Attacked by Lenin, less viciously than other scientists, for 'idealistic deductions' page 259 etc.

Says he : "The breakdown of the most fundamental principles shows (such is Poincare's trend of thought) that these principles are not copies, photographs of nature, not images of something external in relation to man's consciouness, but products of his consciousness."

Mr. Lenin was trying to tell us something otherwise ; the confusion of this all leaves one in a hopeless state every other sentence or so. Continues Lenin, "Poincare does not develop these deductions consistently, nor is he essentially interested in the philosophical aspect of the question. It is dealt with in detail by the French writer . . . Abel Ray., etc."

Was Mr. Lenin trying to tell us that principles are something on the order of a brick ?

He clearly implies an error somewhere by H. Poincare, except that Poincare had not stated it. Then Poincare is, by implication, attacked for another writer who, Mr. Lenin tells us, had stated ('idealistic deductions') what, Mr. Lenin implies, Poincare should have stated but had not.

"Sorry" but this is not 'philosophy' nor 'science' -- pure bunk, the reader. Unfortunately the fact has not yet been sufficiently appreciated ; the spreading of this 'philosophy' would qualify as crimes against humanity if the human average was somewhat higher than it is.

Is the above just my opinion ? I do assert that this 'philosophy' is thoroughly inconsistent ; and would not produce treatises of my own to prove it. Every paragraph of this 'philosophy' contains fallacies, beginning with the whole 'dialectic materialism' premises which are as empty as 0 - 0 = 0 Multiply the preceeding by 10 zeros, the reader, then subtract a few zeros from it, tell the people that every one zero in it is wrong ; etc. 'Philosophy'. (WPT).