I don't strictly mean philosophy, it is hard for me to think of a word to describe.

I mean, people like Einstein, Newton, and Da Vinci. These people who were extraordinary in so many fields that advanced human life, science, and thought.

Mathematician
Inventor
Physicist
Musician
Artist
Astronomer
Alchemist

Just some career fields to choose from. I want your opinion.

Please, do not just pick Rembrandt because he was an amazing artist, I want different fields involved.

Thanks in advance!

I'm torn between Socrates, Shakespeare, and Ralph Baer.

Socrates taught others to question things instead of just accepting them.

Shakespeare for making words that were supposed to be simple enough for drunkards to understand.

Ralph Baer for creating the videogame. 'Nuff said.

- Leonardo da Vinci
- Shen Song (Chinese)
- Some other Chinese colleague of Shen Song, FORGOT HIS NAME!!!
- Bach (the guy is more insane then Mozart, in my opinion)
- Imhotep
- Zhuge Liang (at least as he is portrayed in The Three Kingdoms)

- Imhotep

...is invisible.:lol:

(Anyone watch Look Around You here? No? Oh well.)

Aristotle. A giant in physics, metaphysics, biology, logic, politics... you name it. He was the leading thinker of his time in so many fields.

Aristotle or Leonardo. These two are unrivalled.

1. Pythagoras. He invented the musical scale and the first unified theory of the universe.

2. Archimedes. The first real scientist.

3. Bach. Is a great musician, often underrated.

4. Newton. Founded calculus, gravity, etc.

5. Einstein. Household word for genius (at least in America...).

Obviously Aristotle - I don't see anyone else mentioned here coming close.

After him, Leibniz - the closest to a universal genius the modern age has produced, I'd say. Easily Newton's equal in those fields they both shared, and a colossus in a whole number of completely different fields too:

Physics
Mathematics
Metaphysics
Theology
Law
History
Linguistics
Engineering
Alchemy
Mechanics
Geology

He really was interested in everything. Also, just read the Leibniz/Clarke correspondence to see how easily Leibniz could mop the floor with Newton philosophically.

BBC has Marx as the greatest thinker of the last 1000 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/461545.stm

Easily Newton's equal in those fields they both shared, and a colossus in a whole number of completely different fields too:

Physics
Mathematics


You must have written that they didn't share these fields by accident, but did you actually mean that Newton would be even equal to Newton in physics?

There's really too many to choose from.

Mathematician - not sure. There's a lot who revolutionise the field in their era. Al-Khwarezmi and Bharkhara deserves a mention, as do Pythagoras, Archimedes, Pascal, John Adams (guy who discover Neptune) etc.
Inventor - Also a lot here. Among the best, Da Vinci, Watt, Graham Bell, Edison, Tesla, Zhang Heng, Philo Farnsworth, Vladimir Zworykin and a lot of others.
Physicist - um... Einstein, Hawking. There's a lot of others I can't think of atm.
Musician - Mozart, Bach and other famous classical composers are the obvious here, but then again music isn't just limited to classical music.
Artist - too many, again.
Astronomer - probably Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, al-Biruni, Tombaugh. There's also a lot of choices here.
Alchemist - don't know a lot about alchemy, but they're not generally successful anyway. The first people to turn one substance into another is actually Marie and Pierre Curie IIRC.

Immanuel Kant.

You must have written that they didn't share these fields by accident, but did you actually mean that Newton would be even equal to Newton in physics?

I expressed myself inelegantly - I meant that to be a list of the fields in which he excelled rather than simply those that Newton wasn't involved in. But I don't see why Leibniz shouldn't be Newton's equal in physics. For example, look at his involvement in the vis viva controversy and his demonstration, contra Cartesian orthodoxy, that force and motion are not the same thing. In fact, as I understand it, the modern notion of force really goes back to Leibniz.

I don't know. I've always had a soft spot for Tesla. As an inventor at least. Electricity, resonance and radio, ushering in the 20th century. All pretty good :)

But as a thinker, I rate Aristotle, for sheer breadth of brilliance.

Emmy Noether
Simone de Beauvoir
Martha Nussbaum
Raya Dunayevskaya
Lise Meitner
Ayn Rand
Elizabeth Anscombe

OK, I'm kinda just making a point but still...

Leonardo da Vinci

I'm just throwing these out for discussion

Mathematician - Leonhard Euler. Wherever you go in mathematics, there's Euler making major advances or pioneering contributions.
Inventor - Michael Faraday
Physicist - Newton; Galileo
Musician - Bach, but Pythagorean theory underlined basic theory of harmony.
Artist - Picasso; Michelangelo; Filippo Brunelleschi
Astronomer - Newton and Galileo again,
Alchemist - Geber. There's also an alchemist known as "False Geber" who was also great.

Aristotle overall, Leibniz near the top. Blaise Pascal was amazingly adept at physics, mathematics and theology.

The two that immediately sprang to mind were Aristotle and Ibn Sina (Avicenna).

Ibn Sina (Avicenna).

I have never heard of him. I'll do some research on this person, I enjoy reading about amazing people who did much to shape our present day.

Thanks!

Thanks to a wiki link, I meant to say Renaissance Man or Polymath!

Who was the greatest Renaissance Man or Woman?

Musician - ....but Pythagorean theory underlined basic theory of harmony.

This is slightly off-topic, but....

