Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Kelly Jones »

Carmel wrote:Conversely, a few people regard Weininger as a genius, a man who was blatantly racist,
It's possible to be objective about differences between breeds, strains or races, without imputing inherent superiority. We don't have to be talking about humans here, either.
sexist
Sex-based discriminations are not necessarily malicious, and Weininger was free of malice in his discriminations.
and anti-semitic.
Weininger was a Jew, before he converted, and he was only criticising the characteristics of his own culture. Is that impermissible, by your thinking, Carmel?
Weininger was a deeply psychologically disturbed, suicidal individual, as one critic termed it,
Are they an authority on Weininger?
his book was indicative of one who was in the throes of a "psycho-sexual panic".
What's the reference, Carmel?
Some critics have theorized that he may have been schizophrenic. I'm inclined to think that they're right, after having read one of his books(Sex and Character).
Do you personally know anyone who is schizophrenic? What makes you think Weininger was like them?


.
Carmel

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Carmel »

[quote="Kelly Jones"]I'm always deeply suspicious when the word "humble" or "humility" is touted. It always sounds rather like a boast.

Similarly, when I hear people promoting compassion and love, I am reminded of the words "good always turns bad within samsara" --- and, sure enough, am soon to be a witness of their demonstration of hatred and intolerance.

All too human.

Carmel:
yes, I can clearly see that the word "humility" would be anathemic to your way of thinking and that it causes a paranoid reaction in you. So rather than promoting compassion, you espouse a hateful man's ideology(Weininger) and embrace "hatred and intolerance" right up front. revealing choice.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Kelly Jones »

Carmel wrote:yes, I can clearly see that the word "humility" would be anathemic to your way of thinking
I just get tired of the falseness in most people's courtesy and politeness. Charles Bukowski is a kind of shining beacon to me. It may seem dark and harsh to people who smother everything in saccharine superficiality, big glossy smiles, and smothering pretensions of warmth and friendliness. But he is so darn honest and simple, that it's like a breath of fresh air. You probably remember Marsha Faizi, perhaps. I like that kind of down-to-earth, in-your-face honesty. People like them don't pretend to be nice, because they knew all that stuff - like eulogies and obituaries - are absolutely phoney.

Humility is just one of those phoney things. If you're a truly humble person, to my mind, you never say so. Nor do you minimise yourself under false modesty. You don't glorify other people, submitting to them as a lowly subject because that too is a form of self-glorification. You just accept the simple and true, and express it directly. Unfortunately, such a truthful, simple, honest person tends to get a lot of flak for not assuming any authority that isn't theirs......! ;-)

and that it causes a paranoid reaction in you. So rather than promoting compassion, you espouse a hateful man's ideology(Weininger) and embrace "hatred and intolerance" right up front. revealing choice.
Can you give me a contextualised quote from Weininger revealing a mind completely obsessed with hatred and malice? A completely obsessed, irrational, unfounded attitude?

Just one.


.
Carmel

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Carmel »

Kelly:
I just get tired of the falseness in most people's courtesy and politeness.

Carmel:
Some people are actually genuinely nice and humble. That you think it's false is indicative of your own inability to be nice or humble.

Kelly:
Humility is just one of those phoney things. If you're a truly humble person, to my mind, you never say so.

Carmel:
Einstein didn't say he was humble. Others recognize this quality about him. Again, that you doubt his sincerity speaks volumes aboout you.

Kelly:
Can you give me a contextualised quote from Weininger revealing a mind completely obsessed with hatred and malice? A completely obsessed, irrational, unfounded attitude?

Just one.

Carmel:
I could give you volumes...just one example...I quoted a passage of Weininger's to Dan where Weininger clearly implies that it was a mistake to free the black American slaves. If you want to dig it up it's at the KIR forum. I have no interest in wasting my time sifting through Weininger's blatant pathology. I read his book. He was obviously severely psychologically disturbed, that you can't see that is really quite incredulous and again, points to a deeper problem, one that you will never face because you simply don't possess the self honesty that is required to do so.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by David Quinn »

You misunderstand Weininger. He was a young, experimental thinker who liked to push logic down unusual pathways. Sometimes it led to interesting insights, other times less so.

