652
DOC.
624
SEPTEMBER
1918
I
admit that
science deals with
the
“real”
and
am
nonetheless not
a
“realist.”
This
can
be all
the
same
to
you,
and I also do not
feel like
your opponent.
For
I
would like to state
the
proposition:
If all the rubbish
is
cleared
away
from two
arbitrary
“isms,”
they
then
become
alike.
That
is
why you
could
be
mercifully accepted by
the
priests
of all
the
isms.
You
were
accepted
because
your grace appealed
to
them.
The
positivist
or
pragmatist is strong
as
long
as
he
fights
against
the
opinion
that
concepts
that
were
anchored
in the
“a
priori"
existed. If
in
his zeal he
forgets
that
all
knowledge
consists in
concepts
and
judgments,
then this
is
a
weakness
lying
not in
the
subject
but
in his
personal disposition,
likewise
the
senseless
battle
against
the
hypothesis; comp.
the little
book
by
Duhem.[6]
In
any
event,
the
campaign
against
atoms
is
based
upon
this
weakness.
Oh,
how
bitter
is
this
world for
man;
the
path
to
originality
leads
through irrationality
(in science),
through
hideousness
(in
art)-the
one
accessible to
many,
at least.
Your comment
about Kant
smuggling
in
psychological arguments
is
exquisite.[7]
My
kinsman Cohen
is not
even
palatable
when he
is
served
up by
as
skillful
a
gourmand
as
you,
roasted
on
the
spit.[8]
Confounded,
I
keep forgetting
to
gripe;
will
do,
immediately!
Isn’t
your fight against
pragmatism
a
bit
demagogic?
Is
it
not just
a
fight
against
superficial
pragmatism?
Shouldn’t it be admissible to
regard
science from
the
biological
point
of view?
What
else is
pragmatism,
ultimately?
Isn’t
the
concept
“natural
geometry” a
little unnatural?
Doesn’t
an
idol
really
lie behind
what
you
call
“reality”
of
space? Pages
57-59
of
your
book
gave
me a
bit
of
a
stomach
ache.[9]
All in
all,
the
discussion
on
the relation
between
geometry
and
experience
seems
to
me
to be
the least felicitous
aspect
of
your explanations.