2024/07/06

Spinoza: Freedom's Messiah : Buruma, Ian: Amazon.com.au2024

Spinoza: Freedom's Messiah : Buruma, Ian: Amazon.com.au: Books

Kindle
$32.87
Available instantly

 Audiobook
1 CreditAvailable instantly

Hardcover
$42.63





Ian BurumaIan Buruma
Follow
Spinoza: Freedom's Messiah Hardcover – 11 June 2024
by Ian Buruma (Author)
4.5 4.5 out of 5 stars 79 ratings
Part of: Jewish Lives (68 books)

Ian Buruma explores the life and death of Baruch Spinoza, the Enlightenment thinker whose belief in freedom of thought and speech resonates in our own time

Baruch (Benedictus) Spinoza (1632–1677) was a radical free thinker who led a life guided by strong moral principles despite his disbelief in an all-seeing God. Seen by many―Christians as well as Jews―as Satan’s disciple during his lifetime, Spinoza has been regarded as a secular saint since his death. Many contradictory beliefs have been attached to his name: rationalism or metaphysics, atheism or pantheism, liberalism or despotism, Jewishness or anti-Semitism. However, there is no question that he viewed freedom of thought and speech as essential to an open and free society.

In this insightful account, the award-winning author Ian Buruma stresses the importance of the time and place that shaped Spinoza, beginning with the Sephardim of Amsterdam and followed by the politics of the Dutch Republic. Though Spinoza rejected the basic assumptions of his family’s faith, and was consequently expelled from his Sephardic community, Buruma argues that Spinoza did indeed lead a Jewish life: a modern Jewish life. To Heine, Hess, Marx, Freud, and no doubt many others today, Spinoza exemplified how to be Jewish without believing in Judaism. His defense of universal freedom is as important for our own time as it was in his.
Read less


==

Product description

Review
"A brief but forceful entry in Yale's sprawling Jewish Lives series. . . . Mr. Buruma succeeds admirably in capturing the man as well as the essentials of his thought. Rather than unhappy and isolated, as he's sometimes been depicted, the stoic Spinoza portrayed here practically glows with serenity and grace."--Daniel Akst, Wall Street Journal

"Undoubtedly the most readable introduction to Spinoza's life now available."--Joe Moshenska, The Guardian

"In his new book, Spinoza: Freedom's Messiah, . . . Buruma observes that 'intellectual freedom has once again become an important issue, even in countries, such as the United States, that pride themselves on being uniquely free.'"--Adam Kirsch, New Yorker

"A fresh biography of one of the leading lights of the Enlightenment, whose views on rational thinking and secularization still resonate. . . . An elegant, relevant biography of a vital thinker."--Kirkus Reviews (starred review)

"Buruma does a magnificent job of demonstrating the enigmatic nature of Spinoza's thought and life. Given that mystery breeds possibility, one leaves the biography feeling like Spinoza can indeed speak in many registers to many different people."--Marc Katz, Jewish Book Council

"Ian Buruma tells the story of Spinoza's star-crossed Jewish life engagingly, drawing on his own Dutch background to give it added relief. His jargon-free critique of Spinoza's philosophy, while placing it in his time, also asks trenchantly what it might say about our time."--Gary Schwartz, author of Rembrandt in a Red Beret: The Vanishings and Reappearances of a Self-Portrait

"Ian Buruma has written a wonderfully lively and instructive introduction to the great philosopher who led a 'modern Jewish life, ' and whose struggles for freedom of thought provide a model for us today."--David A. Bell, Princeton University

"In this short and splendid book, Ian Buruma incarnates Spinoza as an exceptional human being, but human all the same. His immensely vivid account breathes new life into Spinoza, freeing him from mummified versions of this great man."--Avishai Margalit, author of On Betrayal
















About the Author
Ian Buruma is Paul W. Williams Professor of Human Rights and Journalism at Bard College. He is the author of many books, including Murder in Amsterdam: Liberal Europe, Islam and the Limits of Tolerance, and contributes to Harper's Magazine and the New Yorker. He lives in New York City.

Product details
Publisher ‏ : ‎ *Yale University Press; 1st edition (11 June 2024)
Language ‏ : ‎ English
Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 216 pages
==

From other countries

Israel Drazin
5.0 out of 5 stars What is Spinoza's PhilosophyReviewed in the United States on 6 May 2024
Verified Purchase
Ian Buruma’s 2024 “Spinoza: Freedom’s Messiah,” a significant addition to Jewish studies, is published by Yale University Press. This book is a comprehensive introduction to the life of the short-lived renowned Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), who died at the early age of 45. Only two of his books were published during his lifetime: Theological-Political Treatise in 1670 and Ethics in 1677. Buruma's unique approach to Spinoza's life and ideas will captivate readers.
Buruma is the author of twenty-two other books and a Professor of Human Rights and Journalism at Bard College. His book is a valuable addition to the Jewish Lives series, a prizewinning collection of interpretive biographies that delve into the various aspects of Jewish identity. In partnership with the Leon D. Black Foundation, Yale University Press has published over sixty books, including this volume in Jewish Lives. With over thirty more books forthcoming, the series enriches our understanding of Jewish history and culture.
Buruma’s book is 216 pages long, with 12 chapters comprising 174 pages, 13 pages of notes, a page of acknowledgments, and an index of 10 pages.
The book is not a traditional biography but a collection of speculations about Spinoza’s life. It does not delve into Spinoza’s ideas and philosophy. Instead, it describes the many debates surrounding Spinoza's life and work. Buruma emphasizes that virtually everything said to be known about Spinoza is pure speculation, and scholars have different ideas about them. He praises “the excellent biography by Steven Nadler, whose book is about as exhaustive as one can be about a short life full of unknowns.”
Buruma added, “Spinoza’s complicated ideas are (also) open to many interpretations.” Scholars differ on how to interpret them. As a result, we have no definitive picture of what Spinoza was teaching other than that he was a rationalist who stressed using one’s intelligence. He writes, “The Israeli scholar Yirmiyahu Yovel has portrayed Spinoza as a philosopher whose thinking was profoundly influenced by his Marrano family background. He believes that Spinoza’s use of language and his ‘mastery of equivocation’ were rooted in the habits of his ancestors who had to hide their faith behind a veil of Christian conversion in the face of the Iberian Inquisition.” (I agree and will give my interpretation below.)
Buruma tells readers that since the fourteenth century, Jews in Spain were forced to convert to avoid persecution. Many converted while continuing to be faithful Jews secretly. Those who publicly converted but were discovered to be secretly practicing Judaism were killed. The remaining Jews were expelled in 1492. Many, including Spinoza’s family, fled to Amsterdam, where Jews were tolerated as long as they did not “clash with (Amsterdam’s) Calvinism on such matters as the immortality of the soul, belief in the afterlife, God the creator or the divine origin of the Holy Scriptures – all dogmas that Spinoza would later repudiate.” The state felt it must protect its citizens from false religions. Strict theologians were in favor of banning Jews and Catholics from the country. However, the majority agreed to tolerate them as long as they caused no clash. Noting the very sensitive situation, the Jewish leaders, including the rabbis, were cautious not to speak about subjects that might endanger their lives.
Jews and Catholics were not the only groups facing the danger of causing the Amsterdam government to stop tolerating them. English Quakers escaped persecution and fled to Holland in large numbers. However, unlike the Jews, after being in Holland for some time because of the possibility of offending the government with their religious beliefs, they left Holland for America.
Spinoza was placed in herem, meaning ostracized, on July 27, 1656. As with virtually everything regarding Spinoza’s life and thoughts, what prompted the herem is unclear. This is especially difficult to understand since we know that Spinoza was cautious throughout his life not to endanger his own life and the lives of fellow Jews by revealing what he believed.
Indeed, I am convinced that this is why his writings are unclear and subject to widely different interpretations. In this respect, he was very similar to Maimonides (1138-1204), who also hid his true rational ideas. He did so in his own way. He mixed them with the ideas of non-educated Jews. He did this because he was very compassionate and did not want to hurt fellow Jews in any way.
Buruma writes that Spinoza “was cautious about how much he was prepared (to reveal of his thinking). (This) makes his enthusiasm to publish (his book) Ethics (in 1677, long after the herem, the year he died) a bit puzzling. He must have known that this book” would enflame the passions of the Amsterdam government.
In my view, it is possible that in 1677, when he was deathly ill and died, he was not thinking very well.
Buruma ends his fascinating book, from which readers will learn much, by writing that Spinoza “showed the way all human beings can think freely and discover truths that apply to everyone. For that, we all owe him a debt, not as a ‘good Jew,’ or a secular saint, but as a great and humane man.”
While Buruma does not explain Spinoza’s ideas, I would like to do so.
First, we should realize that a policy of toleration is intolerable. Imagine a husband and wife lying in bed together. He taps his wife’s shoulder, and when he gets her attention, he says, “Whatever anyone says, I want you to know I tolerate you.” I think such an attitude is grounds for a divorce. I also think we should recognize that Jews in Amsterdam were very fearful, as were the Quakers, that the toleration policy could easily slide into a situation resulting in their death. So, they were very careful about what they said. This is why Spinoza hid his true opinions.
Second, it is reasonable to assume that Spinoza knew Maimonides’ philosophy. He most likely learned about Maimonides during his years of study of Judaism. Because of his strong interest in philosophy, it is almost certain that he read his books either in his youth or later. It is also likely that he found Maimonides’ rationalism closely akin to his own, if not identical.
Third, true Spinoza criticized some biblical laws and practices and even called some superstition and pagan. So did Maimonides. Maimonides stressed that the Torah needed to be presented to the Israelites in a way they could accept. He said it is impossible to change a person and certainly not a nation immediately. This was why the Torah had to allow slavery, sacrifices, an eye for an eye, and gave many hints that the laws needed to be changed. This is why the Torah stresses the goal of the change, “You should love the stranger as yourself,” which means to treat others as you want to be treated yourself.
This law about strangers was repeated in the Torah and thereby emphasized thirty-six times. If I were a mystic, which I am not, I would point out that the Hebrew word for “life” is made up of two Hebrew letters, the letters chet and yud. The Hebrew alphabet was used to indicate numbers. The two letters number eight and ten. The statement about strangers being said thirty-six times is twice eighteen. Thus, if I were a mystic, I would have said the Torah emphasizes the rule about the proper treatment of strangers twice “life” to teach that this law is so significant that it impacts life in this world and the world to come. Although I am not a mystic, I agree, and so does the New Testament, that “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “Love the stranger as yourself” are fundamental principles of religion.
Fourth, since, as Buruma and others pointed out, virtually all “facts” about Spinoza’s life are speculations, and Spinosa clearly never converted to Christianity, it is possible that he observed Jewish practices even after the herem.
Fifth, we should not dismiss the idea that Spinoza followed the teachings of Maimonides. For example, there is Spinoza’s unclear famous statement that God is seen in nature. Based on Exodus 33:18-23, Maimonides taught us that nothing is known about God. All that we can know is what has been created. Although not full knowledge, we get some clues about God by studying the laws of nature and learning the sciences. (We can think about God being all-powerful, all-knowing, and the like even though we do not know because the ideas are not harmful, but we should remember that we do not know.) Thus, I am convinced Spinoza stated Maimonides’ teaching in his own cryptic way.
Sixth, while I suggest that Spinoza accepted the views of Maimonides or most of them, and while I think Spinoza was brilliant, I do not believe he was as bright as Maimonides. While Maimonides was very practical, Spinoza was not, and while Maimonides devoted his life to helping fellow Jews, Spinoza secluded himself.

