← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Juan Raymondo Cortez
Thread ID: 1400 | Posts: 36 | Started: 2002-06-23
2002-06-23 22:25 | User Profile
On another thread I argued that there were many Jews in 20th-century physics because Jews (and other non-Europeans) are essentially middlemen, and modern physics simple seized upon the genius insights of earlier mathematicians and applied them to natural phenomena/problems. E.g., Einstein's Theory of Relativity is simply the re-ordering of the mathematics of Reimann. Reimann thought this stuff up right out of his head. Einstein learned it, saw a physics use for it, and today Einstein is a "genius" and Reimann in unknown. And now that AntiYuppie set me straight about genius Werner Heisenberg not being Jewish, my case is even stronger.
So, if it is the mathematics that is a measure of the genius or power of the intellect, let us compare the two groups, Jew and Gentile.
Jewish mathematicians from Jewhoo!:
Max Abraham Jacob Ben Tibbon Stefan Bergman Felix Bernstein Jane S. Birman Solomon Bochner Jacob Bronowski Georg Cantor (half-Jew) Paul Erdos Rabbi Levi Ben Gershon Marcel Grossman Louise Hay Abraham bar Hiyya Ernst Ising Karl Gustav Jacobi John Kemeny Emanuel Lasker Edna Kramer Lassar Benoit Mandelbroit Herman Minkowski Emile Noether Max Noether George Polya Marina Ratner
Gentile mathematicians from JR Cortez:
Euclid (Ancient Greek) Pythagoras (Ancient Greek) Pierre de Fermat (French, 1601-1665) Jean B. Joseph Fourier (1768-1830) Gottfired W. Leibniz (1646-1716) Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Adrien-Marie Legendre (1752-1823) Georg F. Bernhard Reimann (1826-1866) Joseph Liouville (1809-1882) Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749-1827) Evariste Galois (1811-1832) Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777-1855) Brook Taylor (1685-1731) George Stokes (1819-1903) Joseph-Louis Lagrange (1736-1813) Jacques Charles F. Sturm (1803-1855) Rene Descartes (1596-1650) George Boole (1815-1864)
Sample list of mathematics courses currently taught in the mathematics dept. at M.I.T. (mathematicians listed in my Gentile group are in bold-- nb: there were no names from the Jewish mathematicians list mentioned in these MIT courses, so no need to highlight):
18.03 Differential Equations ÃÂ ÃÂ (,ÃÂ ,ÃÂ ) Prereq.: 18.02 or equivalent or 18.014 Units: 5-0-7 Credit cannot also be received for 18.034 URL: [url=http://web.mit.edu/18.03/]http://web.mit.edu/18.03/[/url] ÃÂ ÃÂ REC SCHEDULED REGISTRATION DAY Lecture: MWF12 (54-100) or MWF1 (54-100) +final Study of ordinary differential equations, including modeling of physical problems and interpretation of their solutions. Standard solution methods for single first-order equations, including graphical and numerical methods. Higher-order forced linear equations with constant coefficients. Complex numbers and exponentials. Matrix methods for first-order linear systems with constant coefficients. Non-linear autonomous systems; phase plane analysis. Fourier series; Laplace transforms.
18.075 Advanced Calculus for Engineers ÃÂ ÃÂ (, , ) except II, VI, VIII, XII, XIII, XVI, XVIII, XXII Prereq.: 18.03 Units: 3-0-9 Credit cannot also be received for 18.04 URL: [url=http://www-math.mit.edu/~dstefan/18.075/]http://www-math.mit.edu/~dstefan/18.075/[/url] ÃÂ ÃÂ Lecture: MWF12 (2-102) +final Functions of a complex variable; calculus of residues. Ordinary differential equations; Bessel and Legendre functions; Sturm-Liouville theory; partial differential equations.
18.085 Mathematical Methods for Engineers I ÃÂ ÃÂ (,ÃÂ ,ÃÂ ) Prereq.: 18.03 or 18.034 Units: 3-0-9 URL: [url=http://math.mit.edu/18085]http://math.mit.edu/18085[/url] ÃÂ Lecture: MWF11 (2-190) Review of linear algebra, applications to networks, structures, and estimation, Lagrange multipliers, differential equations of equilibrium, Laplace's equation and potential flow, boundary-value problems, minimum principles and calculus of variations, Fourier series, discrete Fourier transform, convolution, applications.
18.086 Mathematical Methods for Engineers II ÃÂ ÃÂ () Prereq.: 18.03 or 18.034 Units: 3-0-9 Scientific computing: Fast Fourier Transform, finite differences, finite elements, spectral method, numerical linear algebra. Complex variables and applications. Initial-value problems: stability or chaos in ordinary differential equations, wave equation versus heat equation, conservation laws and shocks, dissipation and dispersion. Optimization: network flows, linear programming. Includes one computational project.
18.100 Analysis I ÃÂ ÃÂ (, ) except XVIII Prereq.: 18.03 or 18.034 Units: 3-0-9 URL: [url=http://math.mit.edu/~apm/18100A.html]http://math.mit.edu/~apm/18100A.html[/url] ÃÂ 18.100A: Lecture: MWF1 (4-159) +final ÃÂ 18.100B: Lecture: MWF11 (4-159) or TR9:30-11 (4-163) or TR1-2:30 (4-153) +final Two options offered, both covering fundamentals of mathematical analysis: convergence of sequences and series, continuity, differentiability, Riemann integral, sequences and series of functions, uniformity, interchange of limit operations. Both options show the utility of abstract concepts and teach understanding and construction of proofs. Option A chooses less abstract definitions and proofs, and gives applications where possible. Option B is more demanding and for students with more mathematical maturity; places more emphasis on point-set topology.
18.101 Analysis II ÃÂ () except XVIII Prereq.: 18.100; 18.700 or 18.701 Units: 3-0-9 URL: [url=http://www-math.mit.edu/~rbm/18.101.html]http://www-math.mit.edu/~rbm/18.101.html[/url] ÃÂ Lecture: TR1-2:30 (2-147) +final Continues 18.100, in the direction of manifolds and global analysis. Differentiable maps, inverse and implicit function theorems, n-dimensional Riemann integral, change of variables in multiple integrals, manifolds, differential forms, n-dimensional version of Stokes' theorem. 18.901 helpful but not required.