In other words, he was still exploring and formulating his world-view. I certainly don't detect any hatred or malice in his writing.

His biggest fault was that he pushed himself way too hard, which unbalanced him in the final few months of his life. But at least he gave it a go.

As for Einstein, he was far too mild to say anything of any real interest.

-
Carmel

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Carmel »

[quote="David Quinn"]You misunderstand Weininger. He was a young, experimental thinker who liked to push logic down unusual pathways. Sometimes it led to interesting insights, other times less so.

Carmel:
It's the "other times less so" that I find disconcerting, dig? and no, I don't misunderstand Weininger. Experimental thinker, perhaps, but he was a highly undisciplined thinker. His thoughts were aimless, self indulgent ramblings much of the time. There were some parts of his writings which I found useful, maybe 15-20% or so, i.e his thoughts on individualism, the ego, maybe a few others ideas here and there, but overall, he's really not impressive.
Carmel

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Carmel »

David:
As for Einstein, he was far too mild to say anything of any real interest.

Carmel:
You misunderstand Einstein...he was a compassionate genius who...

nevermind.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Dennis Mahar »

You misunderstand Einstein...he was a compassionate genius who...
I think he reeled in shock and horror when he realised his work led to the creation of the atom bomb and got into the hands of politicians.
I think he realised in himself he was an idiot.
Carmel

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Carmel »

Dennis:
I think he reeled in shock and horror when he realised his work led to the creation of the atom bomb and got into the hands of politicians.
I think he realised in himself he was an idiot.

Carmel:
Dennis, it's like you're not even trying. That some men are violent does not make Einstein an idiot. get real.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Dennis Mahar »

get real
You get real Carmel.
As a human being,
as a man identified as a separate self,
Einstein,
felt remorse for the consequences of his work just as he claimed the spoils of his work.
As a man identified as a separate self he rode the dualities.
To deal with his remorse he turned to spirituality.

Rather than he being a compassionate genius.
It's we who can extend our compassion to him.
Step inside his shoes for a moment and realise the horror of his predicament.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by David Quinn »

Carmel wrote:
David Quinn wrote:You misunderstand Weininger. He was a young, experimental thinker who liked to push logic down unusual pathways. Sometimes it led to interesting insights, other times less so.

Carmel:
It's the "other times less so" that I find disconcerting, dig? and no, I don't misunderstand Weininger. Experimental thinker, perhaps, but he was a highly undisciplined thinker. His thoughts were aimless, self indulgent ramblings much of the time. There were some parts of his writings which I found useful, maybe 15-20% or so, i.e his thoughts on individualism, the ego, maybe a few others ideas here and there, but overall, he's really not impressive.
Fair enough. I find him patchy myself. But I don't get a sense that his writing is hateful or malicious in any way. Immature in places maybe, but not malicious.

From what I can see, he was simply a singular man caught up in the zest of thought.

He certainly doesn't deserve to be called schizophrenic, homosexual, psychopathic, monstrous, evil and all the other hysterical labels that are routinely cast on him. Now that's hateful and malicious.

-
Carmel

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Carmel »

Dennis:
Rather than he being a compassionate genius.

Carmel:
Einstein was compassionate and a genius. That some men can't resolve their conflicts through rational means and have to resort to violence was not Einstein's fault. That you are trying to blame him for other's evils is absurd.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Dennis Mahar »

That you are trying to blame him for other's evils is absurd.
I haven't apportioned blame anywhere.
Carmel

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Carmel »

David:
He certainly doesn't deserve to be called schizophrenic, homosexual, psychopathic, monstrous, evil and all the other hysterical labels that are routinely cast on him. Now that's hateful and malicious.