One person found this helpfulReport

Robert Walker
5.0 out of 5 stars Reason v. superstitionReviewed in the United States on 11 March 2024
Verified Purchase
This is a delightful read on top of Steven Nadler's brilliant works on Spinoza. Buruma brings an added twist by being from the same Nederlandish environs in which Spinoza was born. The portrait of Spinoza here is of course based on rather scant information about his personal life. But, the few data that exist support the idea of someone whose life was lived in accordance with his writings. Buruma does not just paint a hero icon, however. He details the flaws or inconsistencies in Spinoza's works, such as S.'s belief that an orderly state should include recognized religion. He does not mention or address the disconnection between S.'s dismissal of free will and yet inducement to people to live their lives differently by using reason rather than unbridled emotion or religious rituals. Doesn't it take will to enact change in one's life? And if S. argues to persuade people, he must think he is talking to free agents.

The physical properties of the book are also wonderful - fine paper, deckled edges and sharp black font, tight binding. I didn't see a single typo - an unusual even these days.

A great read.

3 people found this helpfulReport

Tamiko Hershey
4.0 out of 5 stars Good Overview on Spinoza’s LifeReviewed in the United States on 20 April 2024
Verified Purchase
The book nicely describes Spinoza’s life and experiences from what seems to be somewhat limited historical documentation. Limited speculation but also limited richness of details. Nicely accessible length but also could have delved deeper into key views. I didn’t not care for the author’s attempts to find common connections to the present day and extend that to political commentary. It would have had more significance to understand how Spinoza’s views informed the American and French revolutions and other 18th and 19th century political movements.

One person found this helpfulReport

Amazon Customer
5.0 out of 5 stars Buruma’s writing and thinking is always first rateReviewed in the United States on 27 April 2024
Verified Purchase
An exceptionally clear and concise account of Spinoza’s life, thinking, the times in which he lived, and its importance to the challenges, particularly the political challenges of our own times.
Report

Mark Nadel
5.0 out of 5 stars Informative and ConciseReviewed in the United States on 14 March 2024
Verified Purchase
Buruma provides an excellent summary of Spinoza’s theology and philosophy. He forgoes the usual turgid writing of philosophers in favor of clear explication that is accessible and even enjoyable for any attentive reader. This brief biography also provides a wonderful overview of 17th century Dutch society and government.

2 people found this helpfulReport

Bernard . Pucker
5.0 out of 5 stars Truth. Truth.Reviewed in the United States on 9 March 2024
Verified Purchase
Excellently constructed biography of Spinoza. Told with clarity and depth of knowledge of the works and ideas of the Netherlands in the mod 17th century. Occasionally too much collateral information and supposition that does not help better appreciate Spinoza and his ideas which are definitely pertinent today. The on going search for a pure truth.

Bernard H Pucker

3 people found this helpfulReport

Albert M. Schwartz
5.0 out of 5 stars Who Sponoza wasReviewed in the United States on 5 April 2024
Verified Purchase
Excellent biography, full of details but a clear presentation of Spinoza's thinking, philosophy, influences, whom he influenced
Report

BlastL3
5.0 out of 5 stars Great ReadReviewed in the United States on 8 May 2024
Verified Purchase
A well-received and liked gift
Report

Guy P. Pfeffermann
5.0 out of 5 stars Fantastic bookReviewed in the United States on 10 March 2024
Verified Purchase
A terrific highly readable book. If nothing else read the last chapter and see how supremely relevant he is in our world of today.

One person found this helpfulReport

Scholar
1.0 out of 5 stars CheapReviewed in the United States on 16 June 2024
Verified Purchase
Poor work.
Report


Sponsored
Need customer service?
See all details for Spinoza: Freedom's Messiah
==


==

My Daughter Dr. Beatrice Tinsle, Edward Hill 1986 archive.org

My Daughter Beatrice - Google Books





My Daughter Beatrice
A Personal Memoir of Dr. Beatrice Tinsley, Astronomer
작성자: Edward Hill · 1986

Bright Star: Beatrice Hill Tinsley, Astronomer by Christine Cole Catley | Goodreads

Bright Star: Beatrice Hill Tinsley, Astronomer by Christine Cole Catley | Goodreads




Bright Star: Beatrice Hill Tinsley, Astronomer


Christine Cole Catley

3.87
30 ratings10 reviews

A New Zealand hero brought out of obscurity in this fascinating 445 page biography by author Christine Cole Catley.Beatrice Hill Tinsley showed astronomers new ways of thinking and taught teachers new ways of teaching. A lover of nature and a conservationist who idealised New Zealand, she was also a musician, a feminist, a battler for zero growth population growth and a champion of the oppressed.Her life is a classic study in the interaction of nature and nurture, genetics and environment. It is also an inspiring and unforgettable picture of a girl determined to be a scientist who grows up in provincial New Zealand and wins through to world renown.

GenresNonfictionBiographyScienceAstronomy



445 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2006
Book details & editions


Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews


Octavia Cade
Author 88 books125 followers

Follow
August 22, 2017
An extremely well-written biography of the New Zealand astronomer Beatrice Tinsley. Notable mostly for its sympathetic treatment of the subject, especially as Tinsley was in many ways held back in her pursuit of science by sexism, especially in how supportive she was expected to be as wife and mother while getting very little support in return. Thankfully for science, she got herself out of the backblocks of 1960s/70s Texas and off to Yale, where she immediately made an impact.