18.103 Fourier Analysis -- Theory and Applications ÃÂ () except XVIII Prereq.: 18.100 Units: 3-0-9 Continues 18.100. Roughly half the subject devoted to the theory of the Lebesgue integral with applications to probability, and half to Fourier series and Fourier integrals.
18.116 Riemann Surfaces ÃÂ ÃÂ () Prereq.: 18.112 Units: 3-0-9 Riemann surfaces, uniformization, Riemann-Roch Theorem. Theory of elliptic functions and modular forms. Some applications, such as to number theory.
18.125 Measure and Integration ÃÂ ÃÂ () Prereq.: 18.100 or equivalent Units: 3-0-9 ÃÂ Lecture: MWF10 (2-255) Lebesgue's integration theory with applications to analysis, including an introduction to convolution and the Fourier transform.
18.135 Geometric Analysis ÃÂ ÃÂ () Prereq.: 18.125 Units: 3-0-9 Harmonic analysis in Euclidean space. The Radon transform, its operational properties and its applications to differential equations, particularly the wave equation. The d-plane transform. Non-Euclidean Fourier analysis and potential theory. Eigenfunctions and hyperfunctions.
18.158 Topics in Differential Equations ÃÂ ÃÂ (,ÃÂ ) Prereq.: 18.157 Units: 3-0-9 ÃÂ Lecture: TR1-2:30 (2-255)
Content varies from year to year. Topic for Fall 2002: Geometric scattering theory. Analysis of the Laplacian [Pierre-Simon Laplace] of various complete metrics on non-compact manifolds including asymptotically Euclidean, two- and many-body scattering and asymptotically hyperbolic spaces. Limiting absorption principle, propagation phenomena at infinity, geometric structure of scattering matrices, analytic continuation in the spectral parameter.
2002-06-23 23:07 | User Profile
Cantor, Jacobi and Minkowski are the only ones I've heard about. They are relatively light-weight too.
And speaking of Physics, Quantum Mechanics was advanced by mostly non-Jews. With the exception of Einstein, Jewish physicists were not very original. Feinman is often cited as a great physicist, but Feinman diagrams in QED is the only thing named after him, and that's simply graphic representation of perturbation theory applied to QED interactions.
It seems that "legends in their own minds" kind of Jewish thinkers is the norm. In the US it was Feinman, in the Soviet Union it was Landau.
2002-06-24 00:06 | User Profile
Cantor was ethnically half-Jewish, raised Protestant, but was interested in Catholic theology (specifically, Thomistic/Aquinas). Cantor would regularly correspond with German Dominicans in Rome and even Pope Leo XIII (who, through his Aeterni Patris encycical, started neo-thomism/neo-scholasticism). If he didn't go insane at the end of his life, I think he would've worked on a powerful proof for God's existence based on his transfinitum theory (right before going insane he proclaimed that he had discovered such a proof).
And I'm afraid you are mistaking the craftiness of the Jews for genius. Craftiness has an element of novelty to it, but craftiness requires a pre-existent work, idea, etc., with which to work. E.g., you can't be an embezzler among the poor.
This Jewish craftiness that is most often associated with business, but can be parlayed into other areas (e.g., science). This is not to denigrate the high-level of thought among these Jewish physicists, but there is a difference in kind between Jewish thinkers and gentile thinkers.
2002-06-24 00:16 | User Profile
Juan, I missed a "not" before "original" in my post. If that isn't obvious from my post then I wasn't very lucid :lol:
2002-11-13 23:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by Juan Raymondo Cortez@Jun 23 2002, 18:06 **Cantor was ethnically half-Jewish, raised Protestant, but was interested in Catholic theology (specifically, Thomistic/Aquinas). Cantor would regularly correspond with German Dominicans in Rome and even Pope Leo XIII (who, through his Aeterni Patris encycical, started neo-thomism/neo-scholasticism). If he didn't go insane at the end of his life, I think he would've worked on a powerful proof for God's existence based on his transfinitum theory (right before going insane he proclaimed that he had discovered such a proof).
And I'm afraid you are mistaking the craftiness of the Jews for genius. Craftiness has an element of novelty to it, but craftiness requires a pre-existent work, idea, etc., with which to work. E.g., you can't be an embezzler among the poor.
This Jewish craftiness that is most often associated with business, but can be parlayed into other areas (e.g., science). This is not to denigrate the high-level of thought among these Jewish physicists, but there is a difference in kind between Jewish thinkers and gentile thinkers.**
As with libertarianism, I'm not sure that a proof of God is possible or desireable. I'm content with the Buddhist view that all categorisations are ultimately false, and they have to be for existance to have unity, the unity underlying the conciousness of you and me, and you can call that unity God if you like.
However I have thought of set theory in relation to metaphysical questions. The (oft-assumed but not always) axiom of foundation (in ZFC) is a bit like the question of God's existance. Some people were unhappy with the idea of a set containing itself (or containing itself indirectly through subsets). The axiom of foundation specifically rules this out. The question "Is there a set containing itself" is similar to the question "Is there something which can be everything". Of course there cannot be withing the framework of any logic, as this situation is contradictory, but people intuitively feel that there should be, which is the monistic view. Indeed the monistic view suggests that all logic is false.
2002-11-13 23:55 | User Profile
If we think about the idea of a "proof of god", it would probably involve using some logic other than ZFC (ZFC is a theory in first order logic), defining "God"-hood as some unusual set of properties, and then establishing that a being possessing those properties existed within the universe of discourse. Let's face it. The whole idea stinks. I don't expect that any reputable math journal would ever publish that sort of canard.
2002-11-14 07:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian@Jun 23 2002, 23:07 **Cantor, Jacobi and Minkowski are the only ones I've heard about. They are relatively light-weight too.
And speaking of Physics, Quantum Mechanics was advanced by mostly non-Jews. With the exception of Einstein, Jewish physicists were not very original. Feinman is often cited as a great physicist, but Feinman diagrams in QED is the only thing named after him, and that's simply graphic representation of perturbation theory applied to QED interactions.
It seems that "legends in their own minds" kind of Jewish thinkers is the norm. In the US it was Feinman, in the Soviet Union it was Landau.**
I think that Jews tend to bring a verbal excellence to the table, rather than original insights.
With 2,000 years of genetic selection for Talmudic study behind them, they've been bred for words.
