Abstract
This paper is about one of Arthur Prior’s earliest publications in philosophy, “The Nation and the Individual” (Austral J Psychol Philos 15:394–398, 1937). Its aims are (1) to show that Prior made a remarkable contribution to social ontology in the 1930s which should be read with some attention to its historical background, which closely follows John Wisdom as to its theoretical elements, in particular the notion of a “logical construction”, but which is more clearly eliminativist with regard to nations and which is original in terms of rather bold ethical consequences; (2) to interpret Prior’s/Wisdom’s proposal as a promise of reduction by translation and to connect Prior’s/Wisdom’s ideas with John Searle’s recent work on social ontology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For Prior’s position as a (reformed, Barthian, socialist) Christian at the time cf. the article by David Jakobsen in the present volume.
Cf. [New Zealand] Ministry for Culture and Heritage (2012a): “Just over 100,000 New Zealanders served overseas in the First World War [...]. More than 18,000 died [...] and over 40,000 more were wounded. [...] The total population of New Zealand in 1914 was just over one million.”
Cf. ibid., /conscientious-objection: “People could gain exemption from conscription on very limited grounds. By the end of the war only 73 objectors had been offered exemption, and 273 were in prison in New Zealand for refusing to serve. As a consequence of their actions, 2600 conscientious objectors lost their civil rights, including [...] being barred from working for government or local bodies.”
Cf. [New Zealand] Ministry for Culture and Heritage (2012b): “Over 800 conscientious objectors were sent to detention camps.” In the long interview Mary Prior gave to Per Hasle, she says about the period between 1946 and 1949 (Prior 2003a, p. 294): “Returned servicemen and former conscientious objectors filled the classrooms along with people straight from school.”
Cf. the website of the Imperial War Museum, London, http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/28305.
Cf. the excellent survey in Linsky (2012), cf. also Linsky (2007). I am grateful to Martin Pleitz for drawing my attention to it and, in general, to the importance of Russell in connection with the topic of this paper. Stebbing (1930), p. 157, and Wisdom (1931a), p. 188, are right to criticize Russell for identifying logical constructions/fictions and “incomplete symbols”. Russell’s examples (numbers, classes, desks, persons) are clearly not examples of symbols. So Linsky (2012), too, is right in not taking them to be examples of symbols, at least in general.
“Nationalism, in theory, is the doctrine that men, by their sympathies and traditions, form natural groups, called ‘nations,’ each of which ought to be united under one central Government. In the main this doctrine may be conceded. [...] When an Englishman returns to Dover [...] after being on the Continent, he feels something friendly in the familiar ways: the casual porters, the shouting paper boys, the women serving bad tea, all warm his heart, and seem more ‘natural,’ more what human beings ought to be, than the foreigners with their strange habits of behaviour.” (Russell 1916, p. 30, 37). “Switzerland is a nation [...] Great Britain was one state before it was one nation; [...] Germany was one nation before it was one state. What constitutes a nation is a [...] sentiment of similarity and an instinct of belonging to the same group or herd. [...] like a milder and more extended form of family feeling. [...] There is an instinctive and usually unconscious sense of a common purpose animating the members of a nation.” (Russell 1917, Chap. 5).
Coombe-Tennant’s paraphrase of these aspects of Wisdom’s papers (Coombe-Tennant 1936) is not only valuable, because it is more readable than Wisdom’s texts, but also because it makes clear that the papers are concerned in an interesting way with what today’s ontologists call granularity.
I am grateful to Jørgen Albretsen for kindly providing me access to digital photographs of the context of box 11 which were taken by David Jakobsen. Numbers refer to the jpg files I used.
For instance, Prior included articles on Rosa Luxemburg (467), Lenin (445) and Trotzki (437), but also on show trials in Moscow (436), as well an article by Prior’s friend Alex Miller on “Pacifism as a civic duty” which is dated on September 20, 1940 (554).
Wisdom’s influence is globally acknowledged (Prior 1937, p. 294). A proper footnote would not have been out of place, but the text is easy enough to trace. For a synopsis cf. the appendix to the present paper.
Systematically, the position that Prior is paraphrasing here is position (a) in Wisdom (1933b, p. 197), which, without any mention of Fascism or organicism, is characterized by the claims “England is something over and above Englishmen” and “When we say England is a monarchy we are not just speaking about Englishmen.”
for an impression, cf. the appendix.
One translation project that worked out remarkably well is Prior’s translation of B-series talk to talk about tensed facts in A-series idiom in Prior (2003b).
From “the formation” to “his needs”.
The slogan is from Marx’ Critique of the Gotha programme of the German social democratic party, written in 1875. The German original, derived from a French socialist slogan of the 1840s, reads: “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, Jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!” (Marx 1985, p. 15). Prior accurately quotes a widespread English translation whose author I have been unable to identify. The recent translation by Carver retains the punctuation (Marx 1996, p. 215). The context of the slogan is a vision of classless society. The German original is paratactic. Here, “Jedem” (“to each”, dative case) is not the indirect object of any sentence of which “Jeder” (nominative case) is the grammatical subject. Both the comma and the capital “J” of “Jedem” exclude this. Nothing corresponds to “from” in the English translation.
Cf. footnote 12 on the date of the clipping visible in jpg file 554.