This is such an easy book to read - the writing is polished and friendly, the subject exceptionally entertaining - a really fascinating character. I was absolute engrossed. There is, however, one glaring gap. Nowhere in the book is there an exploration of Tinsley's research - not on even the barest level. It's made clear that she's a huge innovator in studying the evolution of galaxies, but not only am I left with little to no understanding of the particulars, I am left with the suspicion that Cole Catley knows nothing of them either.
biography new-zealand science
1 like
Like
Comment




Raffaella
1 review

Follow
March 26, 2017
Great story well researched and well written, I love what's up and out there ( a favourite is perfect storm) I even enjoy and understand the scientific info although I don't retain them of course.
I love biographies.
Am reading now in Italian the conscience of Zeno written by Italo Svevo who was a great friend of James Joyce,
Thank you

1 like
Like
Comment



Josephine Draper
258 reviews1 follower

Follow
March 18, 2024
I do love a biography and so perhaps I am biased. I also very much enjoyed the subject - a brilliant female scientist, who, bizarrely, I had never heard of.
Beatrice Tinsley (nee Hill) was an astronomer at the forefront of research into the universe, and how galaxies form and evolve. Her brilliance now can be easily measured in how prolific a writer she was, publishing 11 scientific papers in 1978, for example. She is an easy person to admire, being extraordinarily driven by her passion. It makes for a compelling story - you know she's going to get there, somehow, after growing up in provincial New Zealand. But how she ends up a professor of astronomy, at the forefront of galactic modelling in Yale, in the 1970s, a time when women were still struggling to be taken seriously, is a compelling tale.
What I enjoyed about her story is how incredibly productive she was. The parts in the early 1960s where she is trying to bring up two children, as well as working as an academic, are astounding, considering that at that time both she and her husband expected her to do all of the domestic chores (presumably in accordance with the social mores of the day). She would squeeze value out of every moment, working in the mornings and the evenings.

I won't spoil the story, but of course, it is a fact written on the back of the book that Beatrice Tinsley died very young, of melanoma, and this is surely at least partly why she is now remembered, because her brilliance is undimmed. "Age shall not weary them", as Binyon said. In her case, she went at the peak of her powers, a beloved professor whose commitment to science brought many graduate students along with her. The book is full of stories of how she would introduce students to people who could help them, and how her brilliant (though sometimes exposing) critiques would improve others' work. There's surely a big pinch of the obsessive compulsive in Beatrice, but despite her quirks and the fact she sometimes came across as insensitive in the interests of science, she was also a deeply caring person who loved her children, music, and above all, the science of astronomy.

A powerful book about a woman who should have accomplished more. It's easy to speculate about Nobel prizes, but I can't help thinking she would have got there if she hadn't been struck down in her prime. The last line of her obituary states:

For her the pain of having to depart from the world at the height of her career was eased just a little by the realisation that she was doing so in the full glow of attention and recognition, rather than as a forgotten relic of a past era.

I won't lie - this biography made me shed a tear or two about a woman who died more than forty years ago.
biography new-zealand non-fiction
Like
Comment



Synøve
17 reviews

Follow
August 17, 2022
Beatrice was clearly a very driven, interesting person, but the book was incredibly incredibly long for a relatively short life. I would've probably enjoyed it more if the writing was a little tighter.

Like
Comment



Tiffany
233 reviews

Follow
July 25, 2011
A truly in-depth account of an all too short life. (Scarily in-depth! Such a huge amount of research obviously went into this book. I couldn't help wondering what Beatrice would have thought though of us poring over the intimate details of her life.) The scientific world lost a very bright star (pun intended) when Beatrice died. And to die from skin cancer; what a horribly mundane and tragic way for such an extraordinary life to have been cut short. I didn't know much at all about Beatrice before reading this book so it was very educational. Her accomplishments deserve to be more well-known and celebrated in New Zealand. A great book; a long and at times challenging read but fascinating nonetheless.
nz-authors
Like
Comment




Philippa
Author 3 books5 followers

Follow
October 12, 2012
I can't believe more New Zealanders don't know about this genius astronomer who hailed from our shores. An interesting study of a woman's career that was initially stymied by her being a woman, but clearly she made a huge contribution to astronomy and cosmology.

Like
Comment



Sue Webber
208 reviews

Follow
July 16, 2014
I gave up before I even got to 100 pages, I don't dispute that a huge amount of research went into this. The trouble is it is so in depth that I got very bored with it. A shame as I would have liked to have finished it.
abandoned
Like
Comment



Emily Atamoana
2 reviews

Follow
August 9, 2014
One of the best books I have ever read. Fascinating, poignant, emotional.

Like
Comment



Arna
339 reviews

Follow
January 2, 2017
A book club book, about a woman I find intimidating, however brilliant she was.

Like
Comment

알라딘: 부인·여성·여자 - 남자가 읽은 일본 여성사 가노 마사나오 2024

일본사 연구총서 6권. 일본 여성사는 제국시대를 외면하지 않는다. 남성들이 일으킨 세계 대전을 모두 남성 탓으로 돌릴 수도 있겠지만 제국에는 침략 전쟁을 ‘총구의 뒤'에서 뒷받침한 여성들도 있었기 때문이다. 일본 여성 해방 운동은 이에 대한 통렬한 반성을 전제로 삼고 있다.


목차


시작하며 : 여성사와 나 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

제 I 편 여자들 ·여성사의 논점 31

제 1 장 여자들의 위치 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.1 여성의 위치는 변했는가 . . . . . . . . . . 33
1.2 ‘신상 상담’에 대한 답변 . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.3 결혼관의 변화 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.4 부부별성의 문제 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1.5 가정관 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1.6 취직관 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1.7 노동의 변화 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1.8 ‘주부’의 시대 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1.9 성별역할 분업과 교과서 . . . . . . . . . . 48
1.10 ‘주부’로부터의 이탈과 새로운 문제 . . . . 51
1.11 아그네스 논쟁이 제기한 것 . . . . . . . . 53
1.12 남자들의 전환기 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
1.13 새로운 여행의 출발 . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
1.14 여성의 현재와 미래 . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
1.15 세계 여성의 해와 차별철폐조약 . . . . . . 61
1.16 여성문제의 풍화 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
1.17 성적 폭력 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
1.18 부인교풍회의 활동 . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
1.19 ‘레이프’의 시점 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

제 2 장 여성사는 지금 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.1 여성사 연구의 담당자들 . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.2 기초적 사실의 해명 . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2.3 근현대사에 대한 관심 . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.4 여성사 논쟁 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2.5 남성사에 대한 충격 . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
2.6 『일본 부인문제 자료집성』. . . . . . . . . 86
2.7 여성의 시점 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
2.8 민간학에 대한 공헌 . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
2.9 여성사 ·여성학의 융성 . . . . . . . . . . 93
2.10 지자체사 ·노동운동사와 여성 . . . . . . . 94
2.11 여성사의 문제점 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
2.12 여성사에 대한 두 가지 태도 . . . . . . . . 100
2.13 사회 과목 폐지와 여성사 . . . . . . . . . 101

제 II 편 여성사 다시 보기 103

제 3 장 여자들과 국가 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
3.1 여성의 사회참여 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
3.2 국가로의 흡수 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.3 부선운동과 이치카와 후사에 . . . . . . . . 114
3.4 총동원체제로 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.5 거부의 논리와 참여의 논리 . . . . . . . . 121
3.6 국방부인회 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
3.7 부엌에서 거리로 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

제 4 장 모성의 논리 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.1 여권주의와 모성주의 . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.2 모성보호논쟁 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
4.3 ‘모성’의 성화 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.4 히라쓰카 라이초와 다카무레 이쓰에 . . . . 133
4.5 국가와 모성 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.6 ‘이에’의 해체와 모성의 역할 . . . . . . . . 138
4.7 군국의 어머니 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
4.8 전후 사회에서의 ‘모성’ . . . . . . . . . . 144
4.9 ‘모성’의 탐구 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
4.10 성차로서의 모성 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

제 5 장 여성학과 여성사 . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
5.1 여성학의 탄생 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
5.2 여성사는 여성학에게 무엇을 주었나 . . . . 156
5.3 바지에서 치마로 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
5.4 화장과 복장 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
5.5 여성사는 여성학에서 무엇을 얻을 것인가 . 162
5.6 계급지배와 성지배 . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
5.7 신마르크스주의 페미니즘 . . . . . . . . . 165
5.8 부인문제 연구와 여성학 . . . . . . . . . . 166
5.9 성역할의 유동화 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
5.10『새로운 여성의 창조』. . . . . . . . . . . 171
5.11 ‘근대’와 페미니즘 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
5.12 페미니즘의 다양한 조류 . . . . . . . . . . 173
5.13 여성학의 정의와 방법 . . . . . . . . . . . 177
5.14 여성학의 문제점 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

제 6 장 민속학과 여성사 . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
6.1 야나기타 구니오의 여성에 대한 시점 . . . . 183
6.2 서입고 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
6.3 누이의 힘 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
6.4 스에무라의 여자들 . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
6.5 농촌의 어머니와 아내들 . . . . . . . . . . 193
6.6 여자의 노동 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
6.7 근세 여성사 연구의 새로운 바람 . . . . . . 199
6.8 자서전의 융성 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

