![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 20 of 20. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Toph on December 8, 2005, at 9:23:35
Of course it is not possible, but it seems that Einstein was thinking of the current administration's handling of the invasion of Iraq when he said:
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
-Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel laureate (1879-1955)
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 8, 2005, at 16:59:27
In reply to War, posted by Toph on December 8, 2005, at 9:23:35
It's an excellent quote.
I couldn't help but wonder why he thought other people should be able to overcome that tendency to violence, when he himself obviously couldn't when abusing his wife.
I do realize that's not the point of your post,
I agree with that completely!
It just seems ironic coming from Al..
Posted by zeugma on December 8, 2005, at 17:36:46
In reply to Re: War » Toph, posted by Gabbix2 on December 8, 2005, at 16:59:27
> It's an excellent quote.
>
> I couldn't help but wonder why he thought other people should be able to overcome that tendency to violence, when he himself obviously couldn't when abusing his wife.
>
> I do realize that's not the point of your post,
> I agree with that completely!
> It just seems ironic coming from Al..thank you for letting me know we could have it worse these days. It's a good thing we have Dick Cheney as Vice President instead of Albert Einstein. No irony from him. Or from me.
-z
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 8, 2005, at 17:51:19
In reply to Re: War » Gabbix2, posted by zeugma on December 8, 2005, at 17:36:46
> thank you for letting me know we could have it worse these days. It's a good thing we have Dick Cheney as Vice President instead of Albert Einstein. No irony from him. Or from me.
>
> -zI understand..
Good ol' al
"Humanist"
"Pantheist"
Plagiarist
Misogynist..
Posted by zeugma on December 8, 2005, at 17:58:37
In reply to Re: War » zeugma, posted by Gabbix2 on December 8, 2005, at 17:51:19
who did he plagiarize from?
-z
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 8, 2005, at 18:31:01
In reply to Re: War » Gabbix2, posted by zeugma on December 8, 2005, at 17:58:37
Most notably there is documentation to support that he plagiarized the work of scientists and scholars Jules Henri Poincaré, Leo Corry, and Juergen Renn. However there is also substantial questioning (as opposed to the inevitable famous-person rumors) as to whether his first wife Mileva Maric (the one he beat)had written things he had taken credit for.
Posted by zeugma on December 8, 2005, at 18:43:21
In reply to Re: War » zeugma, posted by Gabbix2 on December 8, 2005, at 18:31:01
> Most notably there is documentation to support that he plagiarized the work of scientists and scholars Jules Henri Poincaré, Leo Corry, and Juergen Renn. However there is also substantial questioning (as opposed to the inevitable famous-person rumors) as to whether his first wife Mileva Maric (the one he beat)had written things he had taken credit for. >>
maybe they should rename einsteinium maricium.
it has a nice ring.
now what is the story with the curies?
i am curious (if you'll forgive the atrocious pun).
-z
Posted by verne on December 8, 2005, at 19:20:00
In reply to Re: War » Gabbix2, posted by zeugma on December 8, 2005, at 17:36:46
I didn't know that Einstein abused his wife. Was he German or Swiss?
When I was in my early twenties I lived and worked all over Germany, sometimes living with families for months at a time. (great way to learn German) It was real culture shock.
For example: Noone in the family sits down to eat until the father sits down. When the father is through eating, everyone is through eating.
The wife must constantly attend to her husband's meal, anticipating his every need. Once I saw him scold her for not realizing he wanted another piece of toast, although he hadn't indicated he wanted any. She was supposed to know.
Most of the time, this played out in silence with stern looks. Ideally the man doesn't want to say anything to the wife and the whole thing runs like clockwork. If he has to actually say something, she has failed badly.
I remember how they would freak out when I instinctively cleared my own table and offered to help with the dishes. If I so much as took my cup into the kitchen I had broken the rules.
Most of them thought I was gay or a mental case. I'm not gay but I probably had more gay friends than straight friends when I was younger and still socializing. And I guess I am a mental case so they weren't far off.
Sorry about the rambling.
Verne
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 8, 2005, at 19:23:43
In reply to Re: War, posted by zeugma on December 8, 2005, at 18:43:21
> >
> it has a nice ring.
>
> now what is the story with the curies?
>
> i am curious (if you'll forgive the atrocious pun).
>
maybe they should rename einsteinium maricium.
That was very funny, and made me laugh..loudly and in an *very* unladylike way..Not quite sure of the details on the Curies'
I know it was a similar situation, (if the other is in fact true, and well I can't see any reason to not believe it, all things considered)
I think he took credit for her discovery of Uranium.. but it's fuzzy.
Oh this is going to be redirected. Now I'm curious(Hey, I did that unintentionally how could you NOT make that pun?)I feel I should know this I'm going to find out, and I'll post about it on Social.
>
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 8, 2005, at 19:34:27
In reply to Re: War » zeugma, posted by Gabbix2 on December 8, 2005, at 19:23:43
That should have said "Radium" not Uranium..
I need coffee..