Many music scholars have found that many of Bartók Béla's early compositions were based off of or even entirely structured around the Fibonacci number sequence.

However, near the end of his career, especially near his death, these same scholars fail to find any sort of mathematical precision or use of the Fibonacci sequence in these works, which by many are considered to be his most revolutionary.

Just to say....I believe that "art" describes any sort of work not quantifiable by mathematics, science, etc. (Of course, art must be in some way supported by math and science, however the "art" portion describes, in my opinion, the deviation from them.)

Just my two cents, carry on.;)

Linus Pauling deserves a mention.

Aristotle, easily and by far.

Roger Bacon should get a mention too, although obviously he's not up there with Aristotle.

As for innovative musicians, Guido d'Arezzo is important. He not only invented musical notation as we know it, but devised various methods for teaching and memorising notes - including what became "Doh Re Me". It does actually mean something.

We could also add Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss, German mathematician and scientist who contributed significantly to many fields, including number theory, statistics, analysis, differential geometry, geodesy, electrostatics, astronomy, and optics.

Gauss was a dude I was trying to remember the name of earlier. He was pretty awesome.

I can't go along with all this "Aristotle is the [I]man[I]!" The mark of a great thinker is that he knows when to discard common sense or conventional wisdom, or perceives something extraordinary in the commonplace. Aristotle does not display these gifts. He is a systemizer, a syntheziser, and an encyclopedist. I give him credit as an embryologist, but nothing more.
He's also a terrific bore. Like so:

Aristotle's Treatise on Blutz:
Of blutz we may say there are three kinds, the high, the middle and the low.
The high is marked by nobility, purity, and greatness; the middle by commonness, mediocrity, and normality; the low by vulgarity and meanness.
High blutzness can be divided into two kinds, ... etc, etc, blah blah blah

In other words, you don't know anything about Aristotle. Okay.

Plato, Aristotle, in thinking as in philosophy. Of course, Pythagoras, Gauss, etc are not to be ignored either. ;)

In music (since this was mentioned), then IMHO, Bach by far.

I want to change my vote to Ayn Rand!!! :mischief:

I want to change my vote to Ayn Rand!!! :mischief:

She is anything but a Renaissance Man. :)

Physicist - Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Max Planck
Political Thought - Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli
Music - J.S Bach
Inventor - Thomas Edison, Archimedes
Poet - Li Bai, Du Fu, Wang Wei, Shakespeare, Su Xun, Xin Qi Ji, Fan Zhong Yan, Liu Yong, Li Mi, Homer, etc.
Economics - Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Maynard Keynes
Mathematics - Pythagoras, Newton, Euler, Pascal
History - Si Ma Qian, Livy, Herodotus, Plutarch, Suetonius

In other words, you don't know anything about Aristotle. Okay.

"Quoted for truth", as they say!

I respect Aristotle, but I don't know why we HAVE to consider him the Greatest THinker. Of course he was important to the Western mind, but does that necessarily make him the greatest? One of them, but not THE greatest, I would say.

Well, none of the other people mentioned here equals Aristotle for breadth of thought and originality. For example, Aristotle effectively invented the science of biology, as well as the study of formal logic; those alone would make him one of the most important thinkers of all time, quite apart from his groundbreaking work on politics, ethics, metaphysics, and the rest. Figures such as Newton or Gauss may have contributed more to their particular fields, but Aristotle did more in more fields than anyone else - partly, of course, because he came at an early stage in history and therefore there was more to be done, as it were, by anyone enterprising enough. It wasn't just opportunity, though - I don't believe there is any comparable figure in, say, Chinese thought. And as I understand it, the OP is looking for someone who was the greatest all-round thinker, not simply the best mathematician, the best physicist etc.

And don't forget that we only possess 20% of Aristotle's works, too. The least readable 20%.

And don't forget that we only possess 20% of Aristotle's works, too. The least readable 20%.
If he was such a genius, why didn't he study more readable writing? :groucho:

It's his personal study notes and lecture plans. The stuff he wrote for publication is the readable stuff - but for some reason, that didn't survive, while the esoteric material did...

Betrand Russell once said something along the lines of "almost every serious progress in human knowledge since early 17th century began by attacking some of Aristotle's theories." That was kinda telling.

It wasn't just opportunity, though - I don't believe there is any comparable figure in, say, Chinese thought. And as I understand it, the OP is looking for someone who was the greatest all-round thinker, not simply the best mathematician, the best physicist etc.

If you're Buddhist, one could argue that Buddha was the greatest thinker ever because he discovered the truth about reality. The same could also apply to Laozi (Taoist founder), and Confucius to a lesser extent, as well as several lesser-known Chinese and Indian philosophers such as Mohi.

However, point taken very much. Of course, if it was China or India or something else that took over the world instead, Aristotle may just be a major footnote in the AP History class, if it would exist in that world at all...

In other words, you don't know anything about Aristotle. Okay.

