. 1921. Wie die Philosophie des Als Ob entstand. In Die deutsche Philosophie der Gegenwart in Selbstdarstellungen. Zweiter Band, ed. R. Schmidt, 175–203. Leipzig: Meiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorbrodt, G. 1913. W. James’ Philosophie. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik 151: 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorovka, K. 1929. Americka Filosofie. Prague: Bohumil Janda.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, C., and J.P. Anton. 1974. Biographical sketch of Herbert W. Schneider. In Philosophy and the civilizing arts essays presented to Herbert W. Schneider, ed. C. Walton and J.P. Anton, xi–xxii. Athens: Ohio University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophy, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Thomas Uebel

Authors
  1. Thomas Uebel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Uebel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and Commmunication, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Maria Carla Galavotti

  2. Institute for History and Foundations of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Dennis Dieks

  3. Faculty of Humanities, University of A Coruña, Ferrol, Spain

    Wenceslao J. Gonzalez

  4. Centre for Mathematical Philosophy, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Stephan Hartmann

  5. School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

    Thomas Uebel

  6. Department of Philosophy, University of Geneva, Geneva 4, Switzerland

    Marcel Weber

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Uebel, T. (2014). European Pragmatism? Further Thoughts on the German and Austrian Reception of American Pragmatism. In: Galavotti, M., Dieks, D., Gonzalez, W., Hartmann, S., Uebel, T., Weber, M. (eds) New Directions in the Philosophy of Science. The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04382-1_44

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics