4 ms·
I don't know whether Einstein meant "the intelligent few are more intelligent than the masses, collectively" or "individually," but it's not fair for you to say
by john-radio 3y ago
I don't know whether Einstein meant "the intelligent few are more intelligent than the masses, collectively" or "individually," but it's not fair for you to say that one reading is "loose metaphor" while the other is completely straightforward; either interpretation is sensible.
- kspacewalk2 3y agoOne is completely straightforward whereas the other is ambiguous. Only one interpretation is sensible without making a big assumption about the author's views.
- Retric 3y agoYour “straightforward interpretation” hinges of what he means by “produce some thing valuable for the community.” Did he mean valuable things like bread, or only extreme value like electrodynamics? Well he didn’t say “extreme value” and it’s easy to argue the character of productive members of society is above that of pickpockets so that fits. So IMO a straightforward interpretation would be calling the great masses of humanity dumb rather than extolling the virtues of bakers.
- auggierose 3y agoIn the lines before he mentioned flying and electric waves, so I think he means that. Bread would fall under commodities. There is really only one way to read his message. Which is a good thing, given that it is intended to be transmitted across 5000 years.
- Retric 3y agoHe calls out the lack of commodities as a problem to be addressed, unlike flying and radio which are suggested to be solved problems. “everybody must live in fear of being eliminated from the economic cycle” not fear of failing to create the next wonder. Thus emphasizing the critical nature of workers. It’s easy to read as pro social safety net or event collectivist terms. But stating a problem alone doesn’t suggest a solution.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- AlecSchueler 3y ago> There is really only one way to read his message. This thread is a clear indicator that ther are multiple ways to read it. One may seem more valid than others but it's not at all unambiguous. I'd love to know what the people in 5000 years, if there are any, project onto this. Maybe they'll refer back to this thread and fall into two major camps.
- auggierose 3y agoNo, what this thread shows is that however clear you express something, there will always be people refusing to understand it.
- mistermann 3y agoIrony levels of this thread are approaching 9000.
- Aeolun 3y agoI don’t understand why the distinction matters? The intelligent few will produce more novel ideas, combined or individually, than the masses. Whom by definition produce nothing (at least nothing novel).
- epups 3y agoI think the distinction is that one interpretation is arguing that "truth by committee" is usually wrong, while the other is arguing for an elitist view where some people just carry all the weight.
- mistermann 3y agoTechnically, defining something as being true only sometimes makes it true in fact ("All bachelors are unmarried", for example), in other cases (like this one) it only causes it to appear true...but then, if one considers the theory that reality is equal to people's perception of it, it is usually a moot distinction ...but not always.