schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
I'd probably say Plato or Hegel
Who is truly the smartest person who ever existed?
- Thread starter Maximum7
- Start date
-
- Tags
- history intelligence
Regarding Plato, he wasn't that great a mathematician.
Of course he was behind a great breakthrough in mathematics, by creating his Academy. Some notables taught there, but even more notables are linked to people who taught there (such as Apollonios of Perga, Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Euclid)
Last edited:
It'd be difficult to examine which author of literature was the most intelligent - moreover since that doesn't have to coincide with the artistic effect of their writing...
Personally I always felt that Pessoa was more intelligent than (say) Kafka or Borges, despite not enjoying his prose as much.
Literature probably is the one art where you don't need to have the so-called "artistic temperament" so as to succeed (Borges... didn't have it). But what complicates things even further is that this field consists of antithetical foundations - unlike in math or even science, where you need to be based on understandings that only expand (this incorporates metamorphosis through gained insights), in literature the core is the understanding of fleeting things, which both expand and contract and metamorphose. An elegant way to juxtapose (eg) literature and math, is by alluding to how in literature you often live inside the problem (countless stories where the plot rests on some obstacle), when in math such is equated to failure.
Ultimately this all is due to the difference between things that are set within a system of (any) axioms, and those which are not; the latter can become questionable also below their surface, while the former rest on the surface of the axiomatic system and can only be examined downwards in a deeper system where they are not axioms.
Personally I always felt that Pessoa was more intelligent than (say) Kafka or Borges, despite not enjoying his prose as much.
Literature probably is the one art where you don't need to have the so-called "artistic temperament" so as to succeed (Borges... didn't have it). But what complicates things even further is that this field consists of antithetical foundations - unlike in math or even science, where you need to be based on understandings that only expand (this incorporates metamorphosis through gained insights), in literature the core is the understanding of fleeting things, which both expand and contract and metamorphose. An elegant way to juxtapose (eg) literature and math, is by alluding to how in literature you often live inside the problem (countless stories where the plot rests on some obstacle), when in math such is equated to failure.
Ultimately this all is due to the difference between things that are set within a system of (any) axioms, and those which are not; the latter can become questionable also below their surface, while the former rest on the surface of the axiomatic system and can only be examined downwards in a deeper system where they are not axioms.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,787
Doesn't Darwin apply as well then?
Darwin was brilliant, but I think Aristotle outdoes him for the range of interests and foundational contributions to so many of them. I mean, Darwin was a better biologist than Aristotle, obviously, but Aristotle basically invented the science of biology. As well as logic, political science, etc.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Raffaele Esposito
There are various angles in the debate about Plato vs Aristotle relative worth, but the obvious one is that Plato considered any order that is material-dependent (ie outside observer dependent, as opposed to thinker to own mental world) to be generally worthless (=> not to be pursued further than what is practically needed). It's why (even) astronomy shouldn't belong in the curriculum of the ideal state (The Republic). It simply requires intervention of the senses, to observe the external object.
Maths-wise, Aristotle was against the use of the notion of infinity, in geometry - and this was directly in reaction to math developments in Plato's Academy (first attempts to calculate pi with some greater precision).
It likely was tied to his rule set for (what later became known as) formal logic, and the implicitly aforementioned rule (by Plotinus) about no third condition for an object (x can have quality y, in some sense and in some time, or not have it, but not both have and not have it). Quite the contrary to what is argued in (eg) the dialogue of Socrates with Parmenides and Zeno.
Like in other cases, here too it was a matter of being practical; without such a rule, you can't close that system at all. It's to be expected that in dialectics, which deals with notions that aren't anchored on agreed upon axioms (they can't be, it's what is discussed in Parmenides), the dynamic is different.
Maths-wise, Aristotle was against the use of the notion of infinity, in geometry - and this was directly in reaction to math developments in Plato's Academy (first attempts to calculate pi with some greater precision).
It likely was tied to his rule set for (what later became known as) formal logic, and the implicitly aforementioned rule (by Plotinus) about no third condition for an object (x can have quality y, in some sense and in some time, or not have it, but not both have and not have it). Quite the contrary to what is argued in (eg) the dialogue of Socrates with Parmenides and Zeno.
Like in other cases, here too it was a matter of being practical; without such a rule, you can't close that system at all. It's to be expected that in dialectics, which deals with notions that aren't anchored on agreed upon axioms (they can't be, it's what is discussed in Parmenides), the dynamic is different.
Last edited:
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 8,765
How do we measure "Smarts"?
Greatest Invention?
Greatest number of inventions?
IQ Test?
I do think it is easy to converse though, and throws up some interesting names.
I also liked the conjecture that "standing on the shoulder of giants" can any older name be considered, given our current "genius" will easily understand what to the early inventors unknown.
Greatest Invention?
Greatest number of inventions?
IQ Test?
I do think it is easy to converse though, and throws up some interesting names.