References
Beany, M. (2003). Susan Stebbing on Cambridge and Vienna analysis. In F. Stadler (Ed.), The Vienna circle and Logical Empiricism (pp. 339–350). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Coombe-Tennant, A. F. H. (1936). Mr. Wisdom on philosophical analysis. Mind, 45(180), 432–449.
Gilbert, M. (1989). On social facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jakobsen, D. Theology as an illusion somehow close to life. Revisiting A.N. Prior’s crisis of faith. In the present volume
Linsky, B. (2012). Logical constructions. In: E. N. Edward (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/logical-construction
Linsky, B. (2007). Logical analysis and logical construction. In M. Beaney (Ed.), The analytic turn (pp. 107–122). New York: Routledge.
Marx, Karl (1985). Kritik des Gothaer Programms (1875, firstpublication: 1891). In: Marx Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA)[Collected Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels], section I vol. 25. Berlin: Dietz
Marx, K. (1996). Critique of the Gotha programme. In T. Carver (Ed.), Marx. later political writings (pp. 208–226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ministry for Culture and Heritage [New Zealand]. (2012a). Conscientious objection in the First World War. http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/first-world-war. Accessed December 20, 2012
Ministry for Culture and Heritage [New Zealand]. (2012b). Opposition to war: Second World War overview. http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/war/second-world-war-overview/opposition. Accessed December 20, 2012
Prior, A. (1933a). Prayer and praise. Open Windows, 7(1), 18–19.
Prior, A. (1933b). Dostoevsky. Open Windows, 7(5), 5–6.
Prior, A. (1935). Logic and dogma. Open Windows, 9(5), 19.
Prior, A. (1937). The Nation and the Individual. The Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy, 15, 394–398.
Prior, A. (2003a). In: P. Halse, P. Øhrstrøm, T. Braüner, T. Braüner & J. Copeland (Eds.), Papers on time and tense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prior, Arthur (2003b). Tense logic and the logic of earlier and later [1968], In: Prior (2003a), 117–138.
Prior, Arthur (2003c). Egocentric logic [1968], in: Prior (2003a), 223–240.
Popper, K. R. (1945). The open society and its enemies. London: Routledge.
Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14, 473–493.
Russell, B. (1916). Principles of social reconstruction. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Russell, B. (1917). Political ideals. New York: The Century Company.
Russell, B. (1986). The philosophy of logical atomism (1918). In G. John (Ed.), The collected papers of Bertrand Russell (Vol. 8). London: George Allen and Unwin: Slater.
Russell, B. (1988a). The collected papers of Bertrand Russell. In R. Rempel, B. Frohmann, M. Lippincott, & M. Moran (Eds.), Prophecy and dissent (Vol. 13). London: Unwin Hyman.
Russell, B. (1988b). The nature of the state in view of its external relations (1916). In: Collected papers (vol. 13, pp. 362–369)
Russell, B. (1995). The collected papers of Bertrand Russell. In R. Rempel, L. Greenspan, B. Haslam, A. C. Lewis, & M. Lippincott (Eds.), Pacifism and revolution (Vol. 14). London: Routledge.
Schlick, Moritz (1935a). “Über den Begriff der Ganzheit” (short version). Erkenntnis 5(1), 52–55. (MSGA [=Collected Works] I/6, 553–557).
Schlick, Moritz (1935b) “Über den Begriff der Ganzheit” [full version], In: Wissenschaftlicher Jahresbericht der Philosophischen Gesellschaft an der Universität zu Wien. Wien: Verlag der Philosophischen Gesellschaft 1935, 23–37 (MSGA [=Collected Works] I/6, 681–700).
Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.
Searle, J. (2010). Making the social world. The structure of human civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Searle, John/Smith, Barry (2003). The construction of social reality: An exchange. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 62(2), 285–309. Also in: Laurence Moss/David Koepsell (eds.), Searle on the Institutions of Social Reality, Oxford: Blackwell
Stebbing, S. (1930). A modern introduction to logic. London: Methuen.
Strobach, N. (2005). Juristische Personen. In: G. Schönrich, (Ed.), Institutionen und ihre Ontologie, (pp. 189–210). Heusenstamm bei Frankfurt a.M.: Ontos-Verlag
Strobach, N. (2013). Der Begriff der Ganzheit bei Moritz Schlick und heute (Moritz–Schlick Lecture 2011). In: F. O. Engler & M. Iven (Eds.), Moritz Schlick—Die Rostocker Jahre und ihr Einfluss auf die Wiener Zeit (pp. 23–66). Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag
Wisdom, J. (1931a). Logical constructions (I.). Mind, 40(158), 188–216.
Wisdom, J. (1931b). Logical constructions (II.). Mind, 40(160), 460–475.
Wisdom, J. (1932). Logical constructions (III.). Mind, 41(164), 441–464.
Wisdom, J. (1933a). Logical constructions (IV.). Mind, 42(165), 43–66.
Wisdom, J. (1933b). Logical constructions (V.). Mind, 42(166), 186–202.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This text is dedicated to my uncle Herbert Strobach, who, aged 17 in 1945, saw no point in defending a country road in northern Germany against British tanks and was lucky to escape execution.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Strobach, N. An angry young man. Synthese 193, 3417–3427 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0901-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0901-3