Eclipsing brightness.
I've been wondering about this facet of humanity that awards disproportionately discoveries or insights into theory making or influence thereupon a field of study.
Namely, the decreasing amount of philosophers or scientists that exert too much of an effect on a field by making their name known.
Wittgenstein did this to philosophy when he became this idol of the linguistic turn with Russell.
Gödel did this to mathematics. Newton is so great in influence, that his name will never be forgotten from the annals of science.
Yet, this continual influence on systematic thought or work is disturbing because of what Hilbert might have tried, or the counterfactual that logical positivism would still be relevant today despite Popper's claim of fallibilism in the philosophy of science.
It further aggravates slow and continual progress performed on a field by the more less known; but, not less bright in regards to their systematic progress.
Yet, this is troubling to philosophy, as this constantly takes place. Entire fields are dominated by a single name nowadays, like Kripke who took the mantle from Wittgenstein and based his whole profession in part from working on what Wittgenstein has said.
Is this something that bothers you too or just a fact of human nature?
Namely, the decreasing amount of philosophers or scientists that exert too much of an effect on a field by making their name known.
Wittgenstein did this to philosophy when he became this idol of the linguistic turn with Russell.
Gödel did this to mathematics. Newton is so great in influence, that his name will never be forgotten from the annals of science.
Yet, this continual influence on systematic thought or work is disturbing because of what Hilbert might have tried, or the counterfactual that logical positivism would still be relevant today despite Popper's claim of fallibilism in the philosophy of science.
It further aggravates slow and continual progress performed on a field by the more less known; but, not less bright in regards to their systematic progress.
Yet, this is troubling to philosophy, as this constantly takes place. Entire fields are dominated by a single name nowadays, like Kripke who took the mantle from Wittgenstein and based his whole profession in part from working on what Wittgenstein has said.
Is this something that bothers you too or just a fact of human nature?
Comments (3)
He brought to light a fallibility in the subject, but it's not a concern in much of mathematics. However, in the future it may turn out to be very important. Who knows?
:lol: