Jump to content
The Education Forum

Interesting Einstein Quotation


Tim Gratz
 Share

Recommended Posts

"Politics is far more complicated than physics" Quote Albert Einstein.

He may not be right about politics in general but applying his quote to the JFK assassination certainly seems appropriate!

Some (most, perhaps) of the mysteries may be related to the conspirators laying false leads but certainly not all of them.

Some of the mysteries may be attributed to the fact that the cover-up was not necessarily related to the assassination itself but the cover-up became so obvious it led to another round of speculation concerning the breadth of the conspiracy.

Some may be due to the fact that any sensational crime often produces false confessions and erroneous reports but the Kennedy assassination produced even more since it is indeed the most important unsolved crimes in American history (unless you adhere to the Posner view that it was solved with the capture and death of Lee Harvey Oswald).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Politics is far more complicated than physics" Quote Albert Einstein.

I am also a great fan of Albert Einstein. Tim, I thought you might like this quotation from a speech made by Einstein in 1930.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.

In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellowmen in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, proves his quote! Indeed he knew more about physics than politics.

I do not believe an "exaggerated competitive attitude" is a grave evil. Rather, because it is consistent with human nature, it produces great benefits for society (which is not to say there is no need for government regulation of business).

We probably got to the moon first because JFK wanted to beat the Russians, competition not for dollars but for prestige.

And there are capitalists who attempt new business ventures who use the profits they generate merely to measure their success. But the successful businesses they generate add jobs and further stimulate the economy.

And of course new businesses take venture capital, not just work. People are willing to risk their funds only if they expect a reasonable profit for their investment. If the expected profit is similar to what they would achieve in a very safe investment why would they risk their funds?

Having said that, I am of course aware of Christ's injunction not to lay up treasure on earth "where most and rust doth corrupt". If mankind were perfect, perhaps everyone would work hard regardless of the reward but given the world in which we live most people will toil hard if they believe it will benefit their immediate family and their progeny rather than mankind in general.

But competition is good because it natrurally motivates people even when the rewards are not economic: e.g. scientists who compete for the Nobel Prize; reporters who compete for the Pulitzer Prize, etc. People are motivated to work and think hard to succeed for hope of either monetary success or recognition. That is simple human nature.

And one more thing. Although I decry television preachers who promote a "prosperity gospel" (often to fund their own treasuries) Jesus did not condemn money in and of itself. He did say, however, that the "love of money" is the root of all evil. (Did I just support your "oil depletion allowance theory" with that quote?) But Jesus meant that placing an inordinate emphasis on money and material success was wrong.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Tim.

for what its worth( although this is wildly :rolleyes: ) If you have an economic system that encourages, nay demands Competative, aggresive, dog eat dog behaviour, at every turn, dont be surprised if most people are, greedy & selfish. But please dont confuse this with human nature, which in the main responds to greed with greed, & kindness With kindness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion is "on point".

From John's world view, for instance, he believes the motive underlying the JFK assassination was probably economic (preserve a beneficial tax deduction) whereas I believe it was probably political with my first suspect being Castro and, interestingly enough, my first alternative suspect being anti-Castro Cubans. If JFK was shot by racist Southerners, that would also, of course, be a non-economic reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Very interesting and perceptive thoughtr, Stephen!  I value it!  Thanks!

Tim

We may be on opposite sides of this subject, but I recognise an old fashioned Gentleman when I see one. All he best!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus did not condemn money in and of itself.  He did say, however, that the "love of money" is the root of all evil.  (Did I just support your "oil depletion allowance theory" with that quote?) But Jesus meant that placing an inordinate emphasis on money and material success was wrong.

Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” As it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle I think he is suggesting that rich individuals will find it very difficult to get to heaven. After all, Jesus made it clear that he wanted people to share their wealth with the poor. If they did not decide to do that then they didn’t deserve to go to heaven. Anyone who has spent anytime at all studying the life and words of Jesus knows that he was probably the world’s first socialist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus did not condemn money in and of itself.  He did say, however, that the "love of money" is the root of all evil.  (Did I just support your "oil depletion allowance theory" with that quote?) But Jesus meant that placing an inordinate emphasis on money and material success was wrong.

Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” As it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle I think he is suggesting that rich individuals will find it very difficult to get to heaven. After all, Jesus made it clear that he wanted people to share their wealth with the poor. If they did not decide to do that then they didn’t deserve to go to heaven. Anyone who has spent anytime at all studying the life and words of Jesus knows that he was probably the world’s first socialist.

John... this is one of the most misinterpreted and misunderstood verses in the Bible. As I recall from my college religion course many years ago, ancient walled cities had a large gate which was open in the daytime; the large gate had a small door within it which was more easily guarded at night. This SMALL door was referred to as "the eye of the needle" since it would only admit one person at a time. So Jesus was not referring to a sewing needle, but to a small opening in a bigger door, too small to allow a camel or horse into the city. This makes much more sense in the context of a camel entering a city.

Jack :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” As it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle I think he is suggesting that rich individuals will find it very difficult to get to heaven. After all, Jesus made it clear that he wanted people to share their wealth with the poor. If they did not decide to do that then they didn’t deserve to go to heaven. Anyone who has spent anytime at all studying the life and words of Jesus knows that he was probably the world’s first socialist.

