4 ms·

He was certainly having fun! A refreshing peek through his mind. Whenever I mention the likes of Newton and their works, I frequently get attacked by some peop

He was certainly having fun! A refreshing peek through his mind. Whenever I mention the likes of Newton and their works, I frequently get attacked by some people. Their argument is that Newton was a terrible human being and despite his contributions to Science, Mathematics, and the process of discoveries in general, he does not deserve praise since appraisal implies we would be condoning his behavior. To that I usually reply, we would never accept some of his behaviors now and that does not mean his contributions are worthless. They believe we can never separate the "works" from a "person", to which I always disagree. EDIT: Grammar.

batsigner 6y ago
What is the point of your comment?
- max_ 6y ago
  That being a human being that adds value to society does not require everyone to like you.
  - watwut 6y ago
    "Not everyone liked him" is sort of understatement. We can accept and celebrate his contributions without pretending that the dislike for Newton was all about some mild unlikability.
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      I guess I'm in the medium unlikability school. I mean, he seems as unlikable as a significant number of programmers who are not Isaac Newton despite pretensions to equivalent accomplishment. https://inversesquare.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/friday-isaac-newton-blogging-how-mean-was-he/ https://inversesquare.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/friday-isaac-... on edit: meaning some programmers are not quick to make friends, and are not convivial, perhaps due to some neuro-atypical qualities, which I expect was probably the case with Newton. Not that programmers condemn people to death as their jobs generally do not require it.
      - watwut 6y ago
        I found the bigger issue to be the stuffing supposedly neutral comitee with friends in dispute with Leibniz, so that they rule your way. Or stealing Flamsteeds work and publishing it under Edmund Halley, Flamsteed’s ennemy name. Destroying last portrait of Robert Hooke cause he was competitor and disagreed with me. These and others are major assholery issues, major ego issues. Not just "little bit neuro-atypical". Typical programmer is much much more ethical then that. Typical programmer is not actually ego maniac Newton was said to be either. That is incidentally my issue. Can't have achievement without significantly downplaying major assholery and narcissist-like behavior. While trying to tar completely innocent uninvolved groups, like neuro-atypical or programmers with that. And we even could avoid whole dicussion here, had people were not insistent on "just a slow to make friends".
        mlyle 6y ago
        > I found the bigger issue to be the stuffing supposedly neutral comitee with friends in dispute with Leibniz, so that they rule your way. Or stealing Flamsteeds work and publishing it under Edmund Halley, Flamsteed’s ennemy name. It's important to consider the exact context that this happened in. Newton was a jerk, but his contemporaries don't come off smelling like roses, either. Newton had to deal with Hooke stuffing committees and rallying political support, too. This is the way the top of the Royal Society looked in the 17th century. > Destroying last portrait of Robert Hooke cause he was competitor and disagreed with me The current prevailing thought is that this is just myth.
        watwut 6y ago
        Yeah, but that is exactly part of what we should stop pretending not happened. Prople really don't like to admit - these high powered people and "heroes" were massive unethical assholes. Instead, we take their own word about themselves and about their enemies as gospel. And I think the way we tiptoe around it and refuse to admit dynamics and acts involved is related to why we can't deal with contemporary narcissists either. And what it does is that it is disadvantaging honest people, because they learn about how it really works only after it costed them.
- abhayhegde 6y ago
  That nobody is perfect and not to discount their contributions because of who they are. Everyone has flaws and by that token, when looked through the worst possible moral lens, nobody deserves respect. Our aim in life should be to pick the positive/good attributes and try instilling them within ourselves. Do not mirror them, do not condone ill-behaviors and as far as possible, be a kind being.
dekervin 6y ago
What part of his life was terrible ?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
mnl 6y ago
I'd never have thought cancel culture would extend to Newton. The thing is if we were only taking into account the contributions of saints according to contemporary moral standards, we would have empty libraries. If we're into building some comforting society in which human beings aren't complex, don't have flaws, don't make mistakes and there's an inherent morality in whatever you accomplish just because it's you who's done it (this decade's favourite non sequitur), well I'd say that's teen brain modal logic if I ever saw one and then excuse me, but I'll be protecting those libraries brimming with stuff written by evil evil people, because a world where that exists is more valuable to me than any project of safe paradise where it doesn't.
SllX 6y ago
“Whenever I mention the likes of Newton and their works, I frequently get attacked by some people. Their argument is that Newton was a terrible human being and despite his contributions to Science, Mathematics, and the process of discoveries in general, he does not deserve praise since appraisal implies we would be condoning his behavior.“ I lament atheism, even as an atheist, for the idea that only the Gods (or God) can pass judgement on the human soul is a useful idea. When nothing is sacred, every thing and person is subject to useless and pointless posthumous destruction for there is nothing to naturally curtail the hubris that we can pass judgement on all who ever lived even when we are in fact, not objectively morally superior to our forebears and even if we were, we don’t possess the means to make that determination. The dead are gone, but we still use them to distract us from our lives rather than take what is useful and discard what is not.

