Abstract

A complete reading of the works of Moritz Schlick reveals an apparent vacillation between a preference for holistic, formalistic accounts of knowledge and a preference for atomist, foundational accounts. A clearer picture of Schlick's philosophical development emerges from an appreciation of what I consider to be two separate "agendas," each of them fully formed and present in his earliest writings. Schlick's conviction that the assumptions in each agenda were equally correct can explain a good deal about the construction of his mature theses and is, I believe, responsible for much of the criticism that his work has received, both before and after his death in 1936. Making the two agendas explicit can also provide us with a better framework within which to judge Schlick's work. Finally, the story provides an instructive example of how one's firmest beliefs constrain and dictate one's choice of solutions and perhaps define the problems themselves.