제 7 장 ‘세계’의 시점에서 . . . . . . . . . . . 203
7.1 세계 여성사를 향한 태동 . . . . . . . . . 203
7.2 멕시코에서 나이로비로 . . . . . . . . . . 205
7.3 세계의 여자들은 지금 . . . . . . . . . . . 207
7.4 세계 각국의 여성사 연구 . . . . . . . . . 209
7.5 미국의 여성학 ·여성사 . . . . . . . . . . 214
7.6 소신선언 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
7.7 여자들의 아시아 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218

제 8 장 ‘지역’의 시점에서 . . . . . . . . . . . 223
8.1 지역 여성사 연구의 열기 . . . . . . . . . 223
8.2 여성사 서클의 작품 . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
8.3 부인회의 사업 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
8.4 지자체의 여성사 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
8.5 개인에 의한 저작 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
8.6 여성사에 대한 뜨거운 초심 . . . . . . . . 234
8.7 지역 운동과의 연결 . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
8.8 지역성 ·다양성 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
8.9 민중사의 시점 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
8.10 ‘풀뿌리’의 시점 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
8.11 역사의 심부를 비추다 . . . . . . . . . . . 254
8.12 여성사의 요부 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

맺으며 : 여성사 그리고 그 너머 . . . . . . . . . 263
1 여성사 ·여성학 ·여성문제 . . . . . . . . . 263
2 여성사가 안고 있는 위험 . . . . . . . . . 264
3 여권과 모성 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
4 장애인 문제와 여성문제 . . . . . . . . . . 268
5 ‘계급’ 일원론 흔들기 . . . . . . . . . . . 272
6 새로운 ‘계급’ 개념의 구축을 . . . . . . . . 274
7 여성사의 미래 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

후기 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
1 저자 후기 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
2 역자 후기 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

찾아보기 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
접기


책속에서


P. 27 대략적으로 말하자면, 여성사 주인공의 공식적인 호칭은 근대 일본에서는 자칭·타칭 `부인'에서 `여성'으로 변경되는 추이를 밟아왔습니다. `부인'이라는 말은 현재 보수적인 이미지를 띠게 되었습니다. 하지만 본래 근대화 과정에서는 여자가 남자의 장난감 정도로 간주되었던 종래의 통념에 대해, 그녀들도 인간적인 존엄을 가진 존재라는 인식... 더보기
P. 60 직업인 여성의 노동에 대한 관심이 전례없이 중요하게 다루어지게 되었습니다. 나아가 그 노동에 관한 새로운 분야가 개척되려는 듯합니다. 여성의 프로페셔널, 즉 전문직이나 관리직이 초점의 하나로 등장하게 되었습니다. `법사회학'을 따라서인지, `법여성학'이라는 분야도 제창되고 있습니다. 아무래도 어둡고 은밀한 영역에 있던 이혼이 백일... 더보기
P. 112 그러한 문제의식을 최초로 가장 명료하게 내걸었던 것은 아마도 가노 미키요 씨 등이 참여한 `여자들의 현재를 묻는 모임'이었습니다. 『총후사 노트』라는 표제를 가진 이 모임 기관지의 창간호 권두에는 `간행에 즈음하여'라는 글이 게재되었는데, 여기에서 아래와 같이 모임의 목적의식을 단적으로 드러냈습니다. '어머니들은 분명 전쟁의 피해... 더보기
P. 270 그것은 장애인 자신의 달성 목표의 변화와 연동되는 사실입니다. 그 목표는 처음에는 `방치' 혹은 `은폐'에서 보다 나은 `개호'로였을 겁니다. 그러나 `개호'는 점차 `관리'로 의식되는 단계에 접어듭니다. `개호'의 대가로 일어나기 쉬운 프라이버시의 결여를 중대하게 느끼지 않을 수 없기 때문입니다. 그리고 다음의 단계에 눈뜨기 시작합니다. `자신이 자신으로 존재할 수 있는 자기실현'이 바로 그것입니다. 그 결과로서 `장애자'이라는 용어에 저항감이 생겨, 적절한 용어의 모색이 이루어지게 되었던 것입니다. 접기



저자 및 역자소개
가노 마사나오 (鹿野 政直) (지은이)
저자파일
신간알리미 신청

일본의 역사학자. 근현대의 역사와 사상사, 여성사 등을 폭넓게 연구했다. 와세다대학 문학부의 학부와 대학원을 졸업한 후 1958년부터 1999년까지는 교수로 재직했다. 『이와나미 신서의 역사』(AK), 『근대 일본의 사상가들』(삼천리), 『근대 일본의 학문』(소화) , 『근대 일본사상 길잡이』(소화), 『일본의 근대사상』(한울), 『현대 일본 여성사』(책사랑) 등이 번역되었다. 『가노 마사나오 사상사론집』(전 8권, 이와나미)이 2008년에 출간되었다.

최근작 : <부인·여성·여자>,<이와나미 신서의 역사>,<근대 일본의 사상가들> … 총 24종 (모두보기)

이은경 (옮긴이)
저자파일
신간알리미 신청

서울대학교 일본연구소 부교수. 주로 근대 일본의 역사를 여성 인물과 운동을 중심으로 연구해 왔고, 대중적 글쓰기에도 관심이 있다. 저서로는 『근대 일본 여성 분투기』, 공저로 『젠더와 일본 사회』·『난감한 이웃 일본을 이해하는 여섯 가지 시선』·『근대 일본인의 국가인식』 등이 있다.

최근작 : <일본사 시민강좌>,<근대 일본인의 국가인식>,<서울리뷰오브북스 10호> … 총 12종 (모두보기)


출판사 제공 책소개
"국가를 보는 눈은 지사나 성인의 그것이 아니라, 여자들의 눈이면 좋겠습니다."

● "남자 연구자니까 더더욱 여성사에 관심을 가져야죠. ... 여성사의 시점을 도입하는 것은 그것만으로도 이제까지의 역사를 사실상 남성사로서 상대화하는 것이 됩니다."
● 일본 여성사는 제국시대를 외면하지 않는다. 남성들이 일으킨 세계 대전을 모두 남성 탓으로 돌릴 수도 있겠지만 제국에는 침략 전쟁을 ‘총구의 뒤'에서 뒷받침한 여성들도 있었기 때문이다. 일본 여성 해방 운동은 이에 대한 통렬한 반성을 전제로 삼고 있다.
● 진보를 멀리서 찾는 사람들에게 저자는 간단히 답한다. "부인론을 가지고 각 사상의 진정성을 측정하는 리트머스 시험지로 삼고 싶다는 마음도 있었습니다."

에도 말기와 메이지유신 전환기를 주로 공부하는 박훈 교수는 도쿠가와 시대를 다룬 연구서가 매우 적다는 문제의식을 가지고 있었다. 그는 주변의 연구자들을 모으고 때를 기다리다가 플라톤 아카데미와 함께 연구서를 출간할 기회를 마련했다. 한일관계가 나빠질수록 서로를 알아야 미래를 기약할 수 있다는 생각으로 그간 외면되었던 일본 근세와 근대의 주요 연구를 소개하고자 한다. 빈서재 출판사는 이에 호응하여 연구총서를 준비했다. 접기

“Evolution of Stars and Gas in Galaxies” by Beatrice Tinsley now digitized | Department of Astronomy

“Evolution of Stars and Gas in Galaxies” by Beatrice Tinsley now digitized | Department of Astronomy
“Evolution of Stars and Gas in Galaxies” by Beatrice Tinsley now digitized

Mon, 03/07/2022


A classic and highly influential paper by the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley has been digitized and made available to a wider audience. The paper “Evolution of Stars and Gas in Galaxies” has over 1500 citations despite being inaccessible in electronic format. Michael J. Greener, a PhD student at the University of Nottingham has transcribed the manuscript from a hard copy, making this iconic paper easier to access for the next generation of astronomers.