Jewish scientists tended to become famous not for their original insights, but rather as great teachers and popularizers. They had the ability to understand the thoughts of the gentile greats, and they were able to explain these ideas to merely-bright students very efficiently.
Feinman is a good example of this. His students always talked about his ability to seize their minds during a lecture and help them to grasp difficult ideas - and their struggle to attain that understanding later while reviewing their notes. Einstein made his reputation as a teacher, too. And think of all the scientific writers, from Azimov to Sagan. Oppenheimer and Teller were consummate politicians, rather than towering theoreticians. This all tends to prove dazzling Jewish verbal abilities to explain the most difficult concepts clearly, but not attest to their great insights into Nature and Nature's God.
What do you think of my little theory?
Walter
2002-11-14 12:31 | User Profile
It's a wonderful little theory, Walter, but I think you better patent it as "Walter's Theory" if you want to get credit for it because I think I've heard it before. Must be a counterfeit version out there. You are being ripped off-royalty wise.
I'm very surprised that Von Neuman wasn't on that list of jewish mathematicians.
2002-11-14 18:16 | User Profile
You guys know a heck of a lot more about mathematics than I do, but I do recall what one physics major used to say: Einstein formulated at theory, but Max Planck propounded a law.
2002-11-14 22:41 | User Profile
Kurt Godel - Einstein's Office Mate at Princeton
Godel proved the incompleteness theorem almost 70 years previous. Some will argue his was the great scientific or conceptual breakthrough of the past century. [url=http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html]http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html[/url]
A description may be read as below:> ** Kurt Gödel is best known to mathematicians and the general public for his celebrated incompleteness theorems. Physicists also know his famous cosmological model in which time-like lines close back on themselves so that the distance past and the distant future are one and the same. What is less well known is the fact that Gödel has sketched a revised version of Anselm's traditional ontological argument for the existence of God. **
Quite interesting is his proof that there is a God.> **How does a mathematician get mixed up in the God-business? Gödel was a mystic, whose mathematical research exemplified a philosophical stance akin to the Neo-Platonics. In this respect, Gödel had as much in common with the medieval theologians and philosophers as the twentieth-century mathematicians who pioneered the theory of computation and modern computer science. However, a deeper reason for Gödel's contribution to the ontological argument is that the most sophisticated versions of the ontological argument are nowadays written in terms of modal logic, a branch of logic that was familiar to the medieval scholastics, and axiomatized by C. I. Lewis (not to be confused with C. S. Lewis, or C. Day Lewis for that matter). It turns out that modal logic is not only a useful language in which to discuss God, it is also a useful language for proof theory, the study of what can and cannot be proved in mathematical systems of deduction. Issues of completeness of mathematical systems, the independence of axioms from other axioms, and issue of the consistency of formal mathematical systems are all part of proof theory. **
I will maintain discreet silence from this point.
2002-11-14 23:46 | User Profile
I don't know modal logic so I can't really analyse Godel's proof of God. I took a glimpse at his proof, however, and it appears that Godel has gone out and done what I warned against doing. Godel still deserves a great deal of respect for his incompleteness theorems.
2002-11-16 18:57 | User Profile
Herr Sporon
Once again I must state that Godel's proof was regarded by many geniuses as the great intellectual achievement of the 20th century. > I don't know modal logic so I can't really analyse Godel's proof of God. I took a glimpse at his proof, however, and it appears that Godel has gone out and done what I warned against doing. Godel still deserves a great deal of respect for his incompleteness theorems.
I would not be surprised if he marched only to his own drummer. I suspect your warning would have been of little use.
2002-11-17 03:18 | User Profile
Believe it or not-?-the world is young...
Some (i.e. all) peoples on the continuum... (and of course individually case by case too) are where they are; let's, since I've introduced an arbitrary qualifier... "young"... further qualify it to mean, can't function (yet?) sufficiently together... culture reflects 'the people' and so it's about... a people... and more & less, it's about the whole, or the "universal" too... HOWEVER that's too large, and even the whole or the so-called totality is flawed, at least in terms of our wishful sense of things--(apparently then imperfect is 'perfect')... therefore any gene pool, or aggregate of people, pretending to the 'impossible'... is sacrificing itself... (Why?) This is presently an Unknown... though this is not an UNKNOWABLE... yet in this case, on the continuum, we don't quite understand or know the answer... Neither do you (really), i.e. "you" universal. Jung said, and like Freud, he had a couple of few things nailed...[cudos, they were only pioneers], "it is as it is or it is not."
No one through philosophy anymore...via the naive manipulation of language can get away with trying to establish as a "knowable" that it is not, (when, here we Are)... therefore it is as it is... which INCLUDES--if not 'improving', the fact of, of course changing marginally... this way or that... within the presiding, prevailing context of 'the more things change, the more they remain the same.' Except, of course for divine intervention. 'As a Jew' (perhaps I am, or not?) I would believe only G-d can change when appropriate or not, to our sense of things... our natural circumstances (literally meaning, change mother Nature too.) Or... absent 'original' source, life always was changing marginally, anyway... The world as I suspect edward gibbon believes always just was i.e. 'was always', and he's in good company... Aristotle among others. The idea of the big bang or this or that, is just that, an idea.
Here's an answer, we're real but we Don't matter, except to ourselves... Personally I believe... we're "under G-d"... accepting too it's the mystery or an UNKNOWABLE... I'm kind, I wish the others a paradise, as I wish it for me... but sadly, me first if there's a choice...to be made. I don't want to be a 'sacrifice'. Isn't that at least honest. Walter Yannis, you want to be the sacrifice (unconsciously), or is the point of Xtianity, that only Jesus "had" to be the sacrifice? Then no one should imitate the divine...which means there's no divine.
Poetically put, we can't get to heaven wherever it is (on earth too, if anywhere) until we pass the angel of joy... I wish myself joy and the others...
An example of radical change in mother Nature is that the conditions which may have given birth to life on the planet-?-and that existed in its early stages-?-don't exist here anymore, which is why life is literally different than it 'was'...and we can infer this because the process (whatever it was) can't be duplicated (now we're in another world), in the lab, except in terms of what exists presently... We're on a continuum which leads us to, who knows?
As for original thought it only exists if there isn't a divine...and the thrust of Jewish culture, as I perceive it, flawed too as its adherents are, is that there is?
If there isn't then we should defer, one and all to ed gibbon, and Aristotle. Hail ed... or wait, unless it proves only to lead to everyone believing in the devil... ?