I know as much as I care to about Aristotle. I have read his works. Every damned word. Some of it in the original. Many years ago, before you were
born, child, I attempted a translation of his Metaphysics. I soon realized that
whatever his meaning is, only he and the Devil know.
Aristotle is the pre-eminent amateur naturalist of antiquity, we can give him that.
He is also the Father of Jargon and the man who almost single-handedly
gave "fancy book-learning" a bad name. He is the archetype of the erudite
bore. If he were with us today, he would be another despised television talking-head, festooned with academic honors, and talking, talking, talking.
Even the dimmest reader of the Prior Analytics must come to the point where he cries "enough already, I get it!".
He tells us why the world is round, he tells us how to cure flatulence in elephants (salt and olive oil, rubbed on the ears). He is a wizard of plausibility, the Bill Clinton of philosophy. I despise the man; he took Plato's
living love of truth and turned it into dust; he is to me not a dead figure from the past but an active personal enemy whose minions pester me daily. For centuries Aristotleians were mocked; the reason for this is simple: they resemble their Master, Aristotle the Solace of Tenured Dullards.

Nevertheless, child, I recommend him to you. If you read him, and get the
sensation that you are leaving darkness and entering into light, I will make a novena for you. Or try this thought experiment: If you could for one night have any of the above named great thinkers as a dinner companion, would you choose Aristotle?

To his apologists (hi Plotinus) who say that his impenetrable prose was not meant for publication: we just don't know that. We know where the texts came from, some dates, the names of the editors, some other details. I have some opinions, not worth going into.

Buy my bumper sticker: "Platonists have more fun".

ok so, if I understand you my son, this is the basic narrative:

you tried to understand him ----> you failed ---> you tried to translate him ---> you failed ---> you became bitter ---> (many years pass) ---> you rail against him, and in the absence of facts, evidence, etc., you recourse to a "i'm older than uuuuuu!" rhetorical tactic.


Would that be a fairly accurate picture, my son?

I wouldn't dispute that Aristotle is fiendishly dull, and that Plato is a lot of fun. But that doesn't make him an inferior thinker - the OP is about who was the greatest thinker, not who was the most readable or accessible. And what's more, Aristotle was right a lot more of the time than Plato was. And that's what philosophy and science are really about.

there can't really be a greatest philosopher, because philosophy is more or less opinion on reality. theres many out there, which one really is right?

Aristotle is fiendishly dull

Exactly. And as Aristotle himself might have put it, all men by nature delight in learning. The conclusion is inescapable.
I'm not saying the emperor has no clothes, just that his taste is appalling.

there can't really be a greatest philosopher, because philosophy is more or less opinion on reality. theres many out there, which one really is right?

Although philosophy aims at rightness, greatness in philosophy isn't necessarily measured solely in terms of rightness. It's easier to see this in science, since you can be a great scientist even when you're wrong. Ptolemy was completely wrong about the structure of the universe, but he was still a great astronomer. Lamarck was wrong about the mechanisms driving evolution, but he was still a great biologist. Linnaeus was wrong about the existence of evolution itself, but he was a great taxonomist. A great scientist is someone who combines the ability to gather evidence with the ability to form hypotheses and test them against that evidence. Of course we tend to remember and celebrate those whose hypotheses turned out to be right, but they just happened to be lucky.

Similarly, a great philosopher is someone who has great insight into whatever problems they are dealing with, and the ability to reason lucidly and creatively about them. Such a person has the ability and the drive to find out what is true. Even if they don't actually reach the truth, they can still be great. For example, Kant and Bentham have completely different conceptions of what makes actions right or wrong. They cannot both be right about this matter. At least one of them is completely mistaken. But they are still both great philosophers because they both came up with brilliant theories, which they defended powerfully, and which many other philosophers have agreed with. Even if it were somehow proven beyond all possible doubt that (say) Bentham was right and Kant wrong, we'd still think Kant a great philosopher - just as we think Ptolemy a great astronomer even though we now know that much of what he believed was false.

Exactly. And as Aristotle himself might have put it, all men by nature delight in learning. The conclusion is inescapable.
I'm not saying the emperor has no clothes, just that his taste is appalling.

Well, not many people have the stamina to work their way through the Principia Mathematica. Is that a good reason to downgrade Newton as a physicist?

Although philosophy aims at rightness, greatness in philosophy isn't necessarily measured solely in terms of rightness. It's easier to see this in science, since you can be a great scientist even when you're wrong. Ptolemy was completely wrong about the structure of the universe, but he was still a great astronomer. Lamarck was wrong about the mechanisms driving evolution, but he was still a great biologist. Linnaeus was wrong about the existence of evolution itself, but he was a great taxonomist. A great scientist is someone who combines the ability to gather evidence with the ability to form hypotheses and test them against that evidence. Of course we tend to remember and celebrate those whose hypotheses turned out to be right, but they just happened to be lucky.

Similarly, a great philosopher is someone who has great insight into whatever problems they are dealing with, and the ability to reason lucidly and creatively about them. Such a person has the ability and the drive to find out what is true. Even if they don't actually reach the truth, they can still be great. For example, Kant and Bentham have completely different conceptions of what makes actions right or wrong. They cannot both be right about this matter. At least one of them is completely mistaken. But they are still both great philosophers because they both came up with brilliant theories, which they defended powerfully, and which many other philosophers have agreed with. Even if it were somehow proven beyond all possible doubt that (say) Bentham was right and Kant wrong, we'd still think Kant a great philosopher - just as we think Ptolemy a great astronomer even though we now know that much of what he believed was false.

I would say then pretty much every philosopher who clearly wasn't a fool (althuogh complete fools can be philosophers or the other way around... ;) ) can be considered the greatest and around equal to all the others.

