One useful contrast would be to put the careers of Feynman and Bluecher side-by-side.
Arendt knew nothing about Feynman's achievements - nor did Heidegger.
The two-way trail or parallel paths would run from 1952 to 1967: where did Bluecher get to in his teaching and where did Feynman get to in his mere physics.
Posterity got the Feyman Lectures and the Feynman diagrams. That can go in one column. And in the other? Clap-trap about "matter" and "energy" this many years after Weyl, 1918?
Note: Feynman's peers were not averse to talking with philosophers at conferences on philosophy of science.
Contrary to the picture painted by Arendt and Bluecher, what had been achieved - was being achieved - was truly remarkable. And much of it by an atheist, with an atheist.
Note: Like Arendt, Heisenberg gave a set of Gifford Lectures - but by then his work as a physicist was basically over and his eloquence of little intrinsic interest. As with Arendt, Heisenberg's reputation has been seriously tarnished: but in the 1950's she felt herself on sure ground in quoting his views.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Bluecher on the artist and nuclear physics speaks of the "curve" - what was he thinking? Geodesic? Where are the matrices that Born brought to Heisenberg's work? Groups? I suspect he was without a clue.
ReplyDelete