2024/01/08

인도 철학 - Wikipedia インド哲学 한역

인도 철학 - Wikipedia

인도 철학

출처 : 무료 백과 사전 "Wikipedia (Wikipedia)"
철학
전승
시대
부문
포털 포털 카테고리 _카테고리

인도 철학 (인도 테츠쿠, darśana , 다르샤나 )은 철학 중에서도 인도 를 중심으로 발달한 철학으로, 특히 고대 인도를 기원으로 하는 것을 말한다. 인도에서는 종교 와 철학의 경계가 거의 없고, 인도 철학의 기초가 되는 책은 종교성전이기도 하다 . 인도 종교에도 철학적이지 않은 범위도 넓기 때문에 인도 종교가 모두 인도 철학인 것은 아니다. 그러나 전통적으로 종교적인 사람들은 철학적인 논의를 하고 그 종교성을 닦고 있는 전통이 있다.

고래의 전통이라고 생각되는 종교회의가 현재도 각지에서 자주 행해지고 있는 모습으로, 회의에서는 때로는 종파를 따로 하는 저명한 사람들이 종교적인 논의를 실시한다. 이것은 수만 명의 관중을 앞두고 행해질 수도 있고, 백열한 논의가 며칠에 걸쳐 승패가 드러날 때까지 행해질 수도 있다. 이 경우, 판정을 하는 인물이 있는 것은 아니고, 논의를 하는 당인이 논의의 성행을 보고, 자신의 패를 인정하는 형태를 취하는 것 같다.

인도의 종교, 철학은 이러한 전통 속에서 닦은 것으로 보인다. 자이나교 , 불교 , 요가 학파 , 시바파 , 베단타 학파 등의 학파는 현재까지 살아남았지만, 아자나파 , 순세파 , 아지비카교 등의 학파는 살아남지 않았다.

인도 철학의 연구, 특히 인도 불교학 ( 티벳 불교학 도 내포한다)에서는, 제2차 세계 대전 독일이 리드하고 있었지만, 현대에서는 일본의 학회가 세계의 연구를 리드하고 있다.

공통 테마 [ 편집 ]

인도철학은 다르마 (법), 카르마 (업), 윤회 , 두카 (고), 환생 , 명상 등 많은 개념을 공유하고 있으며, 거의 모든 철학이 다양한 정신적 수행을 통해 두카와 윤회 에서 개인을 해방하는 궁극의 목표에 초점을 맞추고 있다( 해탈 , 열반 ) [1] . 존재의 본질 에 관한 가정이나, 궁극의 해방에의 길의 구체성이 다르기 때문에, 서로 의견이 다른 많은 학파가 존재하게 되었다. 그들의 고대 교리는 다른 고대 문화에서 발견되는 다양한 철학의 범위에 걸쳐있다 [2] .

정통파 [ 편집 ]

자세한 내용은 힌두 철학 및 힌두교 # 육파 철학을 참조하십시오.

중세에서 정통파로 분류된 것은 이하 6개의 학파로, 6파 철학(로파테가쿠, 梵: Ṣad - darśana [ 샤드 다르 샤나 ]))이라고 불리며 인도 에서는 가장 정통적인 고전 적 다르샤나로되어 왔다. 육파 철학이라는 말은 낡지만, 다루어지는 육파는 일정하지 않다 [3] .

현대에서는 이하의 6파의 총칭으로서 사용되고 있다. 이 선택은 아마도 프리드리히 맥스 뮐러 와 키무라 야스시 에서 시작될 것으로 보인다 [3]

미만서와 베단타, 잔키야와 요가, 니야야와 바이셰시카는 각각 보완하는 관계가 되고 있다.

이 베다의 권위를 인정하는 학파를 아스티카 ( āstika आस्तिक, 정통파, 유신론자)라고 부른다. 한편, 베다에서 떠나간 불교 , 자이나교 , 순세파 등의 선행하는 사상파벌을 간호사 ( nāstika नास्तिक, 비정통파, 무신론자)로 구별한다.

" 아스티카와 간호사 "도 참조

이단파 [ 편집 ]

자세한 내용은 " 사문 "을 참조하십시오.

기원전 6세기 이전에는 몇 가지 사마나(사문)운동이 존재하여 인도철학의 아스티카와 간호사 의 전통에 영향을 주었다 [4] . 사마나 운동에 의해, 아트맨의 수용/부정, 원자론, 반지성주의, 유물론, 불가지론, 운명론으로부터 자유 의지, 극단적인 금욕주의로부터 가정 생활의 이상화, 가혹한 아힌서와 채식주의로부터 폭력 이나 육식 의 용인 까지 다양한 이교도적 신념을 낳고 있다.

사마나 운동에서 태어난 저명한 철학은 자이나교, 초기 불교, 순세파 , 아지비카교 였다 [5] .

비교 [ 편집 ]

인도의 전통에서는 다양한 철학을 신봉하고, 아스티카와 간호사, 정통파에서의 육파 철학 등의 형태 와 같이 서로 크게 의견을 달리하고 있었다. 그 차이는, 모든 개인이 아트맨을 가지고 있다고 믿는 파도 있으면, 아트맨은 존재하지 않는다고 주장하는 파도 있고 금욕 생활을 설하는 파도 있으면 쾌락주의파도 있고, 윤회 는 있다고 설하는 파도 있다면, 소멸하면 설교하는 파도 있어, 다종다양했다 [6] .

고대 인도 철학 비교
아지비카교초기 불교순세파자이나교정통파 육파 철학
( 비사문 )
업 (카르마)부정하다 [7] [8]긍정한다 [6]부정하다 [6]긍정한다 [6]긍정하다
윤회 와 재생긍정하다긍정한다 [9]부정하다 [10]긍정한다 [6]긍정하는 학파도 있고,
부정하는 학파도 있다 [11]
금욕 생활긍정하다긍정하다부정하다 [6]긍정하다산냐사 ( 영어판 ) 로 긍정 [12]
헌신주의
박티		긍정하다하나의 선택으로 긍정 [13]
( 파리어 : Bhatti )		부정하다하나의 선택으로 긍정 [14]유신론파: 하나의 선택으로 긍정 [15]
기타: 부정 [16] [17]
어힌서 와
채식주의		긍정하다긍정한다.
육식에 대해서는 불명 [18]		아힌서를 지상으로 한다. 동물에 대한 어힌서를 위해 채식주의 [19]최고의 미덕으로 긍정하지만 정전론을 인정한다. 채식주의는 장려되지만 선택은 임의 [20] [21]
자유 의지 의
존재		부정하다 [22]긍정 [23]긍정하다긍정하다긍정 [24]
마야긍정 [25]긍정하다
( prapañca ) [26]		부정하다긍정하다긍정 [27] [28]
아트맨
(우리)		긍정하다부정하다 [29]부정하다 [30]긍정 [31] :119긍정 [32]
창조신부정하다부정하다부정하다부정하다유신론파는 긍정 [33] ,
그 외는 부정 [34] [35]
인식론
( 프라마나 )		Pratyakṣa,
Anumāṇa,
Śabda		Pratyakṣa,
Anumāṇa [36] [37]		Pratyakṣa [38]Pratyakṣa,
Anumāṇa,
Śabda [36]		바이셰시카 학파 ( 6원론 )부터 베단타 학파 ( 2원론 )까지 다양하다. [36] [39]
Pratyakṣa (perception),
Anumāṇa (inference),
Upamāṇa (comparison and analogy),
Arthāpatti (postulation, derivation),
Anupalabdi (non-perception, negative/cognitive proof),
Śabda (Reliable
인식론적 권위베다의 부정불전을 긍정 [40]
베다의 부정		베다의 부정아가마를 긍정
베다의 부정		베다 와 우파니 샤드 의 긍정 [note 1]
다른 문헌을 긍정 [40] [42]
구원, 구제론Samsdrasuddhi [43]涅槃
( 슈냐 이해) [44]		시다 , [45]涅槃해탈, 涅槃, 카이바리야 ( 영어판 )
후지이치 원론 , 요가 , 지반 무크티 ( 영어판 ) [46]
두바이타 ( 영어판 ) , 이신 해탈
형이상학
(궁극의 현실)		슈냐 [47] [48]아네칸 타바다 [49]
브라프만 [50] [51]