2002-11-17 15:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by Sporon@Nov 13 2002, 23:38 > Originally posted by Juan Raymondo Cortez@Jun 23 2002, 18:06 Cantor was ethnically half-Jewish, raised Protestant, but was interested in Catholic theology (specifically, Thomistic/Aquinas). Cantor would regularly correspond with German Dominicans in Rome and even Pope Leo XIII (who, through his Aeterni Patris encycical, started neo-thomism/neo-scholasticism). If he didn't go insane at the end of his life, I think he would've worked on a powerful proof for God's existence based on his transfinitum theory (right before going insane he proclaimed that he had discovered such a proof).
And I'm afraid you are mistaking the craftiness of the Jews for genius. Craftiness has an element of novelty to it, but craftiness requires a pre-existent work, idea, etc., with which to work. E.g., you can't be an embezzler among the poor.
This Jewish craftiness that is most often associated with business, but can be parlayed into other areas (e.g., science). This is not to denigrate the high-level of thought among these Jewish physicists, but there is a difference in kind between Jewish thinkers and gentile thinkers.**
As with libertarianism, I'm not sure that a proof of God is possible or desireable. I'm content with the Buddhist view that all categorisations are ultimately false, and they have to be for existance to have unity, the unity underlying the conciousness of you and me, and you can call that unity God if you like.
However I have thought of set theory in relation to metaphysical questions. The (oft-assumed but not always) axiom of foundation (in ZFC) is a bit like the question of God's existance. Some people were unhappy with the idea of a set containing itself (or containing itself indirectly through subsets). The axiom of foundation specifically rules this out. The question "Is there a set containing itself" is similar to the question "Is there something which can be everything". Of course there cannot be withing the framework of any logic, as this situation is contradictory, but people intuitively feel that there should be, which is the monistic view. Indeed the monistic view suggests that all logic is false.**
<b>"Indeed the monistic view suggests that all logic is false." -Sporon</b>
When the Greeks discovered 'logic', they first thought it would be the 'key' to the universe. However then they noticed they could construct two perfectly logical arguments which came to (or 'proved') opposite conclusions side by side. For example by logic's own rules they could construct a logical argument that the world is moving. But also using the same discipline or rules of logic, they could construct a logical argument the world isn't in motion everthing is still, it's just in a different place at each moment in time, for one example. It's not that logic is 'false'. It's just that it's its own discipline, but doesn't really prove anything, outside of itself. Or really logic would be, wouldn't it, the set containing itself.
The thing to know about logic, so as not to be self-deceived, or leave onself unwittingly open to being deceived by others, is that we human beings tend to 'think' logically, we want things to be logical as We are viewing them, because it makes us feel comfortable.
The fellow or philosopher who wanted everything to be still, was comfortable with his logic. His opponent or fellow philosopher, from his viewpoint, was comfortable with his logic. And the other thing to realize, and life teaches us this more often than we would prefer, is neither is our comfort level the so-called set containing all other sets...except to ourselves....Thus people are going to want to continue to think logically, from their own point of view, flawed as that may be, in terms of what is beyond them or outside of themselves. That's where we human beings are at for the most part, with some exceptions. I.e. the exceptions to the rule, so to speak, which proves it. Knowing this I can't be deceived via my own logic or by the logic per se of others. Of course I can be deceived via betrayal when it's real and not just from my point of view; and also deceived because I, like no one else in the world, is capable of omniscience. However I am unusual in that I never liked to think 'logically', since it didn't provide a comfort level, for me. Thus perhaps I 'think' differently.
I'm comfortable attempting to be rational, however I also notice to be rational, it also must contain (for what reasons I don't know) the appropriate degree of irrationality as well, or it's no longer rational. That's why I don't think the Buddhists are rational, although like Sporon I appreciate their idea about unity. Except that it's only a 'logical' idea, and another logical argument can be constructed next to it, coming to the opposite conclusion.
Personally I suspect We want to find the set containing all other sets, in the abscence of a definitive, to our sense of things, foundation or 'God', but then we ourselves would be, wouldn't we, the set containing All other sets? So I think it's a mystery and thus an impossibility to find by ourselves, because either it doesn't exist, or we are looking for that which, once we found it, would no longer exist, since in finding it we would have become that which we were looking for....Add to that if a definitive foundation or 'God' is at all conscious perhaps he or she doesn't want to be found, via our own wills exclusively, and thus rendered moot in existence, or non-existant? It may be one of those things, "don't call me, I'll call you?" The 'thing itself', so to speak, may sense we are only 'hunting' it, while that's where we're still at, and who wants to be 'hunted'. The advantage is to the observer, and perhaps 'the thing itself' is the only one even capable of ultimate observation?
Some of us may feel like we're looking down at the sky, but then again, who's looking at us? We may be extraordinary creatures, we human beings, but we by ourselves are no more capable of understanding or own humanity in any ultimate sense, than a dog is capable of an ultimate understanding of his own dogness. He's (happily) not even capable of trying...we are capable of trying, and thus it is probably prudent to remember if we don't know our limitations we have one more?
2002-11-17 16:55 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Nov 14 2002, 00:06 **I think that Jews tend to bring a verbal excellence to the table, rather than original insights.
With 2,000 years of genetic selection for Talmudic study behind them, they've been bred for words.
Jewish scientists tended to become famous not for their original insights, but rather as great teachers and popularizers. They had the ability to understand the thoughts of the gentile greats, and they were able to explain these ideas to merely-bright students very efficiently.
Feinman is a good example of this. His students always talked about his ability to seize their minds during a lecture and help them to grasp difficult ideas - and their struggle to attain that understanding later while reviewing their notes. Einstein made his reputation as a teacher, too. And think of all the scientific writers, from Azimov to Sagan. Oppenheimer and Teller were consummate politicians, rather than towering theoreticians. This all tends to prove dazzling Jewish verbal abilities to explain the most difficult concepts clearly, but not attest to their great insights into Nature and Nature's God.
What do you think of my little theory?
Walter**
I think there is some truth in your theory. Especially now that science becomes largely a collaborative effort, there are very few super-stars, and status is achieved in part by politics, consensus and connections.
