[lit-ideas] Re: Einsteiniana
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 16:51:31 +0200
And perhaps in conjunction with Lenin's own comments on the matter:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/six5.htm#v14pp72h-346
On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
> >One essay, P, Frank's "Einstein, Mach, and Logical Positivism', reveals
> an
> astounding fact.
>
> "Because of the close connection, which obviously exists between
> Einstein's theory of relativity and Mach's philosophy, Lenin feared that
> Einstein's
> theories might become a Trojan horse for the infiltration of idealistic
> currents among Russian scientists and among educated classes in general.">
>
> To be read in conjunction with Popper's "A Note on Berkeley as Precursor
> to Mach and Einstein", now in Conjectures & Refutations.
>
> dnl
> armed with a crowbar
> ldn
> On Sunday, 11 May 2014, 13:33, "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <
> dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In a message dated 5/10/2014 9:48:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Everyone on this forum knows that if we study a subject a lot and then
> keep on studying it; eventually we will know more about it than almost
> anyone
> we know – assuming we start our study with adequate intelligence. This
> seems to me what the Ashkenazi Jews started doing 800 years ago. But is
> natural selection an adequate explanation for what happened in the 20th
> century, for Einstein for example? We know there are genetic “triggers”
> of
> various sorts; mightn’t the intense study needed for mastering
> money-lending have
> triggered an intellectual benefit that was to some extent heritable?
> Maybe not, but it doesn’t seem as though there were enough generations
> for
> natural selection to explain those results."
>
> I see D. McEvoy has addressed the more general topic of L. Helm's post
> about cultural "vs." biological evolution, but I wanted to focus
> specifically
> on Einstein, before we move on!
>
> there are OTHER ways to fit Einstein into the picture!
>
> One line of argument would be to sort of show that there's more in
> Einstein
> than a development of 'money-lending'! -- a lot of chance comes into play
> as one can fascinatingly find by reading about Einstein's early years!
> Oh,
> the effect of that gift -- Euclid's book -- by the family friend:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
>
> "When Einstein was ten years old, Max Talmud (later changed to Max
> Talmey),
> a poor Jewish medical student from Poland, was introduced to the Einstein
> family by his brother. During weekly visits over the next five years, he
> gave the boy popular books on science, mathematical texts and
> philosophical
> writings. These included Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, and
> Euclid's Elements (which Einstein called the "holy little geometry book")"
>
> For a philosopher of science, Einstein's genetic background may be
> largely
> irrelevant! For the record, part of the contents to
>
> Schilpp, Paul Arthur, ed. (1949). Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist.
> The Library of Living Philosophers, vol. 7. Evanston, IL: The Library of
> Living Philosophers.
>
>
> that lists Einstein as a a 'living philosopher'. (Since McEvoy discussed
> Helm's post vis-à-vis Popper in his first response -- and Popper merited
> a
> volume in Schilpp's series -- McEvoy's second response focuses on
> 'intelligence' rather).
>
> This is as per R. Erskins's notes at
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein-Philosopher-Scientist-Library-Philosop
>
> hers/product-reviews/0875481337/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoi
> nts=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending
>
> After the introduction and preface the book opens with Einstein's
>
> "Autobiographical Notes," written in German.
>
> We may read both the German text and English translation on the facing
> pages, and compare the two,
>
> The next section contains a series of essays by Einstein's esteemed
> colleagues and contemporaries.
>
> Among them are W. Pauli, M.Born, N. Bohr, K. Goedel, G. Bachelard and
> others of equal stature.
>
> Some contributors disagree with Einstein's position on statistical
> quantum
> theory, M. Born in particular.
>
> Others tackle the epistemological issues of their time, illuminating
> subtle philosophical considerations that quickened the numerous advances
> in
> theoretical physics during the late nineteenth and early twentieth
> century.
>
> One essay, P, Frank's "Einstein, Mach, and Logical Positivism', reveals
> an
> astounding fact.
>
> "Because of the close connection, which obviously exists between
> Einstein's theory of relativity and Mach's philosophy, Lenin feared that
> Einstein's
> theories might become a Trojan horse for the infiltration of idealistic
> currents among Russian scientists and among educated classes in general."
>
> Einstein answers each contributor at the end of the book in his "Remarks
> to the Essays Appearing in this Collective Volume."
>
> He begins with Pauli and Born, primarily because of their position on
> statistical quantum theory, whereupon Einstein launches into a
> fascinating
> defense of his own position.
>
> But as with all the contributors, the tone throughout was gentle and
> respectful.
>
> And one comes away with the impression that Einstein was beloved by his
> contemporaries because he returned that love in kind.
>
> The result was a mighty collusion of powerful minds that changed the
> world.
>
> "Now, if only politicians and preachers could do the same!", Erkins
> comments.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Speranza
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
>
Other related posts:
