Who Was The Greatest Thinker?

[Fifty]

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?

 

[Plotinus]

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.

 

[cybrxkhan]

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?

 

[Naskra]

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.

 

[Plotinus]

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?

 

[cybrxkhan]

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.

 

[LightSpectra]

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

 

[Traitorfish]

@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, the Greek or Syrian (it's not certain) architectural genius behind Trajan's Bridge, Trajan's Column, several triumphal arches, Alconétar Bridge and the Pantheon, 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.

 

[Mirc]

@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, the Greek or Syrian (it's not certain) architectural genius behind Trajan's Bridge, Trajan's Column, several triumphal arches, Alconétar Bridge and the Pantheon, 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 )

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:

Spoiler :

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:

Spoiler :

(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:

Spoiler :

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:

Spoiler :

to this guy.

 

[Godwynn]

@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.

 

[Naskra]

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

 

[Naskra]

- 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.

 

[jonatas]

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.

 

[Naskra]

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.

 

[Mirc]

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).

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

 

[onejayhawk]

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

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

 

[Naskra]

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.