Carmel:
He was obviously deeply psychologically disturbed as is evidenced by his suicide and portions of his writings. That doesn't make him "evil" in my estimation, but his judgements of people were utterly ridiculous to the point of insanity, at times. It's easy to see why people might think he was schizophrenic. Some of his writings are obviously pure delusion, fantasy, had no grounding in reality, whatsoever. He judged people harshly. It's only natural that people will judge him accordingly. It's really quite deserved.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Dennis Mahar »

In 1939, Einstein signed a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt that warned about German nuclear research and urged a U.S. response.
Einstein played no other role in the Manhattan Project that built and deployed the A-bomb, was shocked when it was used, and crusaded against it ceaselessly.

Riding duality?

One hundred years ago, Albert Einstein changed the world with four papers that led directly to the development of atomic weapons, space travel, satellite technology and a profound understanding of the universe.

But, wracked with guilt over the real – world applications of his science – specifically, how the use of atomic weapons clashed with his religious beliefs – Einstein spent the last half of his life desperately trying to disprove the implications of so much of his work.

the greatest scientist of the 20th century would spend his final years enduring appalling professional humiliation. While most of the world hailed him as a genius, he slowly became a marginal figure within the scientific community – revered, but ignored. And it was all because he could not accept the fact that his life’s work stood at odds with his personal beliefs.
Last edited by Dennis Mahar on Tue Oct 19, 2010 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by David Quinn »

Carmel wrote:David:
He certainly doesn't deserve to be called schizophrenic, homosexual, psychopathic, monstrous, evil and all the other hysterical labels that are routinely cast on him. Now that's hateful and malicious.

Carmel:
He was obviously deeply psychologically disturbed as is evidenced by his suicide and portions of his writings.

Who isn't deeply psychologically disturbed? Only perfectly-enlightened Buddhas escape that category.

That doesn't make him "evil" in my estimation, but his judgements of people were utterly ridiculous to the point of insanity, at times.

You'd have to provide an example here, as I don't know what you mean. As far as I'm aware, he didn't make any judgments upon "people" as such, but rather he explored archetypes and ideals.

It's easy to see why people might think he was schizophrenic. Some of his writings are obviously pure delusion, fantasy, had no grounding in reality, whatsoever.

If that is your criteria, then you must think the entire human race is schizophrenic. Why are you so harsh towards this one man and so lenient towards everyone else?

In many ways, the reaction Weininger engenders interests me more than his actual writing itself.

-
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Kelly Jones »

David wrote:His biggest fault was that he pushed himself way too hard, which unbalanced him in the final few months of his life. But at least he gave it a go.
Quite a few of those who've tackled the spiritual clash with society have considered martyrdom, as a way of getting their message accepted. People love a dead troublemaker. But it's not a great choice, because it is tremendously easy for the message to get twisted. Christianity, for instance.

And anyway, even if Weininger had not committed suicide, he would probably have been killed by the Nazi party several years later. I doubt he would have joined any political party, because he related the conqueror mentality to crime. I believe that he would have protested against Hitler's "Final Solution" loudly, because Weininger's whole thesis was bound up with the conscious admission of wrong on the part of the individual, not for someone else to take away the opportunity to grow and learn by annihilating them (making them nothing, as he said the criminal is inclined to do). But this is all speculation. We'll never know.


.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Kelly Jones »

People who accuse Weininger of anti-Semitism, or of being an inspiration to the Nazi party, obviously haven't read him in context. I don't think it could get much clearer than this:
People love in others the qualities they would like to have but do not actually have in any great degree; so also we hate in others only what we do not wish to be, and what notwithstanding we are partly. We hate only qualities to which we approximate, but which we realise first in other persons.

[snip]

This one thing, however, remains none the less certain: whoever detests the Jewish disposition detests it first of all in himself; that he should persecute it in others is merely his endeavour to separate himself in this way from Jewishness; he strives to shake it off and to localise it in his fellow-creatures, and so for a moment to dream himself free of it. Hatred, like love, is a projected phenomenon; that person alone is hated who reminds one unpleasantly of oneself.