batsigner 6y ago

What is the point of your comment?

max_ 6y ago
That being a human being that adds value to society does not require everyone to like you.
- watwut 6y ago
  "Not everyone liked him" is sort of understatement. We can accept and celebrate his contributions without pretending that the dislike for Newton was all about some mild unlikability.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    I guess I'm in the medium unlikability school. I mean, he seems as unlikable as a significant number of programmers who are not Isaac Newton despite pretensions to equivalent accomplishment. https://inversesquare.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/friday-isaac-newton-blogging-how-mean-was-he/ https://inversesquare.wordpress.com/2008/03/21/friday-isaac-... on edit: meaning some programmers are not quick to make friends, and are not convivial, perhaps due to some neuro-atypical qualities, which I expect was probably the case with Newton. Not that programmers condemn people to death as their jobs generally do not require it.
    - watwut 6y ago
      I found the bigger issue to be the stuffing supposedly neutral comitee with friends in dispute with Leibniz, so that they rule your way. Or stealing Flamsteeds work and publishing it under Edmund Halley, Flamsteed’s ennemy name. Destroying last portrait of Robert Hooke cause he was competitor and disagreed with me. These and others are major assholery issues, major ego issues. Not just "little bit neuro-atypical". Typical programmer is much much more ethical then that. Typical programmer is not actually ego maniac Newton was said to be either. That is incidentally my issue. Can't have achievement without significantly downplaying major assholery and narcissist-like behavior. While trying to tar completely innocent uninvolved groups, like neuro-atypical or programmers with that. And we even could avoid whole dicussion here, had people were not insistent on "just a slow to make friends".
      - mlyle 6y ago
        > I found the bigger issue to be the stuffing supposedly neutral comitee with friends in dispute with Leibniz, so that they rule your way. Or stealing Flamsteeds work and publishing it under Edmund Halley, Flamsteed’s ennemy name. It's important to consider the exact context that this happened in. Newton was a jerk, but his contemporaries don't come off smelling like roses, either. Newton had to deal with Hooke stuffing committees and rallying political support, too. This is the way the top of the Royal Society looked in the 17th century. > Destroying last portrait of Robert Hooke cause he was competitor and disagreed with me The current prevailing thought is that this is just myth.
        watwut 6y ago
        Yeah, but that is exactly part of what we should stop pretending not happened. Prople really don't like to admit - these high powered people and "heroes" were massive unethical assholes. Instead, we take their own word about themselves and about their enemies as gospel. And I think the way we tiptoe around it and refuse to admit dynamics and acts involved is related to why we can't deal with contemporary narcissists either. And what it does is that it is disadvantaging honest people, because they learn about how it really works only after it costed them.
abhayhegde 6y ago
That nobody is perfect and not to discount their contributions because of who they are. Everyone has flaws and by that token, when looked through the worst possible moral lens, nobody deserves respect. Our aim in life should be to pick the positive/good attributes and try instilling them within ourselves. Do not mirror them, do not condone ill-behaviors and as far as possible, be a kind being.

dekervin 6y ago

What part of his life was terrible ?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

mnl 6y ago

I'd never have thought cancel culture would extend to Newton. The thing is if we were only taking into account the contributions of saints according to contemporary moral standards, we would have empty libraries. If we're into building some comforting society in which human beings aren't complex, don't have flaws, don't make mistakes and there's an inherent morality in whatever you accomplish just because it's you who's done it (this decade's favourite non sequitur), well I'd say that's teen brain modal logic if I ever saw one and then excuse me, but I'll be protecting those libraries brimming with stuff written by evil evil people, because a world where that exists is more valuable to me than any project of safe paradise where it doesn't.

SllX 6y ago

“Whenever I mention the likes of Newton and their works, I frequently get attacked by some people. Their argument is that Newton was a terrible human being and despite his contributions to Science, Mathematics, and the process of discoveries in general, he does not deserve praise since appraisal implies we would be condoning his behavior.“ I lament atheism, even as an atheist, for the idea that only the Gods (or God) can pass judgement on the human soul is a useful idea. When nothing is sacred, every thing and person is subject to useless and pointless posthumous destruction for there is nothing to naturally curtail the hubris that we can pass judgement on all who ever lived even when we are in fact, not objectively morally superior to our forebears and even if we were, we don’t possess the means to make that determination. The dead are gone, but we still use them to distract us from our lives rather than take what is useful and discard what is not.