No, sir, the problem is... where did I ever say that Einstein was a Vendatist? I never stated such thing, nor did I edit myself saying such a thing; from the beginning my post's have been about Einstein, Spinoza, and Schopenhauer.
Try again. We aren't talking about who said Einstein was a vedantist, that is the OP's statement. You are trying to divert attention away from the issue. What I'm asking here is, if you already know what Pantheism is and who Spinoza was, then why did you see it fit to correct my statement that Einstein was a Pantheist and a follower of Spinoza, with the bold, underlined response you made to me below? Boats: "....Einstein was a SPINOZIST! And was heavy into Schopenhaurian monism (and philosophy)..." As this was exactly what I said, what was your problem? MelT
Why do you take this so personally? I never said that you were wrong for saying that Einstein was a pantheist (although, again, Spinoza wasn't in the sense Einstein thought he was; Einstein was a materialist, Spinoza wasn't). I'm saying that Einstein's philosophical base for his science holds no real water - in philosophy; and as pp has touched on, a man's science and beliefs pertainting to truth and reality are inextricably linked to said person's philosophical world-view.
Try again. I never said that you were wrong for saying that Einstein was a pantheist So why correct me in large bold and tell me instead that he was a follower of Spinoza? MelT Edit: Just to help jog your memory: MelT, on 12 Jan 2014 - 10:08 AM, said: ...And without reading the rest of my post you countered with: Boats: "....Einstein was a SPINOZIST! And was heavy into Schopenhaurian monism (and philosophy)..."
He was a pantheist BECAUSE of Spinoza (hence, you said Einstein was a pantheist, and so I emphatically replied, he was a Spinozist, meaning, Einstein's "pantheism" is rooted in Spinoza's philosophy); and so, I'm saying, again and again, Einstein's interpretion of Spinoza and Scopenhauer's monism leading to Einstein's triple M science is fallacious (and by triple M science I mean... a Materialistic, Mechanical, and Mathematical science). Most believe Spinoza was a pantheist, rather, he was panentheist, but I was not originally pointing that out when replying to you.
Ahaha His "feats were mathematical", no..no not at all. as i already said he was comparatively weak at math. He was no mathematician. He "feats" were through his mind, it was his thoughts and intuition that had him pegged as a genius and contributed most to his accomplishments, his remarkable ability at philosophy is easily seen in his many many quotes and via his "feats" in pure thought. I seriously think you don't know what philosophy is, it's not logical arguments from 382b.c. lol Mine was not opinion in the same sense as your rant.
His accomplishments and feats were within the domain of mathematics,,, how else did Einstein come into populararity other than through his theory propunded in a mathematical language and format (do you honestly not know this)? And, again, philosophically, neither was Einstein a genius, or salient, nor even original. Einstein did not invent the idea or theory of relativity in philosophy (he simply found a way to express such a notion through MATHEMATICS); so, check Protagoras (2400 BC), Berkeley, and, Kant who posited that time-and-space are the apriori conditions for a (relative) perceiver's sensible intuition of empirical reality and objects. So, where do you think Einstein got his notion of relativity from in the first place? lol, From "pure thought", really? No, but from the two German metaphysical heavyweights -- Kant and Schopenhauer. Thus, Einstein happily converted Kant's and Scopenhauer's relativism into mathematical language (Einstein plagiarized Kant's and Schopenhuaer's ideas like he stole and copied others ideas' when working at his post at the patent office in Switzerland); hence, Einstein's recognition is within the domain of mathematics, and not philosophy (for, Einstein was in no way an innovative philosopher, let alone an actual philosopher). "I seriously think you don't know what philosophy is" -- Again, what you say or think does not matter, nor does anyone care.
Thats nice and flowery and all, but obviously words have meaning to you or youd have no way to be interacting with us through the internet. There is certainly balance in the world, and in lots of different ways. Again, nice and flowery, but obviously meaningless. For example, weight on a scale. A flat surface being measured with a level. The right ratio of X to X to maintain a certain balanced state. And really, if something is crap you dont understand it? I think fox news its pretty shitty, and i certainly understand what theyre saying. I do agree that right and wrong is a matter of moral stance though, but with those other examples....idk. i really mean no offense, but it seems like you try to talk above peoples heads but dont actually say anything of substance.
When I say that words cease to have meaning, it's because the state of meditation I enter provides all answers, but to filter it into words is almost impossible. Words become meaningless without their abiity to convey such a sublime and fundamental truth as revealed to me through my spiritual practice. The idea is that the balanced state itself is life, it is form. When something goes out of balance, other forms emerge. None are better or worse in a sense, but some might enable an increase of either 1 or 2 things. One being balance as a whole, meaning communication with a smaller degree of error. The second being an increase of the expression of creative potential. The universe is constantly working in that direction. Now instead of finding the perfect "velocity", one must find the perfect "acceleration". That is the path. I don't know how else to describ it, but this should explain well to those who understand the concept of time is illusory in regards to creative, imagination, for in the imagination, time is no factor. Also, fox news can also give you understanding. You may learn that it is biased in a certain direction, and then you can wonder uon why it is biased, and what it's agenda might be. All roads lead to knowledge, but only if you wish to travel them. The truest consumption of knowledge should be guided by the aspiration simply for knowledge and nothing else.
Actually it was James Maxwell who who formulated the mathematics behind EM, Lorentz furthered this with a bit of advancing thought, and mathematics. It was Einstein who put it all together and made sense of it given the proofs. Minkowski took it even further and suggested spacetime. wow do you ever have the facts wrong. The "mathematics" can be as simple as pythagorean's theorem for a large and (most) significant part of SR. That math was formulated in 600bc. that said SR is about logic, all you need are the two axioms/postulates and the rest falls into place.
No, that isn't what you said, or a reason for you to correct my statement that he was a Pantheist. As an excuse it ranks about zero. Why don't you just do the honorable thing and say that you were wrong because you simply hadn't read my post? MelT