But manipulating and rearranging known evidence and unifying under a new theory involves analytical mind too. Einstein's famous three papers which he wrote in 1905, were all based on known laws and evidence, but he unified bits and pieces and went further in his speculation. I am wondering how much of the appreciation for those three papers, that came only many years later, was due to Einstein becoming famous due to his general relativity theory (which in turn is a stubborn continuation of his obsession with propagating his relativity idea yet to another field).
From [url=http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Einstein.html:]http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/M.../Einstein.html:[/url] * Einstein worked in this patent office from 1902 to 1909, holding a temporary post when he was first appointed, but by 1904 the position was made permanent and in 1906 he was promoted to technical expert second class. While in the Bern patent office he completed an astonishing range of theoretical physics publications, written in his spare time without the benefit of close contact with scientific literature or colleagues.
Einstein earned a doctorate from the University of Zurich in 1905 for a thesis On a new determination of molecular dimensions. He dedicated the thesis to Grossmann.
In the first of three papers, all written in 1905, Einstein examined the phenomenon discovered by Max Planck, according to which electromagnetic energy seemed to be emitted from radiating objects in discrete quantities. The energy of these quanta was directly proportional to the frequency of the radiation. This seemed to contradict classical electromagnetic theory, based on Maxwell's equations and the laws of thermodynamics which assumed that electromagnetic energy consisted of waves which could contain any small amount of energy. Einstein used Planck's quantum hypothesis to describe the electromagnetic radiation of light.
Einstein's second 1905 paper proposed what is today called the special theory of relativity. He based his new theory on a reinterpretation of the classical principle of relativity, namely that the laws of physics had to have the same form in any frame of reference. As a second fundamental hypothesis, Einstein assumed that the speed of light remained constant in all frames of reference, as required by Maxwell's theory.
Later in 1905 Einstein showed how mass and energy were equivalent. Einstein was not the first to propose all the components of special theory of relativity. His contribution is unifying important parts of classical mechanics and Maxwell's electrodynamics.
The third of Einstein's papers of 1905 concerned statistical mechanics, a field of that had been studied by Ludwig Boltzmann and Josiah Gibbs. *
2002-11-17 17:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian@Nov 17 2002, 16:55 > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Nov 14 2002, 00:06 I think that Jews tend to bring a verbal excellence to the table, rather than original insights.
With 2,000 years of genetic selection for Talmudic study behind them, they've been bred for words.
Jewish scientists tended to become famous not for their original insights, but rather as great teachers and popularizers. ÃÂ They had the ability to understand the thoughts of the gentile greats, and they were able to explain these ideas to merely-bright students very efficiently.
Feinman is a good example of this. ÃÂ His students always talked about his ability to seize their minds during a lecture and help them to grasp difficult ideas - and their struggle to attain that understanding later while reviewing their notes. ÃÂ Einstein made his reputation as a teacher, too. ÃÂ And think of all the scientific writers, from Azimov to Sagan. ÃÂ Oppenheimer and Teller were consummate politicians, rather than towering theoreticians. ÃÂ This all tends to prove dazzling Jewish verbal abilities to explain the most difficult concepts clearly, but not attest to their great insights into Nature and Nature's God.
What do you think of my little theory?
Walter**
I think there is some truth in your theory. Especially now that science becomes largely a collaborative effort, there are very few super-stars, and status is achieved in part by politics, consensus and connections.
But manipulating and rearranging known evidence and unifying under a new theory involves analytical mind too. Einstein's famous three papers which he wrote in 1905, were all based on known laws and evidence, but he unified bits and pieces and went further in his speculation. I am wondering how much of the appreciation for those three papers, that came only many years later, was due to Einstein becoming famous due to his general relativity theory (which in turn is a stubborn continuation of his obsession with propagating his relativity idea yet to another field).
From [url=http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Einstein.html:]http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/M.../Einstein.html:[/url] * Einstein worked in this patent office from 1902 to 1909, holding a temporary post when he was first appointed, but by 1904 the position was made permanent and in 1906 he was promoted to technical expert second class. While in the Bern patent office he completed an astonishing range of theoretical physics publications, written in his spare time without the benefit of close contact with scientific literature or colleagues.
Einstein earned a doctorate from the University of Zurich in 1905 for a thesis On a new determination of molecular dimensions. He dedicated the thesis to Grossmann.
In the first of three papers, all written in 1905, Einstein examined the phenomenon discovered by Max Planck, according to which electromagnetic energy seemed to be emitted from radiating objects in discrete quantities. The energy of these quanta was directly proportional to the frequency of the radiation. This seemed to contradict classical electromagnetic theory, based on Maxwell's equations and the laws of thermodynamics which assumed that electromagnetic energy consisted of waves which could contain any small amount of energy. Einstein used Planck's quantum hypothesis to describe the electromagnetic radiation of light.
Einstein's second 1905 paper proposed what is today called the special theory of relativity. He based his new theory on a reinterpretation of the classical principle of relativity, namely that the laws of physics had to have the same form in any frame of reference. As a second fundamental hypothesis, Einstein assumed that the speed of light remained constant in all frames of reference, as required by Maxwell's theory.
Later in 1905 Einstein showed how mass and energy were equivalent. Einstein was not the first to propose all the components of special theory of relativity. His contribution is unifying important parts of classical mechanics and Maxwell's electrodynamics.
The third of Einstein's papers of 1905 concerned statistical mechanics, a field of that had been studied by Ludwig Boltzmann and Josiah Gibbs.
"I think there is some truth in your theory." -madrussian
I agree but there's some truth in every theory... Though to indicate how little, in Walter's read Old Testament or Torah, and read the New and although they work to some extent in tandem, if separated, which, would any scholar have to admit, yet, presently is more truthful (even if only metaphorically) in reflecting mother Nature, and her G-d? Walter, I don't think, is necessarily, yet kind? He's not alone, how many are? I've become more kind recently. 'Thanks, G-d'... via mother Nature, also.
2002-11-17 18:29 | User Profile
Einstein in 1905 wrote 5 significant papers - 2 were on speciall relativity, one on Brownian motion, 1 on the photo-electric effect for which he won the Nobel Prize and one on ?. see [url=http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/einsteinBM.html]http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/einsteinBM.html[/url]
Contrary to common opinion. Einstein's genius was his ability to see how things must work, mechanically or theoretically. Compared to other physicists, he was down the ladder in mathematical ability.
