A few days ago I mentioned a paper by Stone on Carnap’s and Heidegger’s responses to Husserl. It’s an interesting paper but in one respect at least it would appear to be misinformed: its view of the role Husserl played for Carnap. First of all, it exaggerates the extent of that role; Carnap was never a “follower” of Husserl, as Stone claims in an earlier paper. He doesn’t, admittedly, exaggerate as grossly as Rosado Haddock (from whose book I’m glad to see Stone now carefully distances himself in a footnote). Second, his paper mischaracterizes that role in the published Aufbau. As I show in some detail in my (forthcoming) paper on the subject, while Carnap took Husserl as his starting point in the original conception of the Aufbau in the 1922 sketch “Vom Chaos zur Wirklichkeit,” he decided two years later to abandon the phenomenological basis of that original conception. The published Aufbau competes with phenomenology; it approaches the task of “constitution” (by which Carnap comes to mean something rather different than what Husserl began with) by different means. In fact, the published Aufbau contains an — inevitably sachlich and low-key — attack on Husserl (in the first few sections of the book’s philosophical conclusion, culminating in §164, where Husserl is named explicitly).
Despite all this, I believe (and argue in the paper linked to above) that the published Aufbau in fact is strongly influenced by Husserl, but not at all in the way diagnosed by Stone (or most others before him, though David Woodruff Smith is an exception).
Rosado Haddock, in his book and elsewhere, encourages us (those of us who are interested in these questions) to go and consult the archives to figure out what actually went on. That is what I did; the first part of my paper is just a review of what the archives actually tell us about the relations between Carnap and the Husserl circle in Freiburg in the early 1920s. But when Rosado Haddock heard this paper, as a talk in Munich (July 2013), he denounced it vociferously (and at length, ignoring the chair’s attempts to get him to bring his remarks to a close). It was “the big lie,” he said. He did not attempt to engage with any of my evidence, let alone my arguments from that evidence. You decide.