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 8, 2005, at 20:53:35
In reply to Einstein's Culture, posted by verne on December 8, 2005, at 19:20:00
> I didn't know that Einstein abused his wife. Was he German or Swiss?
>He was German, Ulm, or Uln I think.
>
> For example: Noone in the family sits down to eat until the father sits down. When the father is through eating, everyone is through eating.
>> Most of them thought I was gay or a mental case. I'm not gay but I probably had more gay friends than straight friends when I was younger and still socializing. And I guess I am a mental case so they weren't far off.
>Well, uh, that sort of underscores the frequently arbitrary labelling of mental illness don't you think?
Yeah, they were fine, it was the way things are done in their culture, but YOU however are a "mental case"
Move somewhere where people think like you do, (in more significant ways than washing your own dishes, I mean) and you'll be CURED..Anyway, yeah Einstein was brought up in that culture, but he didn't seem to have a problem loudly denouncing it. He called himself a humanist, and a Pantheist, not likely anything he was brought up with : ) but somehow he still had that wife-beating problem..
Oh well everyone has their vice :[
>
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by zeugma on December 9, 2005, at 5:39:20
In reply to Duh.. Gabbi, posted by Gabbix2 on December 8, 2005, at 19:34:27
> That should have said "Radium" not Uranium..
>
> I need coffee..>>yeah, i knew something was wrong there with uranium, but i have been too hung up on the transuranic elements lately. i need coffee too, but my stomach feels positively radioactive now. and like an idiot i'm eating chocolate as if that will calm it down. anyway, unfortunate that even genius is no excuse. werner heisenberg had some affiliation with the Nazi party. martin heidegger praised National Socialism until the Party told him it needed less Dasein and more ditch diggers- then he started grousing- venial, infantile.
Wittgenstein is my favorite genius, and he was pretty weird and not an exemplary character. He was fired from a kindergarten job because of his fondness for corporal punishment for little boys who didn't learn their times tables fast enough. He also threatened to shove a red hot poker up Karl Popper's *ss during an argument about scientific method. Well, he has my sympathies there. (about Popper not his teaching methods) [I am very politically incorrect I know.]
i do respect wittgenstein for his utter lack of sanctimoniousness. He is the exact opposite of heidegger in temperament. Heidegger thought he was the intellectual foundation of the Volk and thought he was above getting his hands dirty in its name. Wittgenstein thought philosophy was a lot of crap and actually did want to dig ditches.
Maybe david Hume was the only philosopher who wasn't a jerk.
-z
>
Posted by caraher on December 9, 2005, at 10:05:16
In reply to Re: Duh.. Gabbi » Gabbix2, posted by zeugma on December 9, 2005, at 5:39:20
> Maybe david Hume was the only philosopher who wasn't a jerk.
Didn't Hume prefer to think of himself as a historian rather than a philosopher? At any rate, I seem to recall that his greatest lasting fame was not in the area he considered his forte.
Which might explain your observation...
Posted by zeugma on December 9, 2005, at 16:33:40
In reply to Re: Duh.. Gabbi, posted by caraher on December 9, 2005, at 10:05:16
> > Maybe david Hume was the only philosopher who wasn't a jerk.
>
> Didn't Hume prefer to think of himself as a historian rather than a philosopher? At any rate, I seem to recall that his greatest lasting fame was not in the area he considered his forte.>>Hume did write a History of England, but as far as I can recall, he did this because there was a paycheck attached, and his philosophical masterwork, "A Treatise of Human Nature", "fell dead-born from the press" (i.e. didn't sell a lick).
His fame (as I understand it) is as a critic of metaphysical systems, who woke Immanuel Kant from his "dogmatic slumbers", and who scandalized Scotland so greatly that they established a "Common-Sense" school of philosophy (which itself produced some notable works).
One sign of non-jerkhood, as I understand it, is that when asked to add an autobiography to his philosophical essays (which did sell modestly, and are considered important contributions to political philosophy, ethics, and aesthetics) it was all of two pages.
-z
>
> Which might explain your observation...
Posted by Gabbix2 on December 9, 2005, at 19:22:14
In reply to Re: Duh.. Gabbi » caraher, posted by zeugma on December 9, 2005, at 16:33:40
you guys can stop using that subject heading any time now : )
Posted by zeugma on December 10, 2005, at 5:59:01
In reply to Umm, You know.... » zeugma, posted by Gabbix2 on December 9, 2005, at 19:22:14
ok, i can see why continuing a thread with your name appended to that reverberating monosyllable is not the most conducive to the deep notions examined herein.
i think, to return to an original misogyny element in the thread, that if Valerie Plame had been a man, and a stereotypical 'spy' like some James Bond-like character (duh!)the reaction to the outing of an undercover CIA agent would have been one of alarm and outrage that the national security was compromised rather than one of near-indifference since "she wasn't really undercover anyway"?
What? Just because the CIA isn't divulging the details of her role and she had an excellent cover identity 'hiding in plain sight' as they say, married to an aboveground CIA affiliate and and ambassador, doesn't mean that she wasn't undercover or say anything about her potential role in the intelligence field. A good spy is one who seems least likely to be one, after all. Duh.
