View from the left eye
February 18, 2016 11:31 AM Subscribe
The self-portrait of Ernst Mach.
It was about 1870 that the idea of this drawing was suggested to me by an amusing chance. A certain Mr L., now long dead, whose many eccentricities were redeemed by his truly amiable character, compelled me to read one of C. F. Krause’s writings, in which the following occurs:
“Problem : To carry out the self-inspection of the Ego.
Solution : It is carried out immediately.”
In order to illustrate in a humorous manner this philosophical “much ado about nothing,” and at the same time to shew how the self-inspection of the Ego could be really “carried out,” I embarked on the above drawing.
It was about 1870 that the idea of this drawing was suggested to me by an amusing chance. A certain Mr L., now long dead, whose many eccentricities were redeemed by his truly amiable character, compelled me to read one of C. F. Krause’s writings, in which the following occurs:
“Problem : To carry out the self-inspection of the Ego.
Solution : It is carried out immediately.”
In order to illustrate in a humorous manner this philosophical “much ado about nothing,” and at the same time to shew how the self-inspection of the Ego could be really “carried out,” I embarked on the above drawing.
I am always delighted to see the spelling "shew".
posted by sandettie light vessel automatic at 11:52 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by sandettie light vessel automatic at 11:52 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
"A certain Mr L., now long dead, whose many eccentricities were redeemed by his truly amiable character,"
Would that we could all live up to this level of praise.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 12:00 PM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Would that we could all live up to this level of praise.
posted by mrjohnmuller at 12:00 PM on February 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
An extremely influential figure who is not that well remembered. Einstein's quest for general relativity was driven by an attempt to formulate what he called "Mach's principle." The Vienna Circle started out as Mach's circle, and Mach's thought guided the mid-20th century positivism that briefly dominated (and permanently shaped) American philosophy.
posted by grobstein at 12:54 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by grobstein at 12:54 PM on February 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Artistic license.... The depth of focus is far too deep.
posted by njohnson23 at 1:08 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by njohnson23 at 1:08 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yeah, Mach was a fine physicist who made many important discoveries, but he was also the kind of person who inspired others to do their best work. Sort of the "glue guy," who played in a number of different intellectual sports teams.
posted by Kevin Street at 2:02 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Kevin Street at 2:02 PM on February 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Very interesting that Mach chose to suppress a rendering of the paper of the drawing itself in his drawing (leaving his pencil in midair, poised as if in readiness to inflict an extremely uncomfortable wound), presumably because that would invoke all the confounding problems of infinite regress his program of empirical verifiability -- and its grandchild Popperian falsifiability -- are so incapable of addressing, since empirical verifiability cannot itself be empirically verified, and Popperian falsifiability cannot be falsified.
posted by jamjam at 2:15 PM on February 18, 2016
posted by jamjam at 2:15 PM on February 18, 2016
Popperian falsifiability cannot be falsified.
I actually don't think that matters, in the way that it did for the logical positivists' Verification Principle (which claimed that the meaning of a sentence is identical to the means of verifying it). Popper isn't purporting to give a scientific theory; he's saying that what distinguishes them is that they could be shown to be false by empirical means.
posted by thelonius at 5:06 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I actually don't think that matters, in the way that it did for the logical positivists' Verification Principle (which claimed that the meaning of a sentence is identical to the means of verifying it). Popper isn't purporting to give a scientific theory; he's saying that what distinguishes them is that they could be shown to be false by empirical means.
posted by thelonius at 5:06 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Very interesting that Mach chose to suppress a rendering of the paper of the drawing itself in his drawing (leaving his pencil in midair, poised as if in readiness to inflict an extremely uncomfortable wound),
I dispute this interpretation: the drawing is self-recursive and depicts the pencil engaged in the act of the drawing's creation, but the artist has maintained the relative scale of the pencil and hand to the subject of the drawing rather than attempting to integrate a further complicated perspective shift.
It would seem to anticipate Escher's self-drawing hands, in a way. There's a continuity here with Dürer's gnostic engravings as well.
posted by mwhybark at 5:40 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I dispute this interpretation: the drawing is self-recursive and depicts the pencil engaged in the act of the drawing's creation, but the artist has maintained the relative scale of the pencil and hand to the subject of the drawing rather than attempting to integrate a further complicated perspective shift.
It would seem to anticipate Escher's self-drawing hands, in a way. There's a continuity here with Dürer's gnostic engravings as well.
posted by mwhybark at 5:40 PM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
On rereading my remark, I wish to clarify. I intend the word "dispute" in the sense of airing a competing view, not in the sense of defining a position in opposition. I could have used a less conflict-freighted word.
jamjam's interpretation is equally valid, it's just distinct from my own.
posted by mwhybark at 11:37 PM on February 18, 2016
jamjam's interpretation is equally valid, it's just distinct from my own.
posted by mwhybark at 11:37 PM on February 18, 2016
« Older This is why we can't have nice things | 1 Galleon = $25. 1 Sickle = $1.50. 1 Knut = $0.05. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by theodolite at 11:44 AM on February 18, 2016 [1 favorite]