Philosophical Debate - Einstein is mediocre?

[Siúil a Rúin]

You have a valid argument in one sense but it's a bit straw-manny for me. My entire point is that I can prove the Kindergarten teacher contributes more to society if the butterfly affect is a law. It is a law, and therefore she does. Her or his unnoticed contributions to society have a bigger impact than the discovery of any one scientific law or principle. It's ironic, and a paradox, but an immutable law like gravity.

If we approach it from a deconstructionist perspective, then we must also re-construct it and my argument does both. It moves up and down, and left and right. That is why I think your argument is straw-mmany.

Using the moral measuring rod "good for society" is an excellent and valid one. It is important to realize there is a subjective element to it as well. Along that measure, there can be ways to prove a kindergarten teacher is in a position to do more good for society in that it is a position that can positively influence humans to constructive behaviors. For as much influence as early childhood educators posses, parents have orders of magnitude more influence. It is also important to constrain this measure to the teachers that do have a positive impact. My sister's kindergarten teacher would make her stand in front of the class to be mocked and used as an example of discipline, even though she was really quiet. She had years of school anxiety, but at least our mother was a kinder, more profound influence. As a teacher my mother helped children move from the lowest to highest reading level by allowing exploration and imposing minimal controls. I'm sure that had lasting impact as well.

I agree in the case of social, moral measures, individuals who work in social service fields, especially those influencing the young, will have a greater impact on character development of humans than scientists. The primary issue I see in this discussion is universality vs. specificity in the semantics of the discussion. The secondary issue is the focus on absolute statements either positive or negative in relationship to human character, contribution and functioning as it is always multifaceted and complex.

 

[MaxMad244]

Well, prove it then.



Still, why does that bother you? Why do you need to prove that there's no genius when viewed from a macro scale? What difference does it make for you if you proved there's no genius and everyone's the same like atoms and each atoms' impact on society is dampened to the same level over the greater framework?

I just don't like propaganda. I like truth and honor. It's not that it bothers me. It's that it bothers you that you think it bothers me.

 

[MaxMad244]

What did they do in the podcast? I think the "Great Man of History" is by nature overrated, but your statement is taking one oversimplification and restating it in the negative to negate it. Perhaps "We know from history that whenever a man is raised to the level of a god, his is still just a man with strengths and weaknesses". To whatever extent Einstein was socially and morally unpalatable, does not need to reflect directly on his intellectual skill. He demonstrated intellectual skill that is notably above average, but it is unrealistic to see him as the embodiment of science, a demigod, right about everything, the archetype for intellectualism.

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? God or fool? Can't it be somewhere in the middle?

I think that this idea that there are opposites is a projection and full of hubris. Take the idea of cold for instance. There really is no cold or hot. There is only temperature. It is greater or less than, but the idea of cold or hot is relative to your perception. You perceive that something is cold or hot as the temperature changes, but form an objective standpoint those opposites are a projection of your psyche.

Same with the continuum of god and fool. That is also just a projection. There is no opposites in truth. Jung and Kant were blind to this but the Greeks new. The genius of the Greeks has never been outdone.

But to answer your question - it is only fools...some fools jump high, and some fools flop low.

As for the podcast, you can listen to it. Go on Spotify and type in Jung and Daimon and it will come up for you.

 

[MaxMad244]

Using the moral measuring rod "good for society" is an excellent and valid one. It is important to realize there is a subjective element to it as well. Along that measure, there can be ways to prove a kindergarten teacher is in a position to do more good for society in that it is a position that can positively influence humans to constructive behaviors. For as much influence as early childhood educators posses, parents have orders of magnitude more influence. It is also important to constrain this measure to the teachers that do have a positive impact. My sister's kindergarten teacher would make her stand in front of the class to be mocked and used as an example of discipline, even though she was really quiet. She had years of school anxiety, but at least our mother was a kinder, more profound influence. As a teacher my mother helped children move from the lowest to highest reading level by allowing exploration and imposing minimal controls. I'm sure that had lasting impact as well.

I agree in the case of social, moral measures, individuals who work in social service fields, especially those influencing the young, will have a greater impact on character development of humans than scientists. The primary issue I see in this discussion is universality vs. specificity in the semantics of the discussion. The secondary issue is the focus on absolute statements either positive or negative in relationship to human character, contribution and functioning as it is always multifaceted and complex.

I disagree with this. I Think educators have a larger role than parents. There are millions of parents that beat their kids, throw drugs at them, and slap them around and neglect them but we don't have millions of killers.

It takes a real bad parent plus a series of educators to construct a killer. One good teacher has the potential to save twenty lives, and does probably at least once every three days - statistically speaking.

And one life today is worth 1000's within a couple hundred years. And in a thousand, an entire country.

Einstein sold his ideas to the highest bidder. He's in the negative zone now. More lives dead due to him directly - his discoveries and who he gave them to - than all the serial killers in the world added together.

He also beat his wife.