I also liked the conjecture that "standing on the shoulder of giants" can any older name be considered, given our current "genius" will easily understand what to the early inventors unknown.
thetrooper
Misanthrope
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 8,765
^
Intangibles
Intangibles
Newton was mentioned (along with Leibniz), but one can recall that the only reason Archimedes' calculus was restricted, was that without algebra there was literally no point in focusing on random polynomials - the axis by Descartes/Fermat was far simpler to come up with, if you had the algebra - so Archimedes only focused on forms which had obvious geometric importance; such as the following, where he uses his calculus to calculate area under a parabola:
Of course this makes use of his fulcrum too, because it is just cool; the line (TG) density (analogous to thefluxion dy/dx stuff) would 'balance' the parabolic area ^^
As for the other Major math contribution by Newton, that would be the Binomial Theorem generalized for rationals (it was known before him for integers), but I have read papers that claim he (nor anyone else, btw) provided no formal proof (provided solutions of individual cases, and yes, it works for all of them, but that isn't a proof). Granted, maybe the paper I read was trash, but there the "Harvard professor" writer suggested that the pattern of the coefficients was modelled after the integer binomial theorem, without proving why it would work (it does work, of course).
So I remain sceptical of a claim that Newton would be "the smartest person" ever, despite him clearly being a genius (I mean, he came from a family dealing with livestock trading, affluent but not educated, and by the end he was hailed as the greatest of his time - what is that if not impressive?)
Of course this makes use of his fulcrum too, because it is just cool; the line (TG) density (analogous to the
As for the other Major math contribution by Newton, that would be the Binomial Theorem generalized for rationals (it was known before him for integers), but I have read papers that claim he (nor anyone else, btw) provided no formal proof (provided solutions of individual cases, and yes, it works for all of them, but that isn't a proof). Granted, maybe the paper I read was trash, but there the "Harvard professor" writer suggested that the pattern of the coefficients was modelled after the integer binomial theorem, without proving why it would work (it does work, of course).
So I remain sceptical of a claim that Newton would be "the smartest person" ever, despite him clearly being a genius (I mean, he came from a family dealing with livestock trading, affluent but not educated, and by the end he was hailed as the greatest of his time - what is that if not impressive?)
Last edited:
My belief is that most likely, the smartest person who ever existed is someone who is unknown to history, at least in 2023. Most likely they were never known to history at all, but if they were, they are likely someone whose existence has been forgotten.
Why? The law of averages. Today, most countries have at least primary, and in many cases secondary, education provided free of charge to everyone, although quality can vary. But that's a pretty recent phenomenon, even in the most developed parts of the world. It was not common in the 1800s, let alone the 1300s.
So, most likely the smartest person who ever existed never had any good opportunities for education. They worked as a blacksmith producing higher-quality goods than the smiths in the next villages over, or were a serf who made keen observations about irrigation techniques. I'm reminded of Edmond Albius, who figured out how to artificially pollinate vanilla as a slave in Madagascar. He's probably not the smartest person ever, but he's a good example of someone whose potentially was likely much higher than their social status allowed them to demonstrate.
Or perhaps they played an important role in a part of humanity's past that is lost to history. Developing agriculture or early legal codes in the Indus Valley or Mesopotamia. We know of Sargon of Akkad and Hammurabi, but how many exceptionally intelligent people must have been involved in that stage of human history, prior to the development of writing, or at a time when unless your deeds were literally carved in stone, they wouldn't survive to the present?
For that matter, the people who invented various forms of writing must have been pretty smart people.
It's also entirely possible that the smartest person ever lived even farther back in time than that. If they lived 30,000 years ago, we'd never know of them. We tend to assume that people today are smarter than people 30,000 years ago, but considering that well over 90% of human history is before written human history, I wouldn't be surprised if there were an outlier before written history who would technically be the smartest ever.
Why? The law of averages. Today, most countries have at least primary, and in many cases secondary, education provided free of charge to everyone, although quality can vary. But that's a pretty recent phenomenon, even in the most developed parts of the world. It was not common in the 1800s, let alone the 1300s.
So, most likely the smartest person who ever existed never had any good opportunities for education. They worked as a blacksmith producing higher-quality goods than the smiths in the next villages over, or were a serf who made keen observations about irrigation techniques. I'm reminded of Edmond Albius, who figured out how to artificially pollinate vanilla as a slave in Madagascar. He's probably not the smartest person ever, but he's a good example of someone whose potentially was likely much higher than their social status allowed them to demonstrate.
Or perhaps they played an important role in a part of humanity's past that is lost to history. Developing agriculture or early legal codes in the Indus Valley or Mesopotamia. We know of Sargon of Akkad and Hammurabi, but how many exceptionally intelligent people must have been involved in that stage of human history, prior to the development of writing, or at a time when unless your deeds were literally carved in stone, they wouldn't survive to the present?
For that matter, the people who invented various forms of writing must have been pretty smart people.
It's also entirely possible that the smartest person ever lived even farther back in time than that. If they lived 30,000 years ago, we'd never know of them. We tend to assume that people today are smarter than people 30,000 years ago, but considering that well over 90% of human history is before written human history, I wouldn't be surprised if there were an outlier before written history who would technically be the smartest ever.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,787
Imagine it's the same guy who mastered fire and invented the wheel + dressed a dog for the first time, but then his children didn't understand anything about it ; and another millenia passed before a group of humans had to collectively work on inventing those again.
Tbh, if you have a +50 IQ point advance on the rest, they are essentially a different species. And if you are wondering ape-men, you might as well jump off the cliff.
Not even a language being there to allow for some level of communication, you'll eventually get bored of getting a collection of animal hides.
Not even a language being there to allow for some level of communication, you'll eventually get bored of getting a collection of animal hides.
Similar threads