2002-11-17 18:53 | User Profile
Originally posted by edward gibbon@Nov 17 2002, 18:29 **Einstein in 1905 wrote 5 significant papers - 2 were on speciall relativity, one on Brownian motion, 1 on the photo-electric effect for which he won the Nobel Prize and one on ?. see [url=http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/einsteinBM.html]http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/einsteinBM.html[/url]
Contrary to common opinion. Einstein's genius was his ability to see how things must work, mechanically or theoretically. Compared to other physicists, he was down the ladder in mathematical ability.**
Ditto. Although I've always been a supporter... do you see how things *must* work (at least at a given point in time?) That's a **knowable** (even if Einstein in trying didn't get quite there with that.) You & I once emailed... at the risk of saying this out of context, except I don't think it is out of context, there's no such thing as not believing in G-d, but believing in the Devil? Of course, I grant, you may have been being facetious.
To add compliment, in my opinion, you are much more of a scholar than I... well, perhaps not such a compliment? At least a much better researched scholar, and I thank you for what you've taught me.
2002-11-17 20:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by edward gibbon@Nov 17 2002, 11:29 Einstein in 1905 wrote 5 significant papers - 2 were on speciall relativity, one on Brownian motion, 1 on the photo-electric effect for which he won the Nobel Prize and one on ?. see [url=http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/einsteinBM.html]http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/einsteinBM.html[/url]
2 + 1 + 1 = 5? :blink:
This is the first time I see someone mention 5 papers. Googling finds several references to three. The Jap must be wrong :lol:
2002-11-20 01:25 | User Profile
Interesting and enlightening thread! I [best Yiddish I can muster] vill men-shun vis to utters elsevhere...heh, heh.
2002-11-20 05:07 | User Profile
I'm glad France is finally learning hate is important. Sad though, Jews always seem to have to be their teachers. HAHAHAHAHA.
2002-11-20 21:32 | User Profile
eric von zipper wrote> **I'm very surprised that Von Neuman wasn't on that list of jewish mathematicians. **
It is my understanding that von Neuman converted to Roman Catholicism because he did not, or could not, believe that man's accomplishments on earth were due to chance.
2002-11-20 22:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by edward gibbon@Nov 20 2002, 21:32 eric von zipper wrote> I'm very surprised that Von Neuman wasn't on that list of jewish mathematicians. **
It is my understanding that von Neuman converted to Roman Catholicism because he did not, or could not, believe that man's accomplishments on earth were due to chance.**
Ditto. Do you post also under N.B. Forrest? Within the context of the divine, while we're here on earth (as it is presently), it is my intuition, we are subject, and also *the subject*, of both the design which includes (some) chance...so as to permit freedom. It means paradoxically we matter while we're here (cudos to you for your notable achievements), and it means of course also we don't matter too. In terms of it being a process it's fair as it can be each time around-?- but in a sense it also means, like all of us, if it's any consolation, G-d or the divine wants on occasion as well to scratch his or her balls? In other words, while we're imperfect, under the divine, imperfect is perfect... We posit the divine, why-?-because we've learned, as the Greeks did, in the abscence of any 'real' logic, in order to strive to be rational, given who we are, it MUST include the appropriate element of the considered irrational, or it's no longer rational... Otherwise in popular parlance then it becomes 'anal'... or indicative of the person's personal problematic. Ain't life grand? But then we go through that phase of the 'ain't life grand' if we get through it... and... it doesn't matter... the way We saw it, we too are someone else... I say, old sport, so who's the beard? 'Oh please, don't ask.'
2002-11-26 15:58 | User Profile
There is no doubt in my mind that the Ashkenazi Jew has superior intelligence, averaging 117 IQ.
However, none of them could manage mathematics without the present day numbering system, which came to us from the Arabs.
2002-11-27 02:02 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ed Toner@Nov 26 2002, 15:58 **There is no doubt in my mind that the Ashkenazi Jew has superior intelligence, averaging 117 IQ.
However, none of them could manage mathematics without the present day numbering system, which came to us from the Arabs.**
Ed, a quick note - the Ashkenazi have high intelligence - but it's probably not averaging out to 117. See the posts under black and brown crime - several of us posted info, etc., and it did come up that the average for this group has been fudged upward for some reason for the last decade or so. It used to be listed at 108 - 110, then when some honest discussion about group differences came up, jewish academics etc. started pushing the average up to 112, then 113, then 115, now 117. All this while attempting to push the white average down - AND apply the SD (standard deviation) of white IQ's of 15 pts. to jews and E. Asians. The true SD for these groups is about 8.6. This is why you see a higher percentage of whites at the "stratoshphere" levels of IQ - over 145, then the percentages of Ashkenazis and E. Asians in their groups. The two latter groups have much narrower ranges of distribution, and don't perform as well as whites on divergent thinking and other analytical tests. As Flynn and Lynn and others state, the real difference amongst the three groups is in the structure of the intelligence , and evidence points out that in cognitive areas such as creativity, problem recognition, etc. whites excel over all other groups. Someone mentioned the craftiness of jews, a form of intelligence, being mistaken as superiority in other areas. This may be true, and is probably behind their attempts to fudge the numbers a bit. The jews are smart, and very smart when it comes to appropriating the work of others and claiming it as their own. Asians are smart also - but the ability to learn and understand (this applies to jews also) is not the same as being able to actually create, invent, analyze in the first place. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. It seems to be the jews in many instances that can't, or refuse to, acknowledge theirs. All the while, they of course, exaggerate, imply or play on the (perceived) weaknesses in others.
I suspect some of the exaggeration in Ashkenazi IQ is a roundabout way to try and cover the increasing scrutiny of the jews nepotized into exclusive colleges - in numbers far higher than their test scores and grades would allow - same for E. Asians. Again, see the other thread.
BTW - some jews are now trying to claim they invented algebra, and that the wicked Arabs stole it from a brilliant group of rabbi mathematicians. Someday they'll be trying to steal credit for advances made by the Chinese - after they finish robbing Abdul and Whitey. I enjoy your posts Ed. You don't screw around.