_________________________

Even if Jack is correct in his Biblical interpretation, I agree with John that Jesus was a Socialist. That's also why I cannot stand the Christian Right's so unloving, unforgiving attitides. They love all wars, hate all gays, ya I know hate the sin love the sinner is what they SAY but I can FEEL the hatred moral majority types feel for people they do not understand. Basically for anyone who does not profess Jesus as Lord. I do, BUT I don't hate others who do not. I don't think God does either. The God in Whom I believe would not deny Anne Frank a place in heaven.

JFK displayed more true Christian love and concern for this planet in his brief presidency than W and his band of warriors ever could. He can talk the talk, but just barely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John... this is one of the most misinterpreted and misunderstood verses in the Bible. As I recall from my college religion course many years ago, ancient walled cities had a large gate which was open in the daytime; the large gate had a small door within it which was more easily guarded at night. This SMALL door was referred to as "the eye of the needle" since it would only admit one person at a time. So Jesus was not referring to a sewing needle, but to a small opening in a bigger door, too small to allow a camel or horse into the city. This makes much more sense in the context of a camel entering a city.

Even if you accept your definition of “needle” it is still a small place to get through. Especially if you are large as a camel.

It is indeed a much misinterpreted part of the Bible. Those on the political right must find it very uncomfortable reading. Maybe you could quote some passages from the New Testament where Jesus speaks out in favour of inequality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Jack is correct in his Biblical interpretation, I agree with John that Jesus was a Socialist. That's also why I cannot stand the Christian Right's so unloving, unforgiving attitides.  They love all wars, hate all gays, ya I know hate the sin love the sinner is what they SAY  but I can FEEL the hatred moral majority types feel for people they do not understand.  Basically for anyone who does not profess Jesus as Lord.  I do, BUT I don't hate others who do not.  I don't think God does either. The God in Whom I believe would not deny Anne Frank a place in heaven. 

JFK displayed more true Christian love and concern for this planet in his brief presidency than W and his band of warriors ever could.  He can talk the talk, but just barely.

It was the pacifism of Jesus Christ that caused him more problems than his socialism. The most revolutionary thing that Jesus Christ did was to encourage his followers not to serve in the Roman Army. This was the reason why Christians were “thrown to the Lions”. The Romans were very tolerant of other religions as long as religion did not become political. When persecution did not work, the Romans nationalized Christianity. Once under its control, Christianity was used to justify the status quo. The same is true today.

Over the centuries some true Christians have attempted to return to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The best recent example is Martin Luther King. He did it so well that he became as dangerous as Jesus Christ and had to be treated in the same way. However, killing pacifists will not destroy the movements towards a non-violent society. We will eventually get there, with or without the Christian Church.

Here is an article by Bob Murphy you might be interested in reading:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy60.html

Jesus was clearly a revolutionary thinker who challenged the seemingly natural idea of retribution. Rather than vengeance, Jesus commanded forgiveness (Mt. 18:22). Instead of the pagan ideals of strength and power, Jesus offered the Christian ideals of humility and meekness (Mt. 5:5). Jesus went so far as to demand that His disciples love their enemies (Mt. 5:44).

The above is not in dispute. Even most atheists would agree that Jesus’s teachings were wise precepts concerning the uselessness of hatred and revenge. But did Jesus literally require pacifism?

A straightforward reading would suggest that He did. He literally (given the translation) commanded "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Mt. 5:39). But perhaps this was just a specific rule? Well, immediately before this famous injunction, Jesus also gave the general rule, forbidding resistance to evil. It is this passage that inspired Christian pacifists such as William Lloyd Garrison and Leo Tolstoy, and I find their interpretation entirely plausible.

Of course, Jesus often spoke in metaphors; one should be very careful in deriving categorical conclusions from a few Gospel passages. When studying not merely His words, but His actions, does it seem that Jesus was a pacifist?

I for one think this is the only sensible conclusion. He rebuked Peter for drawing his sword during His arrest. And of course, the entire purpose of Jesus’s coming to Earth was to suffer unjustly at the hands of evil men, despite the fact that He obviously had the power to prevent this. Such an argument alone doesn’t prove the case for Christian pacifism, but it does show that the doctrine is consistent with Christianity.

Horrible things happen to good people all the time. The use of violence won’t ever "solve" this. Most people would agree that it is impermissible to murder someone, even if so doing would save (through a heart transplant, say) a child from death. Yet most people believe that it is permissible to kill someone in order to prevent him from killing a child. The apparent inconsistency is evaded by classifying the latter case as justifiable defense, and by classifying the dead man as a criminal, worthy of less respect and rights than "civilized" people.

Yet it is precisely this mentality, I claim, that Jesus sought to overthrow. The kingdom of God can only be approached when everyone voluntarily renounces violence against his neighbors. And isn’t it just possible that the best and surest way to reach that goal is for each of us personally to renounce violence, for whatever reason, right now? To say, "I will lay down my arms just as soon as all the evil people do first" is to guarantee that you will never see the kingdom of God during your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...