[snip]

I desire at this point again to lay stress on the fact, although it should be self-evident, that, in spite of my low estimate of the Jew, nothing could be further from my intention than to lend the faintest support to any practical or theoretical persecution of Jews. I am dealing with Judaism, in the platonic sense, as an idea. There is no more an absolute Jew than an absolute Christian. I am not speaking against the individual, whom, indeed, if that had been so, I should have wounded grossly and unnecessarily. ... I have no wish to boycott the Jew, or by any such immoral means to attempt to solve the Jewish question. ... Before Zionism is possible, the Jew must first conquer Judaism.

.
Carmel

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Carmel »

Dennis:
the greatest scientist of the 20th century would spend his final years enduring appalling professional humiliation. While most of the world hailed him as a genius, he slowly became a marginal figure within the scientific community – revered, but ignored. And it was all because he could not accept the fact that his life’s work stood at odds with his personal beliefs.

Carmel:
Calling Einstein's work marginal is ridiculous. Theoretical phycisists have been trying to prove his theories wrong for decades now, and have continuously failed to do so. That is why he is still revered as a genius.

That you keep trying to transfer blame to him about the A-bomb is beyond absurd. Some men are simply incapable of resolving their conflicts through rational means and have to resort to animalistic violence, you fail to address this point.

--

To David and Kelly:

Einstein's genius towers far above and beyond the bigot known as Weininger. Weininger contributed nothing of any real value to the world of philosophy or the world at large. That you would even compare him to Einstein in terms of genius is utterly laughable.
Carmel

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Carmel »

David:

In many ways, the reaction Weininger engenders interests me more than his actual writing itself.

Carmel:

Likewise, to be sure. The undeserved reverence that some people seem to exhibit toward the marginal Weininger is really quite bizarre. Watching you and Kelly trying to "downplay" his bigotry is really pretty amusing.

Weininger is judged harshly by the world at large due to his bigotry. You don't really think he should get a free pass in that regard, do you? It's only natural for his critics to examine his psychological motivations when assessing him. Whether he was schizophrenic or not, is not really of any concern to me, except that it might explain some of his bizarre ramblings. His possible homosexuality is of relevance because it is may be a large contributing factor to his views on women and men. I rather think it is, in fact...I can certainly expound on this if you'd like, but I'd be a little surprised if you didn't already know what I mean by this.
Last edited by Carmel on Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Kelly,
Or a beginner-philosopher, perhaps.
From what I read, he was one of the first scientists to run studies on populations to find out whether intelligence is hereditary from family gene pools, and whether certain communities/races are less likely to be intellectuals. He was basically a biologist/psychologist of the highest order, as he tackled questions with courage that most individuals wouldn’t even fathom tackling. I would call that a philosopher. Not to mention, that he single handedly invented most of the methods of statistical analysis that we use today. I wouldn’t call him a full blown enlightened sage, although he was cousins with Darwin, and the two had many debates and discussions on morality. Regardless, he had a certain courage, a drive to explore things that most people wouldn’t consider for various reasons rooted in fear. Anyone who goes down that road in any capacity, I tend to have certain respect for.
Yes, I think there's a lot to be said for genetics. People are animalistic because that's the kind of men that women go for: soldiers, politicians, salesmen, criminals, and bullies. But still, a virtuous man can have fools for children, so genetics isn't everything.
The problem is that you have recessive genes that are not expressed, and you are combining the man’s genes with the woman’s, so the result is a hybrid of sorts. Scientists will probably discover the probability of an intellectual father giving birth to an intellectual son, and how to increase that probability based on the most essential factors. Once that is discovered, men and women will not be needed at all, only their sex gametes will need to be extracted.
Nevertheless, there is still a huge genealogy. If you've ever read Hakuin, you'll know of all the monks in the Zen koans, and the lists of Dharma fathers. There were also many Hindu sages, from as far back as 4000 B.C. responsible for the Vedic literature, like the Bhagavad-Gita.
The problem I see with eastern philosophy is that it strips the mind, and leaves it with nothing other than a value of wisdom, which is often preached here. To me, this is incomplete. Life/reality are complicated, and even if one becomes wise, there is still the problem of how to live ones life. Moreover, if you simply value wisdom, and wisdom alone, then these individuals end up retreating into a temple, becoming a monk, being isolated, denouncing civilization and trying to teach from afar. However, it takes just as much courage to stay within civilization, and try to improve it through empirical means, and through the promotion of wisdom. That is why the western tradition has proved to be more pragmatic to civilization and the technological advancement of the species, it encourages logic, but also how to solve practical problems within society, and that is why the western tradition gave birth to most scientific principles we use today, invention, technology and modern democracy. And the Asian nations such as China, India and so on are now trying to play catchup, and are left with huge problems that were never properly addressed. To me, a long history of eastern philosophy is partly to blame, it made the culture as a whole far too passive, which allowed dictators and colonization to take control and keep control .
Notice too, that most sages would not have bred. Yet sages still appeared. What does that make of the argument for genetics, eh?
As I have stated, a male only gives half of his genetic information, and the female the other half, and these chromosomes combine randomly making some traits recessive and some dominant. That is why a son is like the father in some ways, and like the mother in other ways. We need to understand what factors largely determine an intellectual, and control the combination of chromosomes making it less random, and open to variation. Variation will still exist, but if you can control the variation that predicates an intellectual, and everything else such as face symmetry and hair colour are superficial anyway.