주요 주제 [ 편집 ]

사상가 [ 편집 ]

마하빌라 , 석가 , 가우다파다 , 샹 카라 , 라마난다 , 마다 바 , 발라 바 , 카비르 , 나낙 , 라마 크리슈나 , 비베카난다 , 오로빈드 고슈 , 타골

집단 [ 편집 ]

아리야 서머지 , 브라후모 서머지

인도 철학 연구 [ 편집 ]

일본 [ 편집 ]

일본에서의 「인도철학」( 인도철학 , 인철 )의 연구는 서양의 인도학 (인도로지)과 달리 인도 그 자체 연구가 아니라 불교 연구를 중심으로 발달해 왔다 [52] . 도쿄 대학 에서는 이러한 불교 연구를 중심으로 한 "인도 철학"연구가 이루어져 왔다 [52] [53] . 동대인철의 주된 교수에는 무라카미 전정 , 우이 백수 , 나카무라 모토가 있다 [52] .

한편 교토대학 은 서양의 인도학을 모범으로 하여 실증적인 문헌학을 지향하여 프랑스의 실반 레비와 루이 르누(모두 일불 회관 관장 ) 의 영향 을 볼 수 있다 [52] . 경대인철의 주된 교수에는 여명기의 나가오 마사토 와 아시카가 씨 외에 'munitraya'('삼성'의 뜻)로 불리는 카지야마 유이치, 핫토리 마사아키 , 오지 하라 유타카 가 있다 . 52] .

주요 실험실 [ 편집 ]

각주 [ 편집 ]

주석 [ 편집 ]

  1. ↑ Elisa Freschi (2012): The Vedas are not deontic authorities and may be disobeyed, but still recognized as an epistemic authority by a Hindu. [41] Such a differentiation between epistemic and deontic authority is true for all India.

출처 [ 편집 ]

  1. ↑ Kathleen Kuiper (2010). The Culture of India . The Rosen Publishing Group. pp. 174–178. ISBN  978-1-61530-149-2
  2. ↑ Sue Hamilton (2001). Indian Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford University Press. pp. 1–17, 136–140. ISBN 978-0-19-157942-4 
  3. ↑ a b “ 육파 철학 ”. 브리타니카 국제대백과사전 소항목사전. 2020년 8월 23일 열람.
  4. ↑ Reginald Ray (1999), Buddhist Saints in India, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195134834 , pages 237-240, 247-249 
  5. ↑ AL Basham (1951), History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas - a Vanished Indian Religion, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120812048 , pages 94-103 
  6. ^ a b c d e f Randall Collins (2000). The sociology of philosophies: a global theory of intellectual change . Harvard University Press. pp. 199–200. ISBN 9780674001879 
  7. ↑ Ajivikas World Religions Project, University of Cumbria , United Kingdom
  8. ↑ Gananath Obeyesekere (2005), Karma and Rebirth: A Cross Cultural Study, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120826090 , page 106 
  9. ↑ Damien Keown (2013), Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199663835 , pages 32-46 
  10. ↑ Haribhadrasūri (Translator: M Jain, 1989), Saddarsanasamuccaya, Asiatic Society, OCLC 255495691 
  11. ↑ Halbfass, Wilhelm (2000), Karma und Wiedergeburt im indischen Denken, Diederichs, München, ISBN 978-3896313850 
  12. ↑ Patrick Olivelle (2005), The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism (Editor: Flood, Gavin), Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 978-1405132510 , pages 277-278 
  13. ↑ Karel Werner (1995), Love Divine: Studies in Bhakti and Devotional Mysticism, Routledge, ISBN 978-0700702350 , pages 45-46 
  14. ↑ John Cort, Jains in the World : Religious Values ​​and Ideology in India, Oxford University Press, ISBN, pages 64-68, 86-90, 100-112
  15. ↑ Christian Novetzke (2007), Bhakti and Its Public, International Journal of Hindu Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3, page 255-272
  16. ↑ [a] Knut Jacobsen (2008), Theory and Practice of Yoga : 'Essays in Honour of Gerald James Larson, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120832329 , pages 15-16, 76-78; Pb] and Power in Yogasutra, in Theory and Practice of Yoga (Editor: Knut Jacobsen), Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120832329 , pages 38-39 
     