Ibn al-Haytham. Inventor of the scientific method and like a billion other things.

@OP- I'd like to point out that Architect is absent from your list. For shame, sir! ;)
Anyway, the greatest architect is probably, in my opinion, Apollodorus of Damascus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollodorus_of_Damascus), the Greek or Syrian (it's not certain) architectural genius behind Trajan's Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan%27s_Bridge), Trajan's Column (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan%27s_Forum), several triumphal arches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arches_of_Trajan), Alconétar Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcon%C3%A9tar_Bridge) and the Pantheon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon%2C_Rome), quite possibly the greatest single piece of architecture in history.
After all, just because an architect's work has more concrete results than a philosopher or mathematician (no pun intended) doesn't meant that they can't be classified as thinkers. I mean, the Pantheon has a 43m dome- with an 8m oculus- made entirely of concrete. Considering that we can't do that today, I'd say some pretty serious thought when into that. ;)

@OP- I'd like to point out that Architect is absent from your list. For shame, sir! ;)
Anyway, the greatest architect is probably, in my opinion, Apollodorus of Damascus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollodorus_of_Damascus), the Greek or Syrian (it's not certain) architectural genius behind Trajan's Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan%27s_Bridge), Trajan's Column (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan%27s_Forum), several triumphal arches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arches_of_Trajan), Alconétar Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcon%C3%A9tar_Bridge) and the Pantheon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheon%2C_Rome), quite possibly the greatest single piece of architecture in history.
After all, just because an architect's work has more concrete results than a philosopher or mathematician (no pun intended) doesn't meant that they can't be classified as thinkers. I mean, the Pantheon has a 43m dome- with an 8m oculus- made entirely of concrete. Considering that we can't do that today, I'd say some pretty serious thought when into that. ;)

I would have to agree with that. Apolodorus (or however it's spelled in English) was absolutely amazing. The Partheon, the Forum, the Column, the Bridge... they are absolutely incredible!!

(and of course I'm especially proud since my grandmother's family is right from the town that Trajan's bridge faces :D)

This guy was an incredible genius. His work is so amazing it's hard even to make people understand how great it is. :)

Please, imagine building this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/Pod_Drobeta.jpg/800px-Pod_Drobeta.jpg

on the longest, biggest, deepest and largest river in debit in Europe (excluding Volga which is far east, near Asia), at its greatest extent (obviously, since Dacia was right near the Black Sea where the river ends), IN THE MIDDLE OF A BIG WAR, with no modern technology at all, using mountain rocks and wood beans, 2000 years ago. And now, imagine that nearly two thousand years later, I (personally!) was able to see 2 of the pillars of the bridge. And imagine now that there are actually 12 pillars still standing... just that the water is higher nowadays. Keep in mind this was also the longest arch bridge in the world ever built for more than a thousand years.


Of course, he also built this tiny thing:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Italien_Rom_Trajansaeule_sb1.JPG/195px-Italien_Rom_Trajansaeule_sb1.JPG
(imagine the quantity of sculpture on that column... and imagine how tall it is - compare with the tree behind)


And just in case people don't know of this marvel right in the middle of historic Rome:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/Trajan_Forum.jpg/800px-Trajan_Forum.jpg
I beg you to compare it with the size of the people, which are CLOSER to us than the Forum itself.


And the stuff we CAN'T do nowadays that Traitorfish was talking about:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Pantheon_rome_2005may.jpg/800px-Pantheon_rome_2005may.jpg



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e3/Oculus1.jpg/450px-Oculus1.jpg



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Rome-Pantheon-Interieur1.jpg/800px-Rome-Pantheon-Interieur1.jpg



:hatsoff: to this guy.

@OP- I'd like to point out that Architect is absent from your list. For shame, sir! ;)

The thread was not supposed to turn out to be the best in each individual field, it was supposed to be the greatest polymath.

I'll won't affirm or deny that Appolodorus was a great thinker, but I can tell you something about how things work. Appolodorus says I want a 60m dome
with a 15m oculus. Then Contractor says how about a 50m dome with a 10m
oculus. Contractor's foreman says let's make it a 30m dome with a 5m oculus
, I think we might be able to do that. They settle on 43m dome with 8m oculus. Architect says why am I chained down by incompetents? Contractor says it's gonna cost you. Foreman says God help us, we'll do our best.

The thread was not supposed to turn out to be the best in each individual field, it was supposed to be the greatest polymath.
Well, considering that architecture is a fusion of many different disciplines, it's quite possible to say that a great architect like Appolodorus fits the requirements. Take the Pantheon:
- A non-reinforced concrete dome measuring 43m, including an 8m oculus, an engineering marvel.
- A perfectly hemispherical dome, a work of great mathematical precision.
- Light coming through the oculus moves across the interior as the day progresses- a sort of reverse sundial effect- moving the focus of the interior across different sections, a work showing a great understanding of light.
- The original design showed masterful handling of classical architectural proportions, although supply shortages mean that the building falls a little short in that area (so Naskra isn't actually dead wrong...)
- The interior and exterior decoration- which, in those days, were organised, planned and often created by the architect- were superb examples of Roman art.
- The design of the entrance and interior shows great skill in guiding human movement and a great understanding of phsycology and sociology as applied to architecture.

