Talk:E. F. Schumacher
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. |
 |
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject International development, which is building a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to International development, including such areas as Appropriate technology, Microfinance, and social issues related to development. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks and discuss the project. |
[edit] Prologue
Good overview but does not address how Schumacher's views led him toward Catholicism and how his conversion influenced his subsequent writings.
The statement:
Schumacher was a known friend of Professor Mansur Hoda, whom he had known for many years
is not particularly illuminating. Who's that?
[edit] Quotable quote question
I asked a question at the reference desk about a quotable quote by Schumacher: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#folio_incognito: E. F. Schumacher. Help appreciated. – Kaihsu 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] About "Three culprits" section
I don't know whether Schumacher held the view formulated in the sentence "Einstein had undermined belief in absolutes with his insistence on the relativity of everything. The application of 'relativity' in all other fields including morality, led to rejection of moral codes and responsibility.", but the view itself is nonsense. Einstein's theory of relativity is limited to physics, and does not assert that everything (in physics) is relative. In special relativity, for instance, the speed of light in vacuum is supposed to be the same in all frames of reference. That some have misunderstood his theory and applied it (incorrectly) to other areas of human knowledge, cannot be blamed on Einstein. It also should not be forgotten that Einstein's theory is not a personal opinion but a genuine, testable and falsifiable theory, which is (so far) in excellent agreement with many areas of physical reality. His theory should be contrasted with the contributions of Freud and Marx, which are nonscientific 'theories' (because they cannot be tested and falsified), and can be considered opinions, or personal interpretations of certain aspects of reality (the human mind and the development of history). In the case of Marx there is also a good deal of ideology involved. So Einstein's contribution is not at the same level as those of Freud and Marx. It may very well be that Schumacher held the belief expressed in the sentence quoted above (reference?). If so, I think it should be qualified with a comment along the lines of the present remark. If it is not true, this sentence should be modified or replaced, of course. peerke 14:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think Einstein's reputation would be marred by the "Three Culprits." It's clear from the description, as it stands, that it isn't Einstein's theory but the misapplication that is the Culprit. The culprits are Selfish attitudes, lack of personal responsibility and devolution of moral absolutes. The trouble is that by giving those three particular names to illustrate it, the "Three Culprits" becomes a very temporal expression of the concept. 81.156.249.20 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