  17. ↑ [a] Karl Potter (2008), Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies Vol. III, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120803107 , pages 16-18, 220; [b] Basant Pradhan (2014), Yoga and Mindfulnes Academic, ISBN 978-3319091044 , page 13 see A.4 
     
  18. ↑ U Tahtinen (1976), Ahimsa: Non-Violence in Indian Tradition, London, ISBN 978-0091233402 , pages 75-78, 94-106 
  19. ↑ U Tahtinen (1976), Ahimsa: Non-Violence in Indian Tradition, London, ISBN 978-0091233402 , pages 57-62, 109-111 
  20. ↑ U Tahtinen (1976), Ahimsa: Non-Violence in Indian Tradition, London, ISBN 978-0091233402 , pages 34-43, 89-97, 109-110 
  21. ↑ Christopher Chapple (1993), Nonviolence to Animals, Earth, and Self in Asian Traditions, State University of New York Press, ISBN 0-7914-1498-1 , pages 16-17 
  22. ↑ James Lochtefeld, "Ajivika", The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 1: A–M, Rosen Publishing. ISBN 978-0823931798 , page 22 
  23. ↑ Karin Meyers (2013), Free Will, Agency, and Selfhood in Indian Philosophy (Editors: Matthew R. Dasti, Edwin F. Bryant), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199922758 , pages 41-61 
  24. ↑ Howard Coward (2008), The Perfectibility of Human Nature in Eastern and Western Thought, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791473368 , pages 103-114; Harold Coward (2003), Encyclopedia of Science see Karma, ISBN 978-0028657042 
     
  25. ↑ AL Basham (1951), History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas - a Vanished Indian Religion, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120812048 , pages 237 
  26. ↑ Damien Keown (2004), A Dictionary of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0198605607 , Entry for Prapañca , Quote: "Term meaning 'proliferation', in the sense of the multiplication of erroneous con the true nature of reality". 
  27. ↑ Lynn Foulston and Stuart Abbott (2009), Hindu Goddesses: Beliefs and Practices, Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 978-1902210438 , pages 14-16 
  28. ↑ Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty (1986), Dreams, Illusion, and Other Realities, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0226618555 , page 119 
  29. ↑ [a] Steven Collins (1994), Religion and Practical Reason (Editors: Frank Reynolds, David Tracy), State Univ of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791422175 , page 64; "Central to Buddhist soteriology is the doc self (Pali: anattā, Sanskrit: anātman, the opposed doctrine of ātman is central to Brahmanical thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that human beings have no soul, no self, no unching b] KN Jayatilleke (2010), Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, ISBN 978-8120806191 , pages 246-249, from note 385 onwards; [c] John C. Plott et al. (2000), Global Histo Age, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120801585 , page 63, Quote: "The Buddhist schools reject any Ātman concept. As we have already observed, this is the basic and ineradicable distinction betwe Javanaud (2013), Is The Buddhist 'No-Self' Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana? , Philosophy Now; [e] Anatta Encyclopædia Britannica, Quote:"In Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underly be called the soul. (...) The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the Hindu belief in atman (self)." 
     
     