In short, Appolodorus is easily fit to stand alongside Da Vinci and Newton as a master of many disciplines. (Sorry if I sound overly worshipful of Appolodorus, but when you're an architecture student you either get to worship him or Le Corbusier, and I prefer to go with the competent one.)
Architecture is far more than just drawing buildings. It's a head on collision between art, science, engineering, sociology, psychology, mathematics, design and a few areas unique to architecture, plus you have to be able to draw buildings. Often this collision can be rather messy, but when someone gets it right... Well, you get the Pantheon, among other things.

- Light coming through the oculus moves across the interior as the day progresses- a sort of reverse sundial effect- moving the focus of the interior across different sections, a work showing a great understanding of light As if this could be helped.

I'm trying to tell you that architects, whether great thinkers or not, are utterly dependent upon skilled labor to acheive their grandiosities. Size is not greatness, but it is what you offer us as admirable. And if Apollodorus were a great thinker in that way, he might have considered that a circular cross-section was not the ideal way to acheive a maximum span.

Aristotle may well have been the greatest thinker (read analytical thought), but Plato was a greater visionary and had a more nimble intelligence. Or at least that's my impression.

Quite true, jonatos. Plato perceived what Aristotole did not - that our knowledge of mathematics was different in kind from the other products of reason, an insight of such importance that it might be called the fundamental theorem of philosophy.

I agree with you jonatas. :) In fact, I've always been more of a fan of Plato than Aristotle, and I do have my reasons (i mean I didn't just pick a random "side" to be on).

As if this could be helped.
Well, yes, I'll admit that this isn't a particularly strong area of this design of this particular building, but I was trying to show the varied disciplines which make up architecture so I wanted to mention the handling of light. There are far better examples of that, of course, but I was trying to keep it consistent with my Apollodorus-praising.

I'm trying to tell you that architects, whether great thinkers or not, are utterly dependent upon skilled labor to acheive their grandiosities.
To achieve the actual construction, yes, but the design is purely down to the architect. The construction shows whether the design is feasible or not, but this (in/)feasible is the result of the architects work.
Besides, I fail to see this takes away from the work of the architects. It takes a lot of skill to create a hugely complex idea and then make it effectively understood and implemented by others; the biggest failure of many architects is an ability to do this properly.
I mean, it's not exactly like Newton is renowned for his ability to communicate effectively. He has trouble describing something and making it clear, imagine how he'd fair trying to give instructions on how to build it.
(Besides, your little "how things work" speech sort of falls apart when you take into account that Apollodorus was the foreman, as were all architects back then.)

Size is not greatness, but it is what you offer us as admirable.
Then you clearly didn't understand what I'm telling you- it's not merely the fact that it is a large building, it's the mathematical and engineering expertise that allows such a large building to stay up.

And if Apollodorus were a great thinker in that way, he might have considered that a circular cross-section was not the ideal way to acheive a maximum span.
He didn't really have a choice- the temple was commissioned by Emperor Hadrian a reconstruction of an earlier temple commissioned by Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa. A dome was pretty much a pre-determined factor. A 43 m dome with an 8m oculus made entirely out of concrete, however, was all down to Apollodorus' genius.
Besides, who said it was about achieving as large a span as he could? The fact that it's a perfect hemisphere is as much- probably more- of a factor in it's greatness than it's size. Half the reason that the size is important is because he managed to create a perfect hemisphere of that size.

Obviously Aristotle - I don't see anyone else mentioned here coming close.

After him, Leibniz - the closest to a universal genius the modern age has produced, I'd say. Easily Newton's equal in those fields they both shared, and a colossus in a whole number of completely different fields too:

Physics
Mathematics
Metaphysics
Theology
Law
History
Linguistics
Engineering
Alchemy
Mechanics
Geology

He really was interested in everything. Also, just read the Leibniz/Clarke correspondence to see how easily Leibniz could mop the floor with Newton philosophically.
I dont disagree that Leibniz deserves mention here, but dont claim he was Newton's equal in Math or Physics. There is a reason they call it Newtonian Mechanics, Newtonian space, etc and not Leibnizian Mechanics. Leibniz was a top name in his period, but Newton is one of the greatest ever. Both helped pioneer calculus, but it is Newton's theory that was better developed. Leibniz contributed the notation. Of the two, I would put Newton first, despite Leibniz versatility.

A quick look at the names of people who have significant work in the theory of gravity makes a point: Archimedes, Newton, Einstein. That's it.

J

Of the two, I would put Newton first, despite Leibniz versatility.
Arguably, profficiency in a wide variety of fields is closer to the OP's specifications- he asked for someone who excelled in many fields, not just one.

Traitorfish, you clearly know more about Appolodorus than anyone else has for more than a millenium. You've identified him as the architect and construction foreman of the Pantheon when no other source can place him as even a tourist on the site.

I have never heard of him. I'll do some research on this person, I enjoy reading about amazing people who did much to shape our present day.

Thanks!

Well if you want to read about Ibn Sina in a more fun fashion, you can always check out The Physician...

As for the greatest thinker, as an Engineer my vote goes for Newton. I'm not qualified to judge if Leibniz was the best philosopher (I am sure he was), but as far as colossal genius goes I'd say Newton is far ahead. Not because of his discoveries themselves, but also because of the quickness in which he solved problems since a very young age. A man with no equal.

