34 SOCIAL SCIENTIST Eddington and Russell try separately to bring out tht paradox of time in relativity. Thus Eddington finds it convenient to move from this question to that of an inner monitor who tells us what is good and bad.^The direction of time's arrow could only be determined by that incongruous mixture of theology and statistics known as the second law of thermodynamics; or to be more explicit, the direction of the arrow could be determined by statistical rules, but its significance as a governing fact ^making sense of the world' could only be deduced on thelcological assumptions. If physics cannot determine which way up its own world ought to be regarded, there is not much hope of guidance from it as to ethical orientation. We must trust to some inward sense of fitness when we orient the physical world with the future on top, and likewise we must trust to some inner monitor when we orient the spiritual world with the good on top."8 Russell makes much the same point, except that being an agnostic unlike Eddington who was a theologian, he sees no point in oa^nting the world in terms of good and bad. In his btifok 'A.B.C of Ibsfctivity' he says8: ^The collapse of the notion of one all embracing time, in which all events throughout the universe can be dated, must in the long run affect our views as to cause and effect, evolution, and many other matt-crs. For instance, the question whether, on the whole, there is progress in the universe, may depend upon our choice of a measure of time. If we choose one out of a number of equally good clocks, we may find that the universe is progressing as fast as the most optimistic American thinks it is; if we choose another equally good ^clock, we may find that the universe is going from bad to worse as fast as the most melancholy Slav could imagine. Thus optimism and pessimism arc neither true nor false, but depend on our choice of clocks." Philipp Frank says/ "Because of the close connection, which obviously exists between Einstein's theory of relativity and Mach's philosophy, Lenin feared that Einstein's theories might become a Trojan horse for the infiltration of idealist currents of thought among Russian scientists and among educated classes in general. This suspicion accounts for the bitter sweet reception which Einstein's theories frequently met in the first years of the Soviet regime in Russia^" We shall examine in this article the basic ideas of the special theory of relativity and draw out some of the philosophical consequences of the theory. I shall show how special relativity further confirms ,4*®-lectics—thc broadest generalisations &b@lit Ac fo^ms <^ motion of matter aad society and thought. As Engels pointed out^ Acre is no question of building the laws of dialectics into pature but of discovering them in it and evolving them from k. Nature is the test of dialectics. We shall see what nature as yevealed through relativity has %Q say about the laws of dialectics. We shall see how the mechanistic Htoiiation of the propositions