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.
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.
“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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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".
> 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.
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.
>I found the bigger issue to be the stuffing supposedly neutral comitee with friends in dispute with Leibniz, so that they rule your way....
I certainly don't agree with this, but that is because my ethics are informed by a culture in which these things are considered bad. I believe there are cultures in which it is the way things are done, and in my readings of earlier centuries their ethics were not ours.
>These and others are major assholery issues, major ego issues.
There is a particular relatively famous programmer that I think of when I think 'asshole programmer', back when I used to go to conferences I would see him get up and tear down medium level programmers during their sessions. I don't want to say his name in case I ever have to confront him, as I like to keep my powder dry. I have met other programmers that were just as big jerks, although without this guy's accomplishments.
Obviously the programmer in question accomplishments pale in comparison to those of Newton. So I believe if I met Newton I would think - what an asshole!! but I would also somehow feel his contributions to the world did something to make up for his social inadequacies. So I guess I'm saying when I get my time machine after checking kill Hitler off my bucket list I probably won't be going to punch Isaac Newton in the nose for second place.
>And we even could avoid whole dicussion here, had people were not insistent on "just a slow to make friends".
Yes we could have avoided whole discussion here, if we just agreed with your viewpoint. But I don't agree, and so the discussion evidently needed to be had.
on edit: also the committee stuff sounds like a lot of the stuff I read about malfeasance in academia so - again sounds like sort of garden variety asshole there.
They were not culture where this was considered "good". Earlier centuries their ethics were not ours, but especially these interpersonal competite issues were considered ethical issues by them. Hence people pissed off be these.
It is completely absurd to make up imaginary past ethical systems. I am all for looking at past standards, but make them actual past standards. The way you do it makes all involved sound dumb.
Moreover offtopic: sometimes genius 'misunderstood' by group of people is actually group of people having healthy boundaries and acting rationally. And the while conflict starts to make sense instead of comming accross as "people in past were ridiculous".
I don't know the specific of the Newton case and am not really vested in the issue. But I am midly amused by your definitive statement on cultures' take on interpersonal competitive issues over the course of mankind history.
While we are living in an era where what you consider actual standard are not uniformely regarded as such on the surface of the globe.
I am genuinely interested in knowing how you could arrive at such an opinion ?
( regarding They were not culture where this was considered "good" and these interpersonal competite issues were considered ethical issues by them. )
I was in much better environment with much better programmers.
The programmer you mention was not a norm. He was an issue, collective inability to cut his shit off was issue. And apparently his behavior ended up normalise among programmers you know, precisely because people around you were not able to set boundaries on them.
But it was not him being neuro-atypical, was not "slow to make friends", you are talking about bullies in environment that is enabling it.
Let's call it power trip and bullying instead of absurd euphemisms.
And that bullying is not considered normal or acceptable by our general society either.
He took more than the average amount of glee in executing counterfeiters, and did up his apartments in red. Edgar Allan Poe couldn’t have written it better.
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.