Click here to read the paper





==

Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia

Fred Hoyle - Wikipedia


Fred Hoyle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fred Hoyle
Born24 June 1915
Died20 August 2001 (aged 86)
Bournemouth, England
Alma materEmmanuel College, Cambridge
Known forCoining the phrase 'Big Bang'
Steady-state theory
Stellar nucleosynthesis theory
Triple-alpha process
Panspermia
Hoyle state
Hoyle's fallacy
Hoyle's model
B2FH paper
Hoyle–Narlikar theory
Bondi–Hoyle–Lyttleton accretion
Spouse
Barbara Clark
 
(m. 1939)
[2]
Children
Awards
Scientific career
FieldsAstronomy
InstitutionsSt John's College, Cambridge
Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge
Academic advisorsRudolf Peierls
Maurice Pryce
Philip Worsley Wood
Doctoral studentsJohn Moffat
Chandra Wickramasinghe
Cyril Domb
Jayant Narlikar
Leon Mestel
Peter Alan Sweet
Sverre Aarseth
Other notable studentsPaul C. W. Davies
Douglas Gough

Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001)[1] was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and was one of the authors of the influential B2FH paper. He also held controversial stances on other scientific matters—in particular his rejection of the "Big Bang" theory (a term coined by him on BBC Radio) in favor of the "steady-state model", and his promotion of panspermia as the origin of life on Earth.[3][4][5] He spent most of his working life at St John's College, Cambridge and served as the founding director of the Institute of Theoretical Astronomy at Cambridge.

Hoyle also wrote science fiction novels, short stories and radio plays, co-created television serials, and co-authored twelve books with his son, Geoffrey Hoyle.

Biography[edit]

Early life[edit]

Hoyle was born near Bingley in GilsteadWest Riding of Yorkshire, England.[6] His father Ben Hoyle was a violinist and worked in the wool trade in Bradford, and served as a machine gunner in the First World War.[7] His mother, Mabel Pickard, had studied music at the Royal College of Music in London and later worked as a cinema pianist.[7] Hoyle was educated at Bingley Grammar School and read mathematics at Emmanuel College, Cambridge.[8] As a youth, he sang in the choir at the local Anglican church.[9][10]

In 1936, Hoyle shared the Mayhew Prize with George Stanley Rushbrooke.

Career[edit]

In late 1940, Hoyle left Cambridge to go to Portsmouth to work for the Admiralty on radar research, for example devising a method to get the altitude of incoming aeroplanes. He was also put in charge of countermeasures against the radar-guided guns found on the Graf Spee after its scuttling in the River Plate.[11] Britain's radar project was a large-scale operation, and was probably the inspiration for the large British project in Hoyle's novel The Black Cloud. Two colleagues in this war work were Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold, and the three had many discussions on cosmology. The radar work involved several trips to North America, where he took the opportunity to visit astronomers. On one trip to the US, he learned about supernovae at Caltech and Mount Palomar and, in Canada, the nuclear physics of plutonium implosion and explosion, noticed some similarity between the two and started thinking about supernova nucleosynthesis. He had an intuition at the time "I will make a name for myself if this works out" (he published his prescient and groundbreaking paper in 1954). He also formed a group at Cambridge exploring stellar nucleosynthesis in ordinary stars and was bothered by the paucity of stellar carbon production in existing models. He noticed that one existing process would be made a billion times more productive if the carbon-12 nucleus had a resonance at 7.7 MeV, but nuclear physicists at the time omitted such an observed value. On another trip, he visited the nuclear physics group at Caltech, spent a few months of sabbatical there and persuaded them against their scepticism to find the Hoyle state in carbon-12, from which a full theory of stellar nucleosynthesis was developed, co-authored by Hoyle and members of the Caltech group.[12]

blue plaque at Bingley Grammar School commemorating Hoyle

In 1945, after the war ended, Hoyle returned to Cambridge University as a lecturer at St John's College, Cambridge (where he had been a Fellow since 1939).[13] Hoyle's Cambridge years, 1945–1973, saw him rise to the top of world astrophysics theory, on the basis of a startling originality of ideas covering a wide range of topics. In 1958, Hoyle was appointed Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy in Cambridge University. In 1967, he became the founding director of the Institute of Theoretical Astronomy (subsequently renamed the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge), where his innovative leadership quickly led to this institution becoming one of the premier groups in the world for theoretical astrophysics. In 1971, he was invited to deliver the MacMillan Memorial Lecture to the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland. He chose the subject "Astronomical Instruments and their Construction".[14] Hoyle was knighted in 1972.

Although the occupant of two distinguished offices, by 1972 Hoyle had become unhappy with his life in Cambridge. A dispute over election to a professorial chair led to Hoyle resigning as Plumian professor in 1972. The following year he also resigned the directorship of the Institute. Explaining his actions, he later wrote: "I do not see any sense in continuing to skirmish on a battlefield where I can never hope to win. The Cambridge system is effectively designed to prevent one ever establishing a directed policy - key decisions can be upset by ill-informed and politically motivated committees. To be effective in this system one must for ever be watching one's colleagues, almost like a Robespierre spy system. If one does so, then of course little time is left for any real science."[15]

After leaving Cambridge, Hoyle wrote several popular science and science fiction books, as well as presenting lectures around the world, partly to provide a means of support. Hoyle was still a member of the joint policy committee (since 1967), during the planning stage for the 150-inch Anglo-Australian Telescope at Siding Spring Observatory in New South Wales. He became chairman of the Anglo-Australian Telescope board in 1973, and presided at its inauguration in 1974 by Charles, Prince of Wales.

Decline and death[edit]

After his resignation from Cambridge, Hoyle moved to the Lake District and occupied his time with treks across the moors, writing books, visiting research centres around the world, and working on science ideas (that have been largely rejected). On 24 November 1997, while hiking across moorlands in west Yorkshire, near his childhood home in Gilstead, Hoyle fell into a steep ravine called Shipley Glen. He was located about 12 hours later by a party using search dogs. He was hospitalised for two months with a broken shoulder bone, and pneumonia and kidney problems, both resulting from hypothermia. Thereafter he entered a marked decline, suffering from memory and mental agility problems. In 2001, he suffered a series of strokes and died in Bournemouth on 20 August of that year.

Views and contributions[edit]

Origin of nucleosynthesis[edit]

Hoyle authored the first two research papers ever published on synthesis of chemical elements heavier than helium by stellar nuclear reactions. The first of these[16] in 1946 showed that cores of stars will evolve to temperatures of billions of degrees, much hotter than temperatures considered for thermonuclear origin of stellar power in main-sequence stars. Hoyle showed that at such high temperatures the element iron can become much more abundant than other heavy elements owing to thermal equilibrium among nuclear particles, explaining the high natural abundance of iron. This idea would later be called the e Process.[17] Hoyle's second foundational nucleosynthesis publication,[18] published in 1954, showed that the elements between carbon and iron cannot be synthesized by such equilibrium processes. He attributed those elements to specific nuclear fusion reactions between abundant constituents in concentric shells of evolved massive, pre-supernova stars. This startlingly modern picture is the accepted paradigm today for the supernova nucleosynthesis of these primary elements. In the mid-1950s, Hoyle became the leader of a group of talented experimental and theoretical physicists who met in Cambridge: William Alfred FowlerMargaret Burbidge, and Geoffrey Burbidge. This group systematized basic ideas of how all the chemical elements in our universe were created, with this now being a field called nucleosynthesis. Famously, in 1957, this group produced the B2FH paper (known for the initials of the four authors) in which the field of nucleosynthesis was organized into complementary nuclear processes. They added much new material on the synthesis of heavy elements by neutron-capture reactions, the so-called s process and the r process. So influential did the B2FH paper become that for the remainder of the twentieth century it became the default citation of almost all researchers wishing to cite an accepted origin for nucleosynthesis theory, and as a result, the path-breaking Hoyle 1954 paper fell into obscurity. Historical research in the 21st century [19][20] has brought Hoyle's 1954 paper back to scientific prominence. Those historical arguments were first presented to a gathering of nucleosynthesis experts attending a 2007 conference at Caltech organized after the deaths of both Fowler and Hoyle to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the publication of B2FH. Ironically the B2FH paper did not review Hoyle's 1954 supernova-shells attribution of the origin of elements between silicon and iron despite Hoyle's co-authorship of B2FH. Based on his many personal discussions with Hoyle [21] Donald D. Clayton has attributed this seemingly inexplicable oversight in B2FH to the lack of proofreading by Hoyle of the draft composed at Caltech in 1956 by G.R. Burbidge and E.M. Burbidge.[22]

The second of Hoyle's nucleosynthesis papers also introduced an interesting use of the anthropic principle, which was not then known by that name. In trying to work out the steps of stellar nucleosynthesis, Hoyle calculated that one particular nuclear reaction, the triple-alpha process, which generates carbon from helium, would require the carbon nucleus to have a very specific resonance energy and spin for it to work. The large amount of carbon in the universe, which makes it possible for carbon-based life-forms of any kind to exist, demonstrated to Hoyle that this nuclear reaction must work. Based on this notion, Hoyle therefore predicted the values of the energy, the nuclear spin and the parity of the compound state in the carbon nucleus formed by three alpha particles (helium nuclei), which was later borne out by experiment.[23]

This energy level, while needed to produce carbon in large quantities, was statistically very unlikely to fall where it does in the scheme of carbon energy levels. Hoyle later wrote:

Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

— Fred Hoyle[24]

His co-worker William Alfred Fowler eventually won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1983 (with Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar), but Hoyle's original contribution was overlooked by the electors, and many were surprised that such a notable astronomer missed out.[25] Fowler himself in an autobiographical sketch affirmed Hoyle's pioneering efforts:

The concept of nucleosynthesis in stars was first established by Hoyle in 1946. This provided a way to explain the existence of elements heavier than helium in the universe, basically by showing that critical elements such as carbon could be generated in stars and then incorporated in other stars and planets when that star "dies". The new stars formed now start off with these heavier elements and even heavier elements are formed from them. Hoyle theorized that other rarer elements could be explained by supernovas, the giant explosions which occasionally occur throughout the universe, whose temperatures and pressures would be required to create such elements.

