Who Was The Greatest Thinker?

[Felix Luce]

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.

 

[Perfection]

Linus Pauling deserves a mention.

 

[Fifty]

Aristotle, easily and by far.

 

[Plotinus]

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.

 

[Steph]

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.

 

[Arwon]

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

 

[Naskra]

I can't go along with all this "Aristotle is the man!" 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

 

[Fifty]

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

 

[Mirc]

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.

 

[Fifty]

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

 

[Godwynn]

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

She is anything but a Renaissance Man.

 

[intj_rational]

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

 

[Plotinus]

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

"Quoted for truth", as they say!

 

[cybrxkhan]

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.

 

[Plotinus]

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%.

 

[Steph]

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?

 

[Plotinus]

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...

 

[lassia]

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.

 

[cybrxkhan]

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...

 

[Naskra]

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".