Nick,
Personally I think that if the public school system made logic, philosophy, and compassion a part of the core curriculum alongside language, math, science, and social studies we would churn out a much higher number of individuals who show great interest in those things you mentioned.
I doubt it, children show very unique hardwired interests from a young age, and are incapable of learning things that are over their heads. I have had two young males in my life. One is a born intellectual, and the other is not. And there is no changing that, it is hardwired. One shows a curious interest in science, nature and the universe, and the other blocks it out. Couldn’t care less, he is too busy trying to show off and impress the local girls. He will be a successful alpha male probably, but there isn’t an ounce of intellectual curiosity in him, and no matter how hard I have tried, and how I will try into the future, my suspicion is that all my attempts will be futile.
Still, most people are never really exposed to what proper thinking at it's core truly is, and if they were it would likely override any genetic predispositions. That's not to say that every single person would end up becoming a perfect Buddha, but we would surely have a much more thoughtful, compassionate, and wiser human race.
You are very optimistic, I am far less when comes to using the educational apparatus to produce wise intellectuals. Only because I have attempted to try to work with children, I have volunteered, worked with many children, children who even looked up to me, and attempted to teach them basic logic, and my attempts failed. The problem is that the brain structure of these children cannot even handle the information coming in, they cannot process it, cannot fathom it. It is like trying to run windows 7 on a Pentium 2 machine.
I was once heading down the road to be a teacher in the public school system, and my direction changed upon volunteer work with children. I was even accepted into a local Bachelor of Education program, but I realized that all my efforts would be futile. A waste of my time. I would end up being a babysitter, a referee. If schools were segregated with intellectual kids on one class, and the average ones, and misfits in another, then I would have considered teaching the exceptional ones, but the educational system will probably never do anything like that, because no parent wants to accept the fact that their child maybe average or even below average. Parents need their delusions.
Dennis Mahar
Posts: 4082
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Dennis Mahar »

Calling Einstein's work marginal is ridiculous. Theoretical phycisists have been trying to prove his theories wrong for decades now, and have continuously failed to do so. That is why he is still revered as a genius.

That you keep trying to transfer blame to him about the A-bomb is beyond absurd. Some men are simply incapable of resolving their conflicts through rational means and have to resort to animalistic violence, you fail to address this point.
That tells me you haven't read what I wrote.