  30. ↑ Ramkrishna Bhattacharya (2011), Studies on the Carvaka/Lokayata, Anthem, ISBN 978-0857284334 , page 216 
  31. ↑ Padmanabh S. Jaini (2001). Collected papers on Buddhist studies . Motilal Banarsidass Publications. ISBN 9788120817760 
  32. ^ Anatta Encyclopædia Britannica, Quote:"In Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul. (...) The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the Hindu belief in atman (self)."
  33. ↑ Oliver Leaman (2000), Eastern Philosophy: Key Readings, Routledge, ISBN 978-0415173582 , page 251 
  34. ↑ Mike Burley (2012), Classical Samkhya and Yoga - An Indian Metaphysics of Experience, Routledge, ISBN 978-0415648875 , page 39 
  35. ↑ Paul Hacker (1978), Eigentumlichkeiten dr Lehre und Terminologie Sankara: Avidya, Namarupa, Maya, Isvara, in Kleine Schriften (Editor: L. Schmithausen), Franz Steiner Verlag, Weisbaden, pages 101-109 (in German) 69-99
  36. ^ a b c John A. Grimes, A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy: Sanskrit Terms Defined in English, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791430675 , page 238 
  37. ↑ D Sharma (1966), Epistemological negative dialectics of Indian logic — Abhāva versus Anupalabdhi, Indo-Iranian Journal, 9(4): 291-300
  38. ↑ MM Kamal (1998), The Epistemology of the Carvaka Philosophy, Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 46(2), pages 13-16
  39. ↑ Eliott Deutsche (2000), in Philosophy of Religion : Indian Philosophy Vol 4 (Editor: Roy Perrett), Routledge, ISBN 978-0815336112 , pages 245-248 
  40. ↑ a b Christopher Bartley (2011), An Introduction to Indian Philosophy, Bloomsbury Academic, ISBN 978-1847064493 , pages 46, 120 
  41. ↑ Elisa Freschi (2012), Duty, Language and Exegesis in Prabhakara Mimamsa , BRILL, ISBN 978-9004222601 , page 62 
  42. ↑ Catherine Cornille (2009), Criteria of Discernment in Interreligious Dialogue, Wipf & Stock, ISBN 978-1606087848 , pages 185-186 
  43. ↑ AL Basham (1951), History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas - a Vanished Indian Religion, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120812048 , pages 227 
  44. ↑ Jerald Gort (1992), On Sharing Religious Experience: Possibilities of Interfaith Mutuality, Rodopi, ISBN 978-0802805058 , pages 209-210 
  45. ↑ John Cort (2010), Framing the Jina: Narratives of Icons and Idols in Jain History, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195385021 , pages 80, 188 
  46. ↑ Andrew Fort (1998), Jivanmukti in Transformation, State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791439043 
  47. ↑ Masao Abe and Steven Heine (1995), Buddhism and Interfaith Dialogue, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 978-0824817527 , pages 105-106 
  48. ↑ Chad Meister (2009), Introducing Philosophy of Religion, Routledge, ISBN 978-0415403276 , page 60; Quote: "In this chapter, we looked at religious metaphysics and saw two different can be understood as an absolute state of being. Within Hindu absolutism, for example, it is Brahman, the undifferentiated Absolute. Within Buddhist metaphysics, fundamental reality is Sunyata, or the Void." 
  49. ↑ Christopher Key Chapple (2004), Jainism and Ecology: Nonviolence in the Web of Life, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120820456 , page 20 
  50. ↑ PT Raju (2006), Idealistic Thought of India, Routledge, ISBN 978-1406732627 , page 426 and Conclusion chapter part XII 
  51. ↑ Roy W Perrett (Editor, 2000), Indian Philosophy: Metaphysics, Volume 3, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 978-0815336082 , page xvii; AC Das (1952), Brahman and Māyā in Advaita Metaphys. 2, No. 2, pages 144-154 
  52. ^ a b c d e 가타오카 케이 (2008). ““인철”은 무엇을 목표로 해 왔는가?”. 남아시아 연구 제20호 .
  53. ↑ “ 도쿄대학 인도철학 불교학 연구실 ”. www.lu-tokyo.ac.jp . 2022년 5월 31일 열람.

관련 항목 [ 편집 ]

외부 링크 [ 편집 ]

Posted by at
Labels: ,

Wolfgang Pauli The "sharp-tongued" physicist who everyone was scared of - Big Think

The "sharp-tongued" physicist who everyone was scared of - Big Think

HARD SCIENCE — DECEMBER 27, 2023

The “sharp-tongued” physicist who everyone was scared of

Wolfgang Pauli was a brilliant, well-liked physicist and a scathing critic of balderdash.