As for Aristotle... again, I am sure that our resident philosphers have him on the highest regard, but as an engineer I don't. I am not saying that he was mediocre or anything, he surely was a colossus, but he was so wrong in so many fields that are precious to me that I can't possibly vote for him as #1.

Quite true, jonatos. Plato perceived what Aristotole did not - that our knowledge of mathematics was different in kind from the other products of reason, an insight of such importance that it might be called the fundamental theorem of philosophy.

I'm puzzled by this. Where does this come in Plato? Indeed, isn't it clearly contradicted by the "geometry lesson" of the Meno?

I would have said precisely the opposite: Plato believed that all knowledge is fundamentally similar in kind to mathematical knowledge, and is acquired through introspection and recall rather than by empirical means. That, at least, is how later philosophers interpreted him, and in early modern times, those now dubbed "rationalists" agreed with him. So there are certainly many who would disagree not only with your attribution of that principle to Plato, but with your claim that it is fundamental to philosophy at all. Of course, Plato is notoriously hard to pin down (something that those earlier interpreters didn't realise).

Aristotle, by contrast, was quite clear that different fields of study required different methodologies and yield different kinds of results; as he says in the Nicomachean Ethics, it would be as daft to expect mathematical precision in ethics as it would to expect vague guesswork in geometry.

I dont disagree that Leibniz deserves mention here, but dont claim he was Newton's equal in Math or Physics. There is a reason they call it Newtonian Mechanics, Newtonian space, etc and not Leibnizian Mechanics. Leibniz was a top name in his period, but Newton is one of the greatest ever. Both helped pioneer calculus, but it is Newton's theory that was better developed. Leibniz contributed the notation. Of the two, I would put Newton first, despite Leibniz versatility.

A quick look at the names of people who have significant work in the theory of gravity makes a point: Archimedes, Newton, Einstein. That's it.

Well, you may be right. I don't know enough about either maths or physics to judge, really.

Traitorfish, you clearly know more about Appolodorus than anyone else has for more than a millenium. You've identified him as the architect and construction foreman of the Pantheon when no other source can place him as even a tourist on the site.
1) That's incorrect. While, admittedly, the architect of the Pantheon is not certain, it is usually credited to Apollodorus of Damascus. At the very least, that's what my lecturers tell me, and, this may just be me, but I'm inclined to believe people who's name slots between "Professor" and "PHD". Just a little prejudice I have. (And (http://www.flightstoromeitaly.com/tourist-attractions/rome/pantheon/) here (http://www.essential-architecture.com/ITALY/ROME/RO-012.htm) be (http://books.google.com/books?id=NsuQIZUDv7sC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=pantheon+apollodorus&source=web&ots=EAAvlP7fKx&sig=FKfGT6amHvWi7DGjJ0xUyiPwUSA) links (http://atheism.about.com/od/christianchurchchurches/p/PantheonRome.htm). Just search for "Apollodorus" (that's with one "p" and two "l"s, remember).)
2) What, prey tell, does that have to with your earlier arguments?
3) Even if you're right- and I concede that you may be- he still did a a lot of very impressive work, so he still deserves mention.

Plato is notoriously hard to pin down
I couldn't agree more, Plotinus. Earlier when you said Aristotle was right more often than Plato, I was tempted to snark back that Plato could rarely be trapped into a positve affirmation of anything. He leaves ample room for the reader's interpretation, one of his great attractions for me. And I can't point to any passage where Plato says anything remotely like: "Knowledge is of two kinds, the mathematical and the episteme-derived (choose your own word here)". Yet he is always careful to use metaphor whenever he speaks of the non-mathematical, and seems acutely aware that language ismetaphor. Whether he was happy about this distinction, I don't know, but I think it is clear that he treads carefully around the quicksand of any "arithmetic of concepts". Which is why I used the word "perceived".
All in all a very shrewd fellow.

True enough, Traitorfish, the Pantheon is usually accredited to Appollodorus,
god knows why. It bears Agrippa's name and is reportedly a reconstruction of the temple Agrippa built. Possibly it's Hadrian's remodelling of Agrippa's architect's work. What we do know is that Hadrian paid for it and that he and Appollodorus didn't get along. You might ask your Phds why they are
repeating hearsay as fact. On whether or not it is a manifestation of great thinking, I have no opinion.

And I can't point to any passage where Plato says anything remotely like: "Knowledge is of two kinds, the mathematical and the episteme-derived (choose your own word here)". Yet he is always careful to use metaphor whenever he speaks of the non-mathematical, and seems acutely aware that language ismetaphor. Whether he was happy about this distinction, I don't know, but I think it is clear that he treads carefully around the quicksand of any "arithmetic of concepts". Which is why I used the word "perceived".

I'd still like some kind of reference for this - I must say it seems to me you're doing a bit of eisigesis here, rather than exigesis, but perhaps you can prove me wrong! Certainly, the view you're attributing to him is one that runs directly counter to the doctrines that have traditionally been attributed to Plato, and is completely contradicted by passages such as the one I mentioned in the Meno. Which doesn't necessarily mean it can't be found in his work (after all, some of the most powerful arguments against the Forms are found in the Parmenides), but still, it's going to take some argumentation, I think. What do you mean when you say that he speaks of the non-mathematical only in metaphor? And what do you mean by the idea that language is metaphor? It can't all be, surely? As I say, the view you mention seems to me to be far more Aristotelian.

