That’s a very detailed explanation, as a scientist as much as I knew about him I didn’t know that much.
Although I do wonder why it would matter.
I mean by that, although a great scientist, politics is not is area of expertise. So I wouldn’t put that much importance in his opinions.
Not that you can’t be curious, but valuing it for his fame is a known bias we should avoid.
It’s especially true for intelligence. We tend to put it on a pedestal like it’s what made Einstein, or anyone, be successful. When it’s only a part.
I’d say intelligence is like a good soil, there is still so much labor to make it into food. Einstein did the work in physics but on any other matter your still just eating dirt.
As a general rule I think it’s best to take ideas on their own internal merit without attaching yourself too strongly to particular figures. People are fickle but a well founded idea can transcend its author.
That doesn’t mean you should esteem someone for having one good thought or withhold your contempt of their general character though.
Einstein directly asks and answers your question in the very first lines of Why Socialism?
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.
He then goes on to make his case, then builds up why he believes Socialism is necessary. I agree that intelligence is multi-faceted and doesn’t necessarily imply “spill-over,” but that’s not what’s going on here.
Likewise, there are many things I clearly disagree with Einstein on politically and socially, such as his view of Chinese people and support for Zionism. I also am more sympathetic to the Soviet Union than he was. However, his position as an intellectual that came to understand the necessity of Socialism without dedicating himself to its study serves to highlight for those who think Socialism outlandish that it isn’t unreasonable at all, and the case he makes is largely on the nose.
This interview with Noam Chomsky explains why we should listen to intellectuals when they speak of matters that are not necessarily in their field of expertise:
Some years ago, for example, I did some work in mathematical linguistics and automata theory, and occasionally gave invited lectures at mathematics or engineering colloquia. No one would have dreamed of challenging my credentials to speak on these topics – which were zero, as everyone knew; that would have been laughable. The participants were concerned with what I had to say, not my right to say it. But when I speak, say, about international affairs, I’m constantly challenged to present the credentials that authorize me to enter this august arena, in the United States, at least – elsewhere not.
Anyone can give their opinions on football teams, movies, recipes for cooking. But, for some reason you have to be an expert to talk about economics or politics. The reason- those discussions challenge the accepted power structures of authority. So, those discussions are guarded, and any challenge dismissed.
It’s a valid point. But if you want to juge the ideas of anyone I think you also need to educate yourself to a degree.
I do think discussion/debate are a good way to learn though. Although a good debate must be anchored in reality, established knowledge and studies…
In the end I think it comes to what are you gonna trust or challenge. In learning I don’t think you can only rely on one, you need a healthy balance.
(I’d say the more you know the easier it is to challenge more often. A new student might trust his teacher often while researchers might always challenge their peers.)
And I don’t think that apply only to economics or politics, although entertainments might be taken less seriously.
Alternatively I believe in politics there is also a part that’s subjective, depending on your values and culture.
Chomsky is right here, but it’s also worth noting that even “experts” can be either minimized or magnified depending on their usefulness to the Capitalist system. Chomsky himself has a fair amount of skeletons in his closet.
I think Gabriel Rockhill would consider Chomsky as part of the compatible left. It’s essential to separate the ideas from the person. I tend not to expect too much from libertarian socialists like Chomsky, and they rarely disappoint me. He can be a resource for early radicalization and dissident thought though.
I agree, I just think that with figures you describe as the “compatible left,” they need to be taken with consideration as to their broader views and roles. Disclaimers are handy, such as Paul Cockshott, whose work on economic planning under Socialism is valuable, yet TERF extremism and transphobia is actively harmful.
Nobody is perfect, of course, but some people’s works need to be examined from a critical lense to separate the good from the bad more than others.
That’s a very detailed explanation, as a scientist as much as I knew about him I didn’t know that much.
Although I do wonder why it would matter.
I mean by that, although a great scientist, politics is not is area of expertise. So I wouldn’t put that much importance in his opinions.
Not that you can’t be curious, but valuing it for his fame is a known bias we should avoid.
It’s especially true for intelligence. We tend to put it on a pedestal like it’s what made Einstein, or anyone, be successful. When it’s only a part.
I’d say intelligence is like a good soil, there is still so much labor to make it into food. Einstein did the work in physics but on any other matter your still just eating dirt.
As a general rule I think it’s best to take ideas on their own internal merit without attaching yourself too strongly to particular figures. People are fickle but a well founded idea can transcend its author.
That doesn’t mean you should esteem someone for having one good thought or withhold your contempt of their general character though.
Einstein directly asks and answers your question in the very first lines of Why Socialism?
He then goes on to make his case, then builds up why he believes Socialism is necessary. I agree that intelligence is multi-faceted and doesn’t necessarily imply “spill-over,” but that’s not what’s going on here.
Likewise, there are many things I clearly disagree with Einstein on politically and socially, such as his view of Chinese people and support for Zionism. I also am more sympathetic to the Soviet Union than he was. However, his position as an intellectual that came to understand the necessity of Socialism without dedicating himself to its study serves to highlight for those who think Socialism outlandish that it isn’t unreasonable at all, and the case he makes is largely on the nose.
I recommend reading it yourself.
Interesting, well I do have a lot to read on the subject but i’ll add it to my list, I might be pleasantly surprised.
This interview with Noam Chomsky explains why we should listen to intellectuals when they speak of matters that are not necessarily in their field of expertise:
Anyone can give their opinions on football teams, movies, recipes for cooking. But, for some reason you have to be an expert to talk about economics or politics. The reason- those discussions challenge the accepted power structures of authority. So, those discussions are guarded, and any challenge dismissed.
It’s a valid point. But if you want to juge the ideas of anyone I think you also need to educate yourself to a degree.
I do think discussion/debate are a good way to learn though. Although a good debate must be anchored in reality, established knowledge and studies…
In the end I think it comes to what are you gonna trust or challenge. In learning I don’t think you can only rely on one, you need a healthy balance.
(I’d say the more you know the easier it is to challenge more often. A new student might trust his teacher often while researchers might always challenge their peers.)
And I don’t think that apply only to economics or politics, although entertainments might be taken less seriously.
Alternatively I believe in politics there is also a part that’s subjective, depending on your values and culture.
Chomsky is right here, but it’s also worth noting that even “experts” can be either minimized or magnified depending on their usefulness to the Capitalist system. Chomsky himself has a fair amount of skeletons in his closet.
I think Gabriel Rockhill would consider Chomsky as part of the compatible left. It’s essential to separate the ideas from the person. I tend not to expect too much from libertarian socialists like Chomsky, and they rarely disappoint me. He can be a resource for early radicalization and dissident thought though.
I agree, I just think that with figures you describe as the “compatible left,” they need to be taken with consideration as to their broader views and roles. Disclaimers are handy, such as Paul Cockshott, whose work on economic planning under Socialism is valuable, yet TERF extremism and transphobia is actively harmful.
Nobody is perfect, of course, but some people’s works need to be examined from a critical lense to separate the good from the bad more than others.