Einstein is only a weapon you think is unbeatable in a fight over Weininger. That's your only concern....If it's a viable weapon or not...
It's a shame.
this comportment as an atmosphere of war.
Any other possibilities?
Carmel

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Carmel »

Dennis:

Einstein is only a weapon you think is unbeatable in a fight over Weininger. That's your only concern....If it's a viable weapon or not...
It's a shame.
this comportment as an atmosphere of war.
Any other possibilities?

Carmel:

Look in the mirror, Dennis. Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy in this? You dropped the first bomb by attacking Einstein for no good reason. It's clear to me that you had an ulterior motive in doing so, as your attacks upon him were clearly unfounded.

What a pity that you feel the need to defile the name of one of the greatest genius who ever existed for petty, personal reasons.
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by Nick »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:
Personally I think that if the public school system made logic, philosophy, and compassion a part of the core curriculum alongside language, math, science, and social studies we would churn out a much higher number of individuals who show great interest in those things you mentioned.
I doubt it, children show very unique hardwired interests from a young age, and are incapable of learning things that are over their heads. I have had two young males in my life. One is a born intellectual, and the other is not. And there is no changing that, it is hardwired. One shows a curious interest in science, nature and the universe, and the other blocks it out. Couldn’t care less, he is too busy trying to show off and impress the local girls. He will be a successful alpha male probably, but there isn’t an ounce of intellectual curiosity in him, and no matter how hard I have tried, and how I will try into the future, my suspicion is that all my attempts will be futile.
I wonder if there is a difference in their family environment. Like, maybe one kid's parents buy him intellectually stimulating books, keep him on a good diet, and has a supportive family that pays him enough attention so that he doesn't have to seek it elsewhere... and maybe the other kid's parents just sit the kid in front of the television all day where he plays fist person shooter video games and watches professional wrestling, gets fed pop and chips as a meal, and has alcoholic parents that ignore him when he wants to show them how he put a puzzle together.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:
Still, most people are never really exposed to what proper thinking at it's core truly is, and if they were it would likely override any genetic predispositions. That's not to say that every single person would end up becoming a perfect Buddha, but we would surely have a much more thoughtful, compassionate, and wiser human race.
You are very optimistic, I am far less when comes to using the educational apparatus to produce wise intellectuals. Only because I have attempted to try to work with children, I have volunteered, worked with many children, children who even looked up to me, and attempted to teach them basic logic, and my attempts failed. The problem is that the brain structure of these children cannot even handle the information coming in, they cannot process it, cannot fathom it. It is like trying to run windows 7 on a Pentium 2 machine.
Well it certainly wouldn't hurt to add those things to the school's curriculum would it?
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Underrated Scientists/Philosophers.

Post by David Quinn »

Carmel wrote:David:

In many ways, the reaction Weininger engenders interests me more than his actual writing itself.

Carmel:

Likewise, to be sure. The undeserved reverence that some people seem to exhibit toward the marginal Weininger is really quite bizarre. Watching you and Kelly trying to "downplay" his bigotry is really pretty amusing.

Weininger is judged harshly by the world at large due to his bigotry. You don't really think he should get a free pass in that regard, do you? It's only natural for his critics to examine his psychological motivations when assessing him.

That's fine. But I still don't see any bigotry in Weininger. I have no idea what you mean by that. You may not agree with his views, but that alone doesn't make him a bigot.

So far the only bigotry I see in this thread is coming from you, Carmel.

Whether he was schizophrenic or not, is not really of any concern to me, except that it might explain some of his bizarre ramblings. His possible homosexuality is of relevance because it is may be a large contributing factor to his views on women and men. I rather think it is, in fact...I can certainly expound on this if you'd like, but I'd be a little surprised if you didn't already know what I mean by this.
I don't know if he was a homosexual or not, but I don't see how that is relevent to his work - which was largely abstract nature, consisting of logical explorations and thought-experiments.

It seems to me that you simply don't like him and to justify this dislike in your mind you have to think of him as being ill, diseased, deformed, bigoted, etc. It's not unlike how dissenters in the past were labelled "heathens"....

-
Locked