2002-11-27 20:26 | User Profile
Roy Batty wrote:
**It used to be listed at 108 - 110, then when some honest discussion about group differences came up, jewish academics etc. started pushing the average up to 112, then 113, then 115, now 117. All this while attempting to push the white average down - AND apply the SD (standard deviation) of white IQ's of 15 pts. to jews and E. Asians. The true SD for these groups is about 8.6. This is why you see a higher percentage of whites at the "stratoshphere" levels of IQ - over 145, then the percentages of Ashkenazis and E. Asians in their groups. The two latter groups have much narrower ranges of distribution, and don't perform as well as whites on divergent thinking and other analytical tests. As Flynn and Lynn and others state, the real difference amongst the three groups is in the structure of the intelligence , and evidence points out that in cognitive areas such as creativity, problem recognition, etc. whites excel over all other groups. Someone mentioned the craftiness of jews, a form of intelligence, being mistaken as superiority in other areas. This may be true, and is probably behind their attempts to fudge the numbers a bit. The jews are smart, and very smart when it comes to appropriating the work of others and claiming it as their own. Asians are smart also - but the ability to learn and understand (this applies to jews also) is not the same as being able to actually create, invent, analyze in the first place. **
Would you please list your references for IQ's and their distribution (SD etc)?
I attempted private mail, but it was not available. I am intensely interested in this info.
Thanks
gibbon
2002-11-28 23:39 | User Profile
EG, the others are offline for Thanksgiving I'd bet, but I can give you some sources, besides having you hunt down Flynn, Lynn etc. on the net. Read "A Question of Intelligence" by Seligman. Also, "The Bell Curve Debate", with articles by a slew of researchers, etc. Being a jew, Seligman kisses jew tail, and tries to run whites under asians, but he does mention SD in there, and some of the areas where whites do excel. He admits to the awful visuospatial scores of jews - and goes into their averages on those tests. You can see for yourself that these days jews have fudged their visuospatial scores by 5 points or so, to try and put them ahead of whites. Asians on average, score higher on visuospatial tests than whites, but are average to below average on verbal reasoning, with educated asians scoring about the same as unstudious whites, the differences expanding from there. Seligman also mentions asians and jews being highly clustered around their mean, with whites having a far greater range of distribution. He lists the jewish and asian SD at 8.9, fractionally higher than some others have stated. Then go through some of the references sited in The Bell Curve. The authors leave the SD amongst jews alone, only spending one part of a page on jews, but the sources have all the info. Lynn also points out that old test results are always used when describing asians, and the differences are indeed more structural than in raw scores. Seligman talks about jews and asians being born businessmen, but the truth between the lines is they do whatever they need to do, rules be damned. The info on blacks and hispanics is interesting indeed. They are trouble, because so many of them are stupid. No other way to describe them.
2002-11-30 18:55 | User Profile
Roger Bannister Posted on Nov 29 2002, 00:39
Thanks very much for your references. I will do the reading.
2002-12-03 19:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by edward gibbon@Nov 30 2002, 18:55 **Roger Bannister Posted on Nov 29 2002, 00:39
Thanks very much for your references. I will do the reading.**
In the above ed says (he): "will do the reading."
See Spot go. See Sam call Spot. "Spot, no! Down Spot." Here comes Jill. Sam says: "Jill, no. Let Spot, get it." Jill sees what Sam was doing. "Oh," she says, "no problem."
ed... I kid. Read my LIPS? : "H A V E Y O U D O N E T H E R E A D I N G?"
I have to make fun of you, ed... the reason I ask, is so I don't have to do the reading... (B O R I N G)... then I can just read you, right? Come-on... give it Up... come on... No? :angry:
2002-12-03 20:14 | User Profile
IQ this and IQ that. Geez!! What is the big deal about Race and Intelligence? Jews are smartest out of all the races; Blacks are the least intelligent; Whites and Asians are somewhere in between. SO WHAT!?! WHO CARES??? Since when has one's level of intellect been the overriding factor to human character?
Not to dismiss the fact that the foundation of civilization lies in intelligence, but aren't there equally important things we should look at when measuring one's worth, like skill/talent and moral character?
2002-12-03 20:44 | User Profile
Originally posted by kminta@Dec 3 2002, 20:14 IQ this and IQ that. Geez!! What is the big deal about Race and Intelligence? Jews are smartest out of all the races; Blacks are the least intelligent; Whites and Asians are somewhere in between. SO WHAT!?! WHO CARES???** Since when has one's level of intellect been the overriding factor to human character?
Not to dismiss the fact that the foundation of civilization lies in intelligence, but aren't there equally important things we should look at when measuring one's worth, like skill/talent and moral character?**
This is a beautiful post... I will marry this person... if female, and she can't get away... It's probably true, & actual... therefore it Is also foreboding... to whom much is given MUCH is required... of course in fairness, we do know we don't yet have a working definition for what intelligence IS... but I wuv this person... tell me you're not a guy... can I kiss you on the lips... if a guy, all guys when greeting, at least in my opinion should kiss on both cheeks... it reminds us, that yes, sadly & happily we're creatures TOO, and, you know what-?-it's ok!
2002-12-04 03:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by kminta@Dec 3 2002, 14:14 IQ this and IQ that. Geez!! What is the big deal about Race and Intelligence? Jews are smartest out of all the races; Blacks are the least intelligent; Whites and Asians are somewhere in between. SO WHAT!?! WHO CARES???** Since when has one's level of intellect been the overriding factor to human character?
Not to dismiss the fact that the foundation of civilization lies in intelligence, but aren't there equally important things we should look at when measuring one's worth, like skill/talent and moral character?**
Intelligence is important. Different people may be good at different things, but the fact is that the less intelligent people drag society down in terms of crime levels, dependency on social services, etc. Jews have their weaknesses too, but one has to actually do some of the reading (yes, here comes George with an attempt at humor, we can see it coming a mile away) to find out what they are. They are more intelligent on average than whites at certain things, and less intelligent at others, not the least of which is less intelligence in certain areas of judgment. But, the jews show that an intelligent group of people, working as a cohesive group against an atomized society, are the biggest drag of all of when it comes to wrecking that society. That's why so many on the board are fascinated with intelligence, or more correctly, the different types of intelligence that exist, and how those types of intelligence are put to work.
2002-12-04 11:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by kminta@Dec 3 2002, 20:14 IQ this and IQ that. Geez!! What is the big deal about Race and Intelligence? Jews are smartest out of all the races; Blacks are the least intelligent; Whites and Asians are somewhere in between. SO WHAT!?! WHO CARES???** Since when has one's level of intellect been the overriding factor to human character?