CERN/Wikimedia Commons/Big Think/Ben Gibson


KEY TAKEAWAYS

Wolfgang Pauli was a brilliant physicist who won the 1945 Nobel Prize in Physics.
He could also be a harsh critic of people and ideas he deemed nonsense.
However, other theoretical physicists seemed to enjoy his honesty and developed lasting friendships with him.
Ross PomeroyShare The “sharp-tongued” physicist who everyone was scared of on LinkedIn
This article was originally published on RealClearScience. It was written by Ross Pomeroy, a regular contributor to Big Think.

The history of theoretical physics is chock-full of quirky characters with eccentric personalities. To travel down mind-bending mathematical and universal rabbit holes, one must be a bit mad, after all.




Top Stories00:2701:00What the new "Napoleon" film doesn't tell you about theFrench emperor


One of those personalities belonged to Austrian theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Among his many contributions to our fundamental understanding of reality, Pauli predicted the existence of the neutrino in 1930, which was subsequently discovered 26 years later. He also formulated what would later become known as the Pauli exclusion principle, for which he would be nominated by the illustrious Albert Einstein for a Nobel Prize in Physics. Pauli won the award in 1945. The principle states that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin like an electron, proton, or neutron) cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system simultaneously.

Pauli’s discoveries are what he’s most regarded for publicly, but within the theoretical physics community of the early to mid-20th century — which included legendary thinkers such as Albert Einstein, Paul Ehrenfest, Freeman Dyson, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, Werner Heisenberg, and Robert Oppenheimer — Pauli was both revered and feared as a biting critic that held everyone accountable for their ideas, protecting the integrity of theoretical physics as a whole.
Pauli was known for policing novel theories, making sure that they were coherent and would enhance the discipline. When attending lectures that did not live up to those standards, he could be scathing. “What you just said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not,” he often said. Pauli eventually distilled this critique to a now-famous aphorism: “This isn’t right. This isn’t even wrong,” he would say of balderdash ideas.

He also saved sharp rebuttals for physicists who would publicize novel concepts before they were ready. “I do not mind if you think slowly, but I do object when you publish more quickly than you think,” he proclaimed.










Michio Kaku: Quantum computing is the next revolution





































01:14







11:17





















Pauli often elected not to publish his own ideas in scientific journals, choosing instead to present them in personal letters to his friends and colleagues, who, in turn, circulated them.

Though Pauli could be rather cruel to his colleagues — or, at least, to their ideas he found fault with — they generally liked him. Freeman Dyson’s account of meeting Pauli exemplifies this well:

“He had nasty things to say about almost everybody. I remember the very first time I met him at a conference in Zurich. He was talking with a whole group of people about Julian Schwinger, who had just come to Switzerland. Schwinger was a brilliant young American who had done some very fine work. He was a rival of Feynman; they were the two geniuses then. Pauli was saying that Schwinger told us all this stuff that actually made sense, not like that nonsense Dyson has been writing. At that point I came walking up with a friend of mine, Markus Fierz, who was also a Swiss scientist. With a twinkle in his eye, Fierz came up to Pauli and said, “Please allow me to introduce you to my friend, Freeman Dyson.” Pauli said, “Oh that doesn’t matter. He doesn’t understand German.” Which of course I did. That was a good beginning and we were friends right from the very first day.”

Historian of science Jagdish Mehra recalled some of the “nasty” things Pauli would say about his colleagues in a conversation with Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman:

“About Oppenheimer, Pauli had said: ‘He always acts like the caricature of God in action!’ About Hermann Weyl: ‘One must first penetrate his façade in order to understand his thoughts.’ About Leon Rosenfeld: ‘He is the choirboy of the Pope [Niels Bohr]!’ About Freeman Dyson: ‘Everyone wants to learn something from me; no one wants to teach me anything. I had hoped Dyson would do it, but he’s only a mathematician!’ By now, Feynman was becoming quite eager: ‘Did you ask Pauli about me?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ ‘Well, what did he say?’ I replied, ‘When I asked Pauli what he thought of you, he was amused, and replied, “Oh, Feynman, that Feynman, he talks like a gangster!”‘ This story made Feynman’s day; nothing could have pleased him more.”
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)