Was Einstein a philosopher?

Question

Albert Einstein described the fact that he believed in 'god'; yet, he did not define that god as a personal god who actually existed as a separate being. He used the concept to describe everything that exists.

Although Einstein is commonly hailed as a great physicist, could one also say that he was a philosopher? Many of his discoveries would surely have required a philosophical consideration in order even for the theory to have been devised; his Theory of General Relativity, for example, was completely counter-intuative given the known laws of physics at the time.

On the other hand, one could argue that he was thinking from a purely physical point of view, and that by trying to explain everything in scientific terms, he was explicitly avoiding philosophy and sticking to science. Was he a philosopher?

Answer 1

The trouble with considering Einstein (or any other intellectual genius) a philosopher (or an expert in any field in which they did not establish themselves) is that it's difficult to separate their reputation from their accomplishments. Strictly speaking, Einstein was both a lover of knowledge (the literal meaning of "philosopher") and a deep, effective abstract thinker. Naively, one might imagine that a genius in one field will be at least a standout in any other field that requires similar mental ability.

Sadly, that is not so. Consider, for instance, the theology of Isaac Newton. Newton must be seen as the equivalent of Einstein when it comes to physics. Swap their places chronologically, and it's entirely possible they would have been capable of making each other's discoveries in physics and in mathematics. Like Einstein, Newton avidly thought of the "big picture". Most people would be severely tempted to accept his thought on any topic up-to and including philosophy.

But Newton's theological ideas were mostly unknown in his own time (because of the threat of being tried for heresy) and as they are unearthed and examined with modern eyes, seem bizarre and unscientific. While it makes sense that a man so instrumental in calculating the past and future position of heavenly bodies would be interested in calculating the times of the start and end of the world according to arcane prophesies, almost nobody (Christian or not) would agree with any of his conclusions. In a sense, his approach to teasing out the mysteries of physics and solving the problems of calculus proved wholly inappropriate to teasing out the mysteries of the Bible and solving the problems of prophesy.

I suspect that in time, Einstein will join the ranks of scientists who were considered out of their depths in philosophy and other fields. The list would include Pythagoras (philosopher, mathematician, and founder of the religious movement called Pythagoreanism), Johannes Kepler (mathematician, astronomer and astrologer), Tycho Brahe (astronomer and alchemist), and of course Isaac Newton (physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and theologian).¹ That's not a slight on these great thinkers, but a warning that we ought not take all their ideas as words from on high.

On a more personal and anecdotal note: scientists seem to dedicate themselves to intense study within their field and are often somewhat ordinary thinkers in unrelated fields. It may be that the technological and mathematical demands of modern science make becoming a contributor in multiple fields more difficult than in the past. For reference, I learned the Pythagorean theorem in 6^th grade, much of Newton's contribution to physics and math in high school, and struggled through Einstein's work in college. Considering the equivalent progress required to be an expert philosopher (and student of philosophy), it seems less likely than ever before that we will discover true polymaths in this era.

---

Footnote:

1. All descriptions taken from each thinker's respective Wikipedia page.

Answer 2

Einstein was not a philosopher. To express philosophically-flavored views and your agreement/affinity with certain philosophical intuitions does not make you a philosopher. If it did, then we would all be philosophers - maybe we all are, but then the definition would be useless. Einstein advocated a pantheistic view of God-as-Nature best exemplified by Spinoza - but such a belief is not itself a contribution to philosophy as a discipline. Of course people are interested in what Einstein had to say because he was an intellectual giant. But we can hardly call the (unelaborated) opinions of great men a philosophy.

Now if you want to consider him a philosophically acute thinker when you say,

Many of his discoveries would surely have required a philosophical consideration in order even for the theory to have been devised; his Theory of General Relativity, for example, was completely counter-intuative given the known laws of physics at the time.

then, yes, I don't see anything wrong with that. But regardless of the creative/philosophical flair that led to these advances, the flair itself was not the contribution - the contribution was what this flair led to.

Answer 3

It merely comes down to how one defines philosopher: liberally in that anyone who thinks about knowledge and wisdom? Or specifically as in someone who has studied philosophy somewhat extensively, perhaps having degrees in the field? (This is what Jon & Eric appeared to be equivocating on.)

It appears the OP's particular definition regards the usage of philosophical as opposed to merely scientific principles. This does not really make sense to me, as science done properly is a really just a subset of philosophy.

Answer 4

At least some would argue for this; for instance Schilpp put together this book entitled Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist for his series on living philosophers; the reviews would seem to indicate it shines as one of the best entries in that series. It seems to include some autobiographical material from Einstein himself. It also looks like it may provide something in the way of an intellectual biography as well as several essays by specialists, so it may be worth a look.