-z
Posted by lil' jimi on December 11, 2005, at 1:35:30
In reply to War, posted by Toph on December 8, 2005, at 9:23:35
hi Toph,
you writes us:
> Of course it is not possible, but it seems that Einstein was thinking of the current administration's handling of the invasion of Iraq when he said:
>
> We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
> -Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel laureate (1879-1955)while not seeking to ignore the misogyny and plagiarisms of the quoted physicist, we may still take his words’ point as your observation on the war in Iraq.
may i offer these insights into the thinking that has been and is still being used in the war in Iraq?
please see:
http://www.alternet.org/story/15860
“From "creative destruction" to "total war," the guiding beliefs of the most aggressive foreign policymakers in the Bush administration may originate in the works of an influential yet rarely seen neoconservative. ... (snip) ... Most Americans have never heard of Michael Ledeen, but if the United States ends up in an extended shooting war throughout the Middle East, it will be largely due to his inspiration.”personally i find professor ledeen’s approach just short of all out hegemonic imperialism.
well maybe not that much short.alternatively, notwithstanding Einstein’s personal crimes, his quotation would seem to seek a rectification that would not succumb to the problems to be rectified.
And that is a contrast to the approach the administration has seemed to be using in Iraq.but Einstein also knew that we used military might to defeat the military might of Nazi germany.
we use speeding police to catch speeders.
and they say fight fire with fire, you know.perhaps there is more to the ironic inconsistencies of Einstein’s advice than his sins as a husband, tragic as they were. There is still that moral consistency in not executing killers. But we justify homicide in self defense.
an alternative quotation might to be “Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you.”
somebody said that.
i don’t know if they beat their wife.then we could argue whether we really would want Iraq to invade us if Saddam was our president ...
but let’s not.
i really like special relativity. and general relativity.
more seriously, i would suggest that we should be alarmed that Ledeen’s thinking has any part in U.S. policy making and i am willing to entertain any arguments that emphasize the folly of such nationalistic hubris.
for instance, see:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Michael_Ledeen
http://www.amconmag.com/06_30_03/feature.html
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/25/214643/42still, i endorse the gist of your proposal: we need different thinking about Iraq.
my suggestion is we replace the thinking by having the policy makers replaced.
they are proven failures.take care,
~ jim
Posted by Toph on December 11, 2005, at 20:14:03
In reply to Re: War (long) » Toph, posted by lil' jimi on December 11, 2005, at 1:35:30
Interesting perspective jim. I can only understand these things simplistically. It seems foolish to me to endeavor to put out a fire by igniting a confligration somewhere else.
Thanks for your input.
Toph
Posted by lil' jimi on December 11, 2005, at 22:54:55
In reply to Re: War » lil' jimi, posted by Toph on December 11, 2005, at 20:14:03
> It seems foolish to me to endeavor to put out a fire by igniting a confligration somewhere else.
> Thanks for your input.
> Tophi think your point is very well taken.
~ jim
Posted by tealady on January 29, 2006, at 17:06:47
In reply to Re: War » Toph, posted by Gabbix2 on December 8, 2005, at 16:59:27
>
IMO Einstein's greatest mistake was in thinking the US govt would act any better than Hitler when it came to having the power of a nuclear weapon at its disposal.From memory of what I saw on TV only, he signed a letter to the President about the technology that could be developed and the power of the destruction possible.. In doing so he knew the weight of his name would give the necessary credence to the technology to encourage its development. The science behind the technology was up til that point being ignored.
In doing so , IMO, he made one of the biggest mistakes in his life.
He thought the US govt and military would be more responsible than Hitler and not use it, but in having the power of the weapon, it would have an effective deterrent against Hitler.
He thought Hitler might have actually used the weapon and not only its threat as Hitler no longer appeared to many (including people I have spoken to who voted for him)to be acting completely rationally (can I say this or is expressing my view not being sensitive of the feelings of others?).. but that in itself is debatable.Unfortunately he made a dreadful mistake in placing his faith in the US, as did many other of the scientists working on the project and they all regretted it.. though not nearly as much as those of Japan and the Marshall Islands and others who even today are still affected ..and will be for long in the future , maybe forever.
I'll stop now.. it sure appears to me that on this board you cannot have a reasonable discussion and express your thoughts..all that appears to be allowed is FOR side of the debate.. not the AGAINST side? You can approve and give compliments, but not say anything negative?
Politics does evoke powerful emotions, as you think of the effect it has on sooo many people, their environment and their future as well as their lives and deaths, injuries....
I think its extremely unfortunate that it appears (at least to me), that many in the US, including their govt and military have never really seen close up the effects of their policies and maybe have no real comprehension of how long lasting ,devastating, and far reaching they are.
More so they ever before in the history of this world.
Discussions like this sure ain't going to make any diff!Declan and TJ.. I agree with you guys (hey agreement is not negative, right?)
I can think one only one thing complimentary to say about the US govt... and that's the freedom of speech that the US has, including its internet sites. Don't lose it:-)
Jan
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.