— William Fowler[26]

Rejection of the Big Bang[edit]

While having no argument with the Lemaître theory (later confirmed by Edwin Hubble's observations) that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms" (see Kalam cosmological argument).[27] Instead, Hoyle, along with Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi (with whom he had worked on radar in the Second World War), in 1948 began to argue for the universe as being in a "steady state" and formulated their Steady State theory. The theory tried to explain how the universe could be eternal and essentially unchanging while still having the galaxies we observe moving away from each other. The theory hinged on the creation of matter between galaxies over time, so that even though galaxies get further apart, new ones that develop between them fill the space they leave. The resulting universe is in a "steady state" in the same manner that a flowing river is—the individual water molecules are moving away but the overall river remains the same.

The theory was one alternative to the Big Bang which, like the Big Bang, agreed with key observations of the day, namely Hubble's red shift observations, and Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He coined the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949.[28] It was said by George Gamow and his opponents that Hoyle intended to be pejorative, and the script from which he read aloud was interpreted by his opponents to be "vain, one-sided, insulting, not worthy of the BBC".[29] Hoyle explicitly denied that he was being insulting and said it was just a striking image meant to emphasize the difference between the two theories for the radio audience.[30] In another BBC interview, he said, "The reason why scientists like the "Big Bang" is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis. It is deep within the psyche of most scientists to believe in the first page of Genesis".[31]

Hoyle had a famously heated argument with Martin Ryle of the Cavendish Radio Astronomy Group about Hoyle's steady state theory, which somewhat restricted collaboration between the Cavendish group and the Cambridge Institute of Astronomy during the 1960s.[32]

Hoyle, unlike Gold and Bondi, offered an explanation for the appearance of new matter by postulating the existence of what he dubbed the "creation field", or just the "C-field", which had negative pressure in order to be consistent with the conservation of energy and drive the expansion of the universe. This C-field is the same as the later "de Sitter solution" for cosmic inflation, but the C-field model acts much slower than the de Sitter inflation model.[33] They jointly argued that continuous creation was no more inexplicable than the appearance of the entire universe from nothing, although it had to be done on a regular basis. In the end, mounting observational evidence convinced most cosmologists that the steady-state model was incorrect and that the Big Bang theory agreed better with observations, although Hoyle continued to support and develop his theory. In 1993, in an attempt to explain some of the evidence against the steady-state theory, he presented a modified version called "quasi-steady state cosmology" (QSS), but the theory is not widely accepted.

The evidence that resulted in the Big Bang's victory over the steady-state model included discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960s, and the distribution of "young galaxies" and quasars throughout the Universe in the 1980s indicate a more consistent age estimate of the universe. Hoyle died in 2001 having never accepted the validity of the Big Bang theory.[34]

How, in the big-bang cosmology, is the microwave background explained? Despite what supporters of big-bang cosmology claim, it is not explained. The supposed explanation is nothing but an entry in the gardener's catalogue of hypothesis that constitutes the theory. Had observation given 27 Kelvins instead of 2.7 Kelvins for the temperature, then 27 kelvins would have been entered in the catalogue. Or 0.27 Kelvins. Or anything at all.

— Hoyle, 1994[35]

Theory of gravity[edit]

Together with Narlikar, Hoyle developed a particle theory in the 1960s, the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity. It made predictions that were roughly the same as Einstein's general relativity, but it incorporated Mach's Principle, which Einstein had tried but failed to incorporate in his theory. The Hoyle-Narlikar theory fails several tests, including consistency with the microwave background. It was motivated by their belief in the steady-state model of the universe.

Rejection of Earth-based abiogenesis[edit]

In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of abiogenesis to explain the origin of life on Earth. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the hypothesis that the first life on Earth began in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on Earth is influenced by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets. His belief that comets had a significant percentage of organic compounds was well ahead of his time, as the dominant views in the 1970s and 1980s were that comets largely consisted of water-ice, and the presence of organic compounds was then highly controversial. Wickramasinghe wrote in 2003: "In the highly polarized polemic between Darwinism and creationism, our position is unique. Although we do not align ourselves with either side, both sides treat us as opponents. Thus we are outsiders with an unusual perspective—and our suggestion for a way out of the crisis has not yet been considered."[36]

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe advanced several instances where they say outbreaks of illnesses on Earth are of extraterrestrial origins, including the 1918 flu pandemic, and certain outbreaks of polio and mad cow disease. For the 1918 flu pandemic, they hypothesized that cometary dust brought the virus to Earth simultaneously at multiple locations—a view almost universally dismissed by experts on this pandemic. In 1982, Hoyle presented Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution's Omni Lecture. After considering what he thought of as a very remote possibility of Earth-based abiogenesis he concluded:

If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...

— Fred Hoyle[37]

Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell without panspermia was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that Earth as life's place of origin could be ruled out. He claimed:

The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

Though Hoyle declared himself an atheist,[38] this apparent suggestion of a guiding hand led him to the conclusion that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and ... there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."[39] He would go on to compare the random emergence of even the simplest cell without panspermia to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" and to compare the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cubes simultaneously.[40] This is known as "the junkyard tornado",[41] or "Hoyle's Fallacy". Those who advocate the intelligent design (ID) philosophy sometimes cite Hoyle's work in this area to support the claim that the universe was fine tuned to allow intelligent life to be possible.

Other opinions[edit]

While Hoyle was well-regarded for his works on nucleosynthesis and science popularization, he held positions on a wide range of scientific issues that were in direct opposition to the prevailing theories of the scientific community.[3] Paul Davies describes how he "loved his maverick personality and contempt for orthodoxy", quoting Hoyle as saying "I don't care what they think" about his theories on discrepant redshift, and "it is better to be interesting and wrong than boring and right".[42]

Hoyle often expressed anger against the labyrinthine and petty politics at Cambridge and frequently feuded with members and institutions of all levels of the British astronomy community, leading to his resignation from Cambridge in September 1971 over the way he thought Donald Lynden-Bell was chosen to replace retiring professor Roderick Oliver Redman behind his back.[43] According to biographer Simon Mitton, Hoyle was crestfallen because he felt that his colleagues at Cambridge were unsupportive.[3]

In addition to his views on steady state theory and panspermia, Hoyle also supported the following controversial hypotheses and speculations:

  • The correlation of flu epidemics with the sunspot cycle, with epidemics occurring at the minimum of the cycle. The idea was that flu contagion was scattered in the interstellar medium and reached Earth only when the solar wind had minimum power.[44][45][46][47]
  • Two fossil Archaeopteryx were man-made fakes.[48]
  • The theory of abiogenic petroleum, held by Hoyle and by Thomas Gold, where natural hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) are explained as the result of deep carbon deposits, instead of fossilized organic material. This theory is dismissed by the mainstream petroleum geochemistry community.[49]
  • In his 1977 book On Stonehenge, Hoyle supported Gerald Hawkins's proposal that the fifty-six Aubrey holes at Stonehenge were used as a system for neolithic Britons to predict eclipses, using them in the daily positioning of marker stones. Using the Aubrey holes for predicting lunar eclipses was originally proposed by Gerald Hawkins in his book of the subject Stonehenge Decoded (1965).