Not to dismiss the fact that the foundation of civilization lies in intelligence, but aren't there equally important things we should look at when measuring one's worth, like skill/talent and moral character?**
There are two issues here that are often confused.
The first is the question of individual intelligence. Naturally, individuals don't have "average" IQ's and all talk of race and IQ becomes increasingly meaningless as we focus more directly on individuals. The overlap of the distribution of IQ scores between, say, Jews and blacks is greater than the difference in their group means, and thus it is reasonable to expect that there will be some really smart blacks and some really dumb Jews. Thus, you can't use the difference in-group mean IQ to predict individual performance; that would be unreasonable and frankly unjust. Also, you're quite correct to state that an individual's low IQ can be offset by other qualities, such as hard work, ambition, and an easy way with people.
The other issue is whether a group's mean IQ predicts, on a statistical level, group performance. The answer is, of course, yes. Here "average" IQ is very meaningful. For instance, when we discuss the academic failure of blacks and the academic success of Asians (certainly these are recurring themes in the affirmative action struggles of the past 40 years), the mean IQ of these groups is a key factor in understanding these phenomena. There are, statistically speaking, simply more smart Asians than there are blacks per capita, and so it makes sense that Asians as a group would markedly tend to outscore blacks on academic tests.
Another example is the recent flap about the academic standards imposed in Mass. four years ago - it seems (Surprise!) that blacks will fail to meet the graduation requirements at an alarming rate (I think about half, if memory serves). But anybody who has read The Bell Curve could have predicted the result - after all, based on statistics half of those blacks likely have IQ's under 85 (i.e. half are "very dull", as author Charles Murray put it), so it simply isn't a surprise that half couldn't master the material.
In sum, group means are useful when we talk about groups - they're not useful when we talk about individuals. Of course, this is too obvious for words. Yet, it seems to be the cause of much confused thinking.
There's a good deal of media slight of hand based on the clever juxtaposition of these two separate issues. The technique is to shift between the concepts of "individual" and "group" IQ like Three-Card Monty hucksters. First, they very reasonably state that "mean group IQ shouldn't affect our judgements about individualsââ¬Â, but then go on to assert that "therefore, mean group IQ is meaningless in all contexts." That's patent nonsense. Group mean IQ is the best predictor social scientists have for a whole range of group results, from failure to graduate from high school to going on welfare.
I'm for judging people as individuals, and groups as groups.
Makes sense, no?
Walter
2002-12-04 18:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Dec 4 2002, 05:18 **
I'm for judging people as individuals, and groups as groups.
Makes sense, no?
Walter**
Try telling that to ZOG - to their puppets, to Tio Sam. Whites are told not to judge blacks, mestizos, even jews by the actions of a "few criminals" etc. when their respective populations abound with criminal activity, overt or covert. Yet, on the rare occasion some white decides to toss a black or brown through a liquor store window, we can expect an endless bombardment of anti-white hate from the media that implies that every white and their ancestors are responsible for Leroy or Jose getting what they probably deserve. Then ZOG duly responds with more hate crime legislation. The media attention is even worse if some white commits a sin like saying some jew is a crappy driver. The next thing you know, the only way to absolve this sin is another 3 billion taxpayer bucks to Israel and a mini series on something ludicrous, like anti-semitism in Hollywood.
BTW, Walter, I actually do agree that a lot of the IQ stuff is overblown. Look at Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, India, Central and South America. The overall conditions and behaviors of the native populations tell you all you need to know.
2002-12-04 20:45 | User Profile
Originally posted by Roger Bannister@Dec 4 2002, 18:25 > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Dec 4 2002, 05:18 **
I'm for judging people as individuals, and groups as groups.
Makes sense, no?
Walter**
Try telling that to ZOG - to their puppets, to Tio Sam. Whites are told not to judge blacks, mestizos, even jews by the actions of a "few criminals" etc. when their respective populations abound with criminal activity, overt or covert. Yet, on the rare occasion some white decides to toss a black or brown through a liquor store window, we can expect an endless bombardment of anti-white hate from the media that implies that every white and their ancestors are responsible for Leroy or Jose getting what they probably deserve. Then ZOG duly responds with more hate crime legislation. The media attention is even worse if some white commits a sin like saying some jew is a crappy driver. The next thing you know, the only way to absolve this sin is another 3 billion taxpayer bucks to Israel and a mini series on something ludicrous, like anti-semitism in Hollywood.
BTW, Walter, I actually do agree that a lot of the IQ stuff is overblown. Look at Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East, India, Central and South America. The overall conditions and behaviors of the native populations tell you all you need to know.**
Mr. Walter... "Mr. Walter's Planet..."
Got to go with Bannister... not necessarily because of his 'reasoning'... which isn't correlative... enough...
Look Walt... the group, (in reality Walt), makes our individuality first possible, then tennable... or not so tennable... How's your "individuality" today... seriously speaking... one thing I'm Not... is Kidding.... get it Walt?
2002-12-12 20:36 | User Profile
I just want to add here to what I indicated in the above... I love the Greeks... but not as much (culturally speaking if a choice were required in that vein, culturally) as Jewish people...BECAUSE, (even if Jews in general have lost their way or compass and gone BAD today, which I don't think so, the times have drained down, like water... seeking its lowest point), culturally speaking there's a delicate balance between the group & the so-called individual... Pericles himself would tell you this... an exceptual GreeK-Individuality in his group... (not individual per se, there's no such thing) he, himself would tell you that he, himself was everything to them ...and nothing without them...
...it's his Own GROUP which went wacky and thought they were all "individuals". Which Pericles wouldn't have though, thought that, even of himself...
Don't get me wrong... as in Pericles case, there's an exception to every rule which proves it... one verifies the other... IN the West today... this inclination, a western one toward the 'absolute' Mortal individual, has been taken...over the millenniums since our beautiful and wonderful Greek ancestors, culturally, to an extreme, and 'everyone's' an "individual"... HAHAHAHAHAHA so no one is, for the most part... by which I mean, even Normal individuality itself... is vanishing... HAHAHAHAHAHA
Don't get me wrong I don't like the Chinese either... maybe I'm just Misanthropic-?- ... if so, AND LOVING IT...
BUT the INDIVIDUALITY... and their importance to the GROUP is still VITAL (probalby will always be?)... in a word, balance in this world is NEVER possible... however APPROXIMATE balance is VITAL...