Who Was The Greatest Thinker?

[luiz]

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.

 

[Plotinus]

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]

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 here be links. 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.

 

[Naskra]

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.

 

[Naskra]

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.

 

[Plotinus]

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.

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

 

[CartesianFart]

Liebniz, Alan Turing and Carnap.

 

[Naskra]

@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.

 

[AznWarlord]

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.

 

[luiz]

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

 

[Traitorfish]

...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.

 

[Perfection]

Liebniz, Alan Turing and Carnap.

Why Turing and Carnap?

 

[Emperor2]

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.

 

[Gudinsdiv]

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

 

[Steph]

Darwin: his theory, though debunked and discredited by any rational scientist,

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,

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.

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?

 

[Plotinus]

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!

 

[gangleri2001]

The best thinker ever was Frank Herbert. Read Dune.

 

[Rambuchan]

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?

 

[Gudinsdiv]

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.