Nobel Prize for Physics[edit]

Hoyle was also at the centre of two unrelated controversies involving the politics for selecting recipients of the Nobel Prize for Physics. The first arose when the 1974 prize went in part to Antony Hewish for his leading role in the discovery of pulsars. Hoyle made an off-the-cuff remark to a reporter in Montreal that "Yes, Jocelyn Bell was the actual discoverer, not Hewish, who was her supervisor, so she should have been included." This remark received widespread international coverage. Worried about being misunderstood, Hoyle carefully[50] composed a letter of explanation to The Times.[25]

The 1983 prize went in part to William Alfred Fowler "for his theoretical and experimental studies of the nuclear reactions of importance in the formation of the chemical elements in the universe" despite Hoyle having been the inventor of the theory of nucleosynthesis in the stars with two research papers[51] published shortly after WWII. So some suspicion arose that Hoyle was denied the third share of this prize because of his earlier public disagreement with the 1974 award.[52] British scientist Harry Kroto later said that the Nobel Prize is not just an award for a piece of work, but a recognition of a scientist's overall reputation and Hoyle's championing many disreputable and disproven ideas may have invalidated him.[25][53] In Nature, editor John Maddox called it "shameful" that Fowler had been rewarded with a Nobel prize and Hoyle had not.[53]

Media appearances[edit]

Hoyle appeared in a series of radio talks on astronomy for the BBC in the 1950s;[54] these were collected in the book The Nature of the Universe,[55] and he went on to write a number of other popular science books.

In the play Sur la route de Montalcino, the character of Fred Hoyle confronts Georges Lemaître on a fictional journey to the Vatican in 1957.[56]

Hoyle appeared in the 1973 short film Take the World From Another Point of View.[57]

In the 2004 television movie Hawking, Fred Hoyle is played by Peter Firth. In the movie, Stephen Hawking (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) publicly confronts Hoyle at a Royal Society lecture in summer 1964, about a mistake he found in his latest publication.

Honours[edit]

A statue of Fred Hoyle at the Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge

Awards

Named after him

Memorabilia[edit]

The Fred Hoyle Collection at St John's College Library contains "a pair of walking boots, five boxes of photographs, two ice axes, some dental X-rays, a telescope, ten large film reels and an unpublished opera" in addition to 150 document boxes of papers.[65]

Bibliography[edit]

Non-fiction[edit]

  • The Nature of the Universe – a series of broadcast lectures, Basil Blackwell, Oxford 1950 (early use of the Big Bang phrase)
  • Frontiers of Astronomy, Heinemann Education Books Ltd, London, 1955. The Internet Archive. HarperCollins, ISBN 978-0060027605
  • Burbidge, E.M., Burbidge, G.R., Fowler, W.A. and Hoyle, F., "Synthesis of the Elements in Stars" Archived 24 June 2016 at the Wayback MachineRevs. Mod. Physics 29:547–650, 1957, the famous B2FH paper after their initials, for which Hoyle is most famous among professional cosmologists.
  • Astronomy, A history of man's investigation of the universe, Crescent Books, Inc., London 1962, LCCN 62-14108
  • Of men and galaxies, Seattle University of Washington, 1964, ASIN B0087VKR70
  • Galaxies, Nuclei, and Quasars, Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, 1965, LCCN 65-20996
  • Nicolaus Copernicus, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London, p. 78, 1973
  • Astronomy and Cosmology: A Modern Course, 1975, ISBN 0716703513
  • Energy or Extinction? The case for nuclear energy, 1977, Heinemann Educational Books Limited, ISBN 0435544306. In this provocative book Hoyle establishes the dependence of Western civilization on energy consumption and predicts that nuclear fission as a source of energy is essential for its survival.
  • Ten Faces of the Universe, 1977, W.H. Freeman and Company (San Francisco), ISBN 071670384X0716703831
  • On Stonehenge, 1977, London : Heinemann Educational, ISBN 978-0435329587; San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, ISBN 07167036450716703637 pbk.
  • Lifecloud – The Origin of Life in the Universe, Hoyle, F. and Wickramasinghe C., J.M. Dent & Sons, 1978. ISBN 0460043358
  • Diseases from Space (with Chandra Wickramasinghe) (J.M. Dent, London, 1979)[66]
  • Commonsense in Nuclear Energy, Fred Hoyle and Geoffrey Hoyle, 1980, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., ISBN 0435544322
  • The big bang in astronomy, New Scientist 92(1280):527, 19 November 1981.
  • Ice, the Ultimate Human Catastrophe,1981, ISBN 0826400647 [67] Snippet view from Google Books
  • The Intelligent Universe, 1983
  • From Grains to Bacteria, Hoyle, F. and Wickramasinghe N.C., University College Cardiff Press, ISBN 0906449642, 1984
  • Evolution from space (the Omni lecture) and other papers on the origin of life 1982, ISBN 0894900838
  • Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism, 1984, ISBN 0671492632
  • Viruses from Space, 1986, ISBN 0906449936
  • With Jayant Narlikar and Chandra Wickramasinghe, The extragalactic universe: an alternative view, Nature 346:807–812, 30 August 1990.
  • The Origin of the Universe and the Origin of Religion,1993, ISBN 1559210834 [68]
  • Home Is Where the Wind Blows: Chapters from a Cosmologist's Life (autobiography) Oxford University Press 1994, ISBN 0198500602
  • Mathematics of Evolution, (1987) University College Cardiff Press, (1999) Acorn Enterprises LLC., ISBN 0966993403
  • With G. Burbridge and Narlikar J.V. A Different Approach to Cosmology, Cambridge University Press 2000, ISBN 0521662230

Science fiction[edit]

A mosaic by Boris Anrep depicting Fred Hoyle as a steeplejack climbing to the stars, with a book under his arm, in the National Gallery, London.

Hoyle also wrote science fiction. In his first novel, The Black Cloud, most intelligent life in the universe takes the form of interstellar gas clouds; they are surprised to learn that intelligent life can also form on planets. He wrote a television series, A for Andromeda, which was also published as a novel. His play Rockets in Ursa Major had a professional production at the Mermaid Theatre in 1962.

  • The Black Cloud, 1957
  • Ossian's Ride, 1959
  • A for Andromeda, 1962 (co-authored with John Elliot)
  • Fifth Planet, 1963 (co-authored with Geoffrey Hoyle)
  • Andromeda Breakthrough, 1965 (co-authored with John Elliot)
  • October the First Is Too Late, 1966
  • Element 79 (collection of short stories), 1967
  • Rockets in Ursa Major, 1969 (co-authored with Geoffrey Hoyle)
  • Seven Steps to the Sun, 1970 (co-authored with Geoffrey Hoyle)
  • The Inferno, 1973 (co-authored with Geoffrey Hoyle)
  • The Molecule Men and the Monster of Loch Ness, 1973 (co-authored with Geoffrey Hoyle)
  • Into Deepest Space, 1974 (co-authored with Geoffrey Hoyle)
  • The Incandescent Ones, 1977 (co-authored with Geoffrey Hoyle)
  • The Westminster Disaster, 1978 (co-authored with Geoffrey Hoyle and Edited by Barbara Hoyle)
  • The Frozen Planet of Azuron, 1982 (Ladybird Books, co-authored with Geoffrey Hoyle)
  • The Energy Pirate, 1982 (Ladybird Books, co-authored with Geoffrey Hoyle)
  • The Planet of Death, 1982 (Ladybird Books, co-authored with Geoffrey Hoyle)
  • The Giants of Universal Park, 1982 (Ladybird Books, co-authored with Geoffrey Hoyle)
  • Comet Halley, 1985

Most of these are independent of each other. Andromeda Breakthrough is a sequel to A for Andromeda and Into Deepest Space is a sequel to Rockets in Ursa Major. The four Ladybird Books are intended for children.

Some stories of the collection Element 79 are fantasy, in particular "Welcome to Slippage City" and "The Judgement of Aphrodite". Both introduce mythological characters.

