Correction: The published abstract has been replaced with a corrected version Oct 28th, 2016. 

This paper argues that we should understand and assess the philosophical contributions by Arne Næss and Hans Skjervheim, and not least their interactions, by identifying the ways they both develop their views in opposition to what they see as the dominant views of the Vieranna Circle. The most striking thing, it is argued, is that neither of them develop new and striking criticisms of the Circle, and that there are in fact interesting similarities in their criticisms. It is also fair to say that Næss’s later criticism of the doctrines of the Circle is less interesting than his earlier criticism. His early interesting criticism was on the other hand, shared by other members of the Circle, and not really original with him. Shortcomings of the later and less interesting criticism are in fact shared by Skjervheim’s criticism of the Circle. Skjervheim may indeed have suffered from placing too much trust in Næss’s grasp of the important issues. The resulting overall picture is thus quite different from what may be called the received view in Norway, which sees both Næss and Skjervheim as important philosophers well connected with the best work in international research at their time.