True enough, Traitorfish, the Pantheon is usually accredited to Appollodorus, god knows why.
Well, frankly, I'm sure that the last five centuries of Architectural Historians have at least some basis for this assertion, even if it doesn't happen to be self-evident to someone with no education in architectural history...

It bears Agrippa's name and is reportedly a reconstruction of the temple Agrippa built.
True, but "reconstruction" implies a level of loyalty to history that did not exist then. The original temple had the same basic form, but the later version was far grander.
And as for Agrippas name appearing on it, all we can say is that this is an oddity. It was typical for the person funding the construction- in this case, Hardian- to slap there name on every available surface, whether or not it was a reconstruction, so Hadrian recreating the original inscription is somewhat baffling. One can only assume it was humility motivated by a genuine passion for architecture.

What we do know is that Hadrian paid for it and that he and Appollodorus didn't get along.
True, but the exact extent of this conflict is unknown; it was not well recorded, and the truth has been distorted by Hadrian's opponents seeking to make him appear vindictive and cruel. For example, he wrote a treatise on siege engines which was dedicated to Hadrian, a sign of respect for the man as Emperor, if not as an architect.
Besides, even if there was a personal conflict between the two, that did not stop Hadrian from recognising Apollodorus as a talented architect. Hadrian would have been primarily interested in creating the most impressive building he could manage; the prestige that such a building would grant would far outweigh the benefits of removing one snarky architect.
Of course, this doesn't prove that Apollodorus was the architect, but it just shows it to be a viable event.

Liebniz, Alan Turing and Carnap.

@Plotinus: For Aristotle, all knowledge is of the same kind. We reason from principles to conclusions -- the conclusions of ethical reasoning are less certain than those of geometry, but this is a matter of degree only, due entirely to the nature of the subject matter.
For Plato, the situation is more extreme. In the Meno, the slave boy's knowledge of the square is innate, only in need of some Socratic midwifery to be articulated. But in, for example, the Thaetetus, any innate knowledge the participants might have is inaccessible.
The discourse wanders all around, returning to it's starting point. All dialectical effort is fruitless here. The difference between Meno and Thaetetus is not one of degree, but total. In Meno, the object of discourse (the square) is apprehended directly; in Thaetetus, the object of discourse (knowledge) is an ungraspable shadow on the wall. You are right, Plotinus, in saying that I'm reading something into Plato when I claim this is an anticipation of what was later to be called analytic and synthetic knowledge. My defense is that one has to do a fair amount of "paragesis" if one is to make sense of Plato. And Plato himself explicitly says there are four kinds of "knowing", amongst other possible objections.
On Plato's fondness for metaphor, I think I need no defense, many dialogues are in their entirety either metaphor or it's cousins, myth and simile. Plato's frustration with the limitations of language are intimated in the Euthydemus. When I say language is metaphor, I don't think I make any remarkable claim. Words are labels, not the things-in-themselves, hence metaphorical in nature. Only in the case of 7+5=12 do we leave the realm of metaphorical statement.
I mentioned it merely to say that Plato did not share the vice of your eponym.
Let us not press these issues too hard. This thread is for list-making and name-dropping.
I can thank you for making me crack some old books. One charm of the Thaetetus is that though nothing is resolved, everyone regards the time as well spent.

Archimedes. I mean, the dude came up with density using the idea of displacement, developed a claw attachable to warships, invented a still in use irrigation screw, calculated pi, and he figured out the number of sand needed to fill the universe. 8X10^63, or

8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

How accurate this is, I don't know, but to figure it out is something.

Beat that Aristotle.

and he figured out the number of sand needed to fill the universe. 8X10^63, or

8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

How accurate this is, I don't know, but to figure it out is something.


I have no idea where he got that from, but I can tell you that it is wrong ;)

...he figured out the number of sand needed to fill the universe. 8X10^63, or

8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
The real number is actually something like ∞. Which means he was off by ∞, or a factor of ∞.
Put simply, I don't know how being infinitely wrong about something is an accomplishment. :rolleyes:

Liebniz, Alan Turing and Carnap.Why Turing and Carnap?

Has anyone mentioned Locke yet? I've always been a fan of Locke. But the greatest thinker is something I'll have to spend a little longer thinking on.

Three in the modern era who have shaped our world--much to our detriment, I fear, would be:

Darwin: his theory of evolution.

Freud: his systematic recreation of the workings of the human mind.

Karl Marx: the Communist Manifesto.

Despite my personal objections to these three, I must give them their due. They have truly transformed the world, each in their own way.

My two favorites?
Noam Chomsky and Oswald Spengler

Darwin: his theory, though debunked and discredited by any rational scientist,
:lol: :lol: :lol: You know that if you claim any scientist had debunk his theory, if we can show only one that didn't, your argument is logically void.

has been the sword by which Christianity is constantly whacked, and it's adherents called ignorant and degenerate,

:lol: :lol: :lol: I know plenty of Christians who are also evolutionist.


this while there is still far more substantial evidence for the truths in the Bible than there is for the theory of evolution.

:lol: :lol: :lol: It's been a long time since we had someone as good with jokes as you. For 5 minutes I thought you were serious.
...
Wait...
...
You were serious? :eek:

Leaving aside that ridiculous claim that Darwinism has been systematically discredited or that it undermines Christianity (discussion of which belongs in Off Topic), I don't really see how any of these three characters satisfies the conditions laid down in the OP: great thinkers who were pre-eminent in many fields. Darwin, Freud, and Marx made enormous contributions but only really in one field each. Still better suggestions than Carnap though.