The Telegraph (UK) called him a "masterful" science fiction writer.[34]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up to:a b c Burbidge, G. (2003). "Sir Fred Hoyle. 24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001. Elected FRS 1957"Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society49: 213–247. doi:10.1098/rsbm.2003.0013.
  2. ^ Sullivan, Walter (22 August 2001). "Fred Hoyle Dies at 86; Opposed 'Big Bang' but Named It"The New York TimesArchived from the original on 12 April 2020. Retrieved 15 October 2021.
  3. Jump up to:a b c Mitton, Simon (2011). "Chapter 12: Stones, Bones, Bugs and Accidents". Fred Hoyle: A Life in Science. Cambridge University Press.
  4. ^ Ferguson, Kitty (1991). Stephen Hawking: Quest For A Theory of EverythingFranklin WattsISBN 055329895X.
  5. ^ Jane Gregory, Fred Hoyle's Universe, Oxford University Press, 2005. ISBN 0191578460
  6. ^ "Sir Fred Hoyle". Hoyle.org.uk. Archived from the original on 17 September 2011. Retrieved 15 September 2011.
  7. Jump up to:a b "Hoyle's Youth". St. John's College University of Cambridge.
  8. ^ Moore, Patrick (2004). "Oxford DNB article: Hoyle, Sir Fred"Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Dictionary of National Biographydoi:10.1093/ref:odnb/76123. Retrieved 10 August 2009. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
  9. ^ "Sir Fred was kindest of men, says sister"Bradford Telegraph and Argus. Retrieved 4 May 2022.
  10. ^ "History of the Parish". 2 February 2017. Archived from the original on 24 May 2022. Retrieved 4 May 2022.
  11. ^ Simon Mitton, Fred Hoyle, a Life in Science, Cambridge University Press (2011).
  12. ^ Jane Gregory, Fred Hoyle's Universe, World Scientific Pub, 2003
  13. ^ Fred Hoyle Project, St John's College, Cambridge
  14. ^ "Hugh Miller Macmillan"Macmillan Memorial LecturesInstitution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in ScotlandArchived from the original on 4 October 2018. Retrieved 29 January 2019.
  15. ^ Bernard Lovell (23 August 2001). "Obituary - Sir Fred Hoyle"The Guardian. Retrieved 25 March 2024.
  16. ^ Hoyle, F. (1946). "The Synthesis of the Elements from Hydrogen"Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society106 (5): 343–383. Bibcode:1946MNRAS.106..343Hdoi:10.1093/mnras/106.5.343ISSN 0035-8711.
  17. ^ Burbidge, E. Margaret; Burbidge, G. R.; Fowler, William A.; Hoyle, F. (1 October 1957). "Synthesis of the Elements in Stars"Reviews of Modern Physics29 (4). American Physical Society (APS): 547–650. Bibcode:1957RvMP...29..547Bdoi:10.1103/revmodphys.29.547ISSN 0034-6861.
  18. ^ Hoyle, F. (1954). "On Nuclear Reactions Occurring in Very Hot STARS. I. the Synthesis of Elements from Carbon to Nickel". The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series1: 121–146. Bibcode:1954ApJS....1..121Hdoi:10.1086/190005ISSN 0067-0049.
  19. ^ Donald D. Clayton "Hoyle's Equation", Science 318, 1876 (2007)
  20. ^ Donald D. Clayton "Fred Hoyle, primary nucleosynthesis and radioactivity", New Astronomy Reviews 52, 360–363 (2008)
  21. ^ "Fred Hoyle, primary nucleosynthesis and radioactivity[" New Astronomy Reviews 52, 360–363 (2008), p. 363, footnote 1
  22. ^ "Hoyle's Equation" Science 318, 1876 (2007)
  23. ^ Cook, Fowler, Lauritsen and Lauritsen, Phys. Rev. 107, 508 (1957)
  24. ^ Fred Hoyle, "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November 1981. pp. 8–12
  25. Jump up to:a b c McKie, Robin (2 October 2010). "Fred Hoyle: the scientist whose rudeness cost him a Nobel prize"The Guardian.
  26. ^ "William A. Fowler – Autobiography". Nobel Prize Committee. 14 March 1995. Retrieved 15 September 2011.
  27. ^ Quentin Smith, A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God's NonexistenceFaith and Philosophy. April 1992. Volume 9, No. 2, pp. 217–237
  28. ^ "Continuous Creation"Radio Times. No. 1328. BBC. 27 March 1949.
  29. ^ Mitton, Simon, Fred Hoyle - a life in science, p. 129, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
  30. ^ Croswell, Ken, The Alchemy of the Heavens, chapter 9, Anchor Books, 1995.
  31. ^ Curtis, Adam (24 February 2012). "A Mile or Two Off Yarmouth"BBC. Retrieved 4 August 2014.
  32. ^ Mitton, Simon, Fred Hoyle a life in science, Chapter 7, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
  33. ^ Coles, P. "Inflationary Universe"NED. NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database. Retrieved 22 March 2020.
  34. Jump up to:a b "Professor Sir Fred Hoyle"The Telegraph (UK). 22 August 2001.
  35. ^ Fred Hoyle, Home Is Where the Wind Blows: Chapters from a Cosmologist's Life (autobiography) Oxford University Press 1994, 1997, p. 413, ISBN 0198500602
  36. ^ Creationism versus Darwinism. Published in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (2003)
  37. ^ Hoyle, Fred, Evolution from Space, Omni Lecture, Royal Institution, London, 12 January 1982; Evolution from Space (1982) pp. 27–28 ISBN 0894900838Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (1984) ISBN 0671492632
  38. ^ Gregory, Jane (2005). "Fighting for space"Fred Hoyle's Universe. Oxford University Press. p. 143ISBN 978-0191578465According to Hoyle: "I am an atheist, but as far as blowing up the world in a nuclear war goes, I tell them not to worry."
  39. ^ Hoyle, Fred (November 1981). "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections", Engineering and Science, Volume 45:2, pp. 8–12
  40. ^ Hoyle, Fred (1984). The Intelligent Universe. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. ISBN 978-0030700835.
  41. ^ Musgrave, Ian (21 December 1998). "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations"TalkOrigins Archive.
  42. ^ Davies, Paul (2011) [2005]. "Foreword". In Mitton, Simon (ed.). Fred Hoyle: A Life in Science. Cambridge University Press.
  43. ^ Mitton, Simon (2011). "Chapter 11: The Watershed". Fred Hoyle: A Life in Science. Cambridge University Press.
  44. ^ Hoyle, Fred; Wickramasinghe, Chandra (1979). Diseases From Space. London: J.M. Dent. ISBN 978-0460043571.
  45. ^ Hoyle, Fred; Wickramasinghe, Chandra (1981). Space Travellers. Cardiff: University College Cardiff Press. ISBN 978-0906449271.
  46. ^ Hoyle, Fred; Wickramasinghe, Chandra; Watkins, John (1986). Viruses From Space. Cardiff: University College Cardiff Press. ISBN 0906449936.
  47. ^ Hoyle, F.; Wickramasinghe, N. (1990). "Sunspots and Influenza"Nature343 (25 January 1990): 304. Bibcode:1990Natur.343..304Hdoi:10.1038/343304a0PMID 2300183S2CID 4253908.
  48. ^ Shipman, Pat, Taking Wing: Archaeopteryx and the Evolution of Bird Flight, pp. 141–145, Simon and Schuster, 1998.
  49. ^ Palmer, Andrew (2016), Introduction to Petroleum Exploration and EngineeringWorld Scientific, p. 38, ISBN 978-9813147805OCLC 961006638
  50. ^ "Photo Archive in Nuclear Astrophysics"astro.sites.clemson.edu. Retrieved 8 May 2014.
  51. ^ "The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen" MNRAS 106, 343 (1946); "The synthesis of the elements from carbon to nickel" Astrophys. J. Suppl. 1, 121–146 (1954)
  52. ^ Mitton, Simon, Fred Hoyle a life in science, pp. 301–305, Cambridge University Press, 2011
  53. Jump up to:a b Maddox, J. (2001). "Obituary: Fred Hoyle (1915–2001)"Nature413 (6853): 270. Bibcode:2001Natur.413..270Mdoi:10.1038/35095162S2CID 5053798.
  54. ^ Mitton, Simon, Fred Hoyle a life in science, pp. 125–138, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
  55. ^ Gregory, Jane, Fred Hoyle's Universe, p. 48, Oxford University Press, 2005.
  56. ^ Jean-François Viot, Sur la route de Montalcino Archived 9 October 2011 at the Wayback Machine, 2008. Play: Atelier Jean Vilar Archived 6 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine, 2009.
  57. ^ "Richard Feynman Talks Physics with Fred Hoyle in Take the World From Another Point of View, 1973 | Open Culture".
  58. ^ "Fred Hoyle"American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Retrieved 15 June 2022.
  59. ^ "Library and Archive Catalogue". Royal Society. Retrieved 29 December 2010.[permanent dead link]
  60. ^ "Fred Hoyle"www.nasonline.org. Retrieved 15 June 2022.
  61. ^ Fred Hoyle Project, St John's College, Cambridge
  62. ^ "APS Member History"search.amphilsoc.org. Retrieved 15 June 2022.
  63. ^ Indian scientists discover three new species of bacteria[permanent dead link]. 17 March 2009. The Indian Express.
  64. ^ O'Rourke, Tanya (20 January 2010). "Bingley bypass name is a star turn!"Bradford Telegraph and Argus. Retrieved 2 October 2017.
  65. ^ "Centre for Material Texts, Blog Archive, The Fred Hoyle Collection at St John's College Library". Archived from the original on 30 June 2016. Retrieved 25 May 2016.
  66. ^ Diseases from space. J.M. Dent. 1980. OCLC 6087814.
  67. ^ Hoyle, Fred (2006). Ice: The Ultimate Human Catastrophe. Continuum. ISBN 978-0826400642. Retrieved 15 September 2011.
  68. ^ "Scribd.com". Scribd.com. Archived from the original on 22 October 2012. Retrieved 15 September 2011.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]