2006-12-28 10:09:15 · 11 answers · asked by Blackcat15 2 in Education & Reference ➔ Quotations
Did Einstein perhaps write this after the nuclear bomb had been invented? He could be saying that just because we CAN build nuclear bombs does not mean we SHOULD build them. The same could be applied to other issues. Just because we have the technology to create something does not mean we should do so, nor that we necessarily have the wisdom to use that knowledge. Kind of like eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, perhaps?
2006-12-28 10:20:20 · answer #1 · answered by seekermike 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is is a term of perspective and what should be is an ambigous analogy. Sure what is can be scientifically "proven"; however we can all agree that grass is green and say that it IS green, but try convincing a blind man. As to what should be, who is to say? I have heard it said that God cannot be all loving and all good if things are as they are. The quote, and I am paraphrasing, suggested that he can either be all good and not all powerful, or not all good and all powerful. I think Einstein understood that the two are not mutually exclusive and to try to understand what is as opposed to what should be is the work of God and not our feeble minds. Keep in mind Einstein made many references to God and this is not my religious ramblings here. Frankly I am not religious, just believe we know very little. I do believe their is a God though. Whatever the heck he is.
2006-12-28 12:46:23 · answer #2 · answered by mpdcolburn 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In philosophy, I believe matters of "What is" belong to metaphysics while matters of "What should be" belong to ethics.
I had a physics professor who faulted Einstein because Einstein was a key proponent to the US govt in its use of the atomic weapon on Japan. An ethical mistake.
Nevertheless, Einstein had a pretty clear understanding of how atomic energy worked. A physics, and perhaps metaphysical, insight.
Perhaps this quote was a response by Einstein to the kind of fault my Physics professor found.
2006-12-28 10:25:40 · answer #3 · answered by jr_94111 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thanks for providing the REFERENCE of who said this....
This quote refers to how the ultimate unexplored terrain of what has not yet been explained is a much larger schema than knowledge of what HAS been explained.
%Limiting our knowledge-base to explaining what IS does so "limit" our imagination of what is possible (what should be.)
Albert Einstein did explore this vast chasm of "what should be" with his explaining the Theory of Relativity E=Mc2.
2006-12-28 10:47:25 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it means: 'that our existing knowledge is not the key to what we can learn by experiment and result'.
Just because we have vast knowledge of what is, we should not assume that something cannot 'be' or exist'. That's my perception, but someone may have a deeper translation.
2006-12-28 10:18:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It means that if a person is knowledgeable about how somthing is, he isn't necessarily knowledgeable about how it should be. Actual vs. Ideal. e.g knowing how a car runs on gas doesn't mean that a car should run on gas.
2006-12-28 12:55:20 · answer #6 · answered by jackiemm 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I assume it means that there are many possibilites to what is..there are many answers to everything..more then one. So you can't open the door directed to just answers and how things are in life because there would be many doors.
2006-12-28 10:17:29 · answer #7 · answered by * Kittles * 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Simply learning the facts does not encourage the development of orginal thought.
2006-12-28 10:23:38 · answer #8 · answered by Lilly One 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It means that knowledge can tell you "how, where, when, what, & who", but it cannot tell you "why".
2006-12-28 10:14:44 · answer #9 · answered by T S 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It means be careful when extrapolating data.
2006-12-28 10:16:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