By the way, it was Leibniz who invented the subconscious!

The best thinker ever was Frank Herbert. Read Dune.

By the way, it was Leibniz who invented the subconscious!1) "Invented" the subconscious?
2) What was Enkidu all about in the Epic of Gilgamesh?

Leaving aside that ridiculous claim that Darwinism has been systematically discredited or that it undermines Christianity (discussion of which belongs in Off Topic), I don't really see how any of these three characters satisfies the conditions laid down in the OP: great thinkers who were pre-eminent in many fields. Darwin, Freud, and Marx made enormous contributions but only really in one field each. Still better suggestions than Carnap though.

By the way, it was Leibniz who invented the subconscious!

It was my understanding that the question was who was the greatest "thinker", so to speak, and one who excel beyond a specific field. My hat is off to the three I mentioned because what they explored in each case was broad, as the results of their endeavors has shown, that is, changing dramatically the world they lived in. But greatest thinker rings the same way as greatest general. It all boils down to opinion anyway.

One might just say Christopher Columbus was the greatest thinker because he "thought" he found India.
:)

1) "Invented" the subconscious?

Well, all right, I was being a bit flip. He was the first person to come up with the idea of unconscious thoughts and perceptions, as far as I know. So he "discovered" the subconscious. Although his arguments for it aren't very good, in my opinion, so he was more lucky than brilliant in that regard, I'd say.

2) What was Enkidu all about in the Epic of Gilgamesh?

I'm not sure what you mean there. Doesn't he represent, if anything, the dichotomy between civilised and uncivilised man (or something)?

Well, all right, I was being a bit flip. He was the first person to come up with the idea of unconscious thoughts and perceptions, as far as I know. So he "discovered" the subconscious. Although his arguments for it aren't very good, in my opinion, so he was more lucky than brilliant in that regard, I'd say.Call me a pedant, but I'd probably say something like "codified", "described", "named" or even "explored" the unconscious. I just think that mankind has been aware of his unconscious for a very long time (I know that sounds a bit strange phrased like that). He may not have called it as such, in terms that we would recognise today, but there are references and acknowledgments galore before Leibniz spoke of it. Such as the character of Enkidu...

I'm not sure what you mean there. Doesn't he represent, if anything, the dichotomy between civilised and uncivilised man (or something)?Well, that's one way of putting it. Another might be the dichotomy between the Ego and the Id. Granted, by the very nature of the work, it is somewhat open to interpretation. However, at least in my mind, this is a pretty good depiction of man being accompanied by his unconscious and indeed having something of a dialogue with it.

Sorry to go off-topic a bit, but such a statement had to be prodded a bit.

Hi. My name is CartesianFart.:wavey: For those who about to enter this thread for the first time, let me graciously give you a warning: What you are about to see is many posters in here will "name-drop" a particular obscure or esoteric thinker and fill in the blank to satisfy their own self-gratifying ego by mentioning them publically as they are somewhat in the same league as them.

Hi. My name is CartesianFart.:wavey: For those who about to enter this thread for the first time, let me graciously give you a warning: What you are about to see is many posters in here will "name-drop" a particular obscure or esoteric thinker and fill in the blank to satisfy their own self-gratifying ego by mentioning them publically as they are somewhat in the same league as them.

Did I mention Clark Griswald?
He's my number one.

Three in the modern era who have shaped our world--much to our detriment, I fear, would be:

Darwin: his theory, though debunked and discredited by any rational scientist, has been the sword by which Christianity is constantly whacked, and it's adherents called ignorant and degenerate, this while there is still far more substantial evidence for the truths in the Bible than there is for the theory of evolution.

There is no actual controversy over the theory of evolution in the biology community. It is a scientific consensus based on a metaphorical mountain of evidence. Learn your facts before you spout off complete and utter falsehoods

Did I mention Clark Griswald?
He's my number one.
Agreed for once.

nietzsche because he knows he's a great thinker

There is no actual controversy over the theory of evolution in the biology community. It is a scientific consensus based on a metaphorical mountain of evidence. Learn your facts before you spout off complete and utter falsehoods

Yeah, that's gotten me into some trouble. But opinons are like earlobs, everybody has them. Sorry you disagree.

Well, whether evolution is a matter of scientific consensus or not is not a matter of opinion - there simply is a scientific consensus, no matter whether one agrees with that consensus or not, or even in the unlikely event that the consensus turns out to be mistaken.

Well, whether evolution is a matter of scientific consensus or not is not a matter of opinion - there simply is a scientific consensus, no matter whether one agrees with that consensus or not, or even in the unlikely event that the consensus turns out to be mistaken.

"opinions are like earlobs, everybody has them" was a reference to my own comments, as quoted in the post.
I was attempting to politely defuse, not encourage further debate.
"Sorry you disagree" was also in reference to my comments as quoted in lieu of the obvious disagreement with them.

You will notice that in the original post, where this began, I have edited the bulk of my comments concerning all three persons down to simple, uncontraversial descriptions so as to avoid further excursions away from the topic of "great thinkers".

Which, ironically, I was considering Darwin to be in the first place.