|
Who is the smartest person to have ever lived?
|
|
Topic Started: Oct 14 2011, 03:12 PM (4,205 Views)
|
|
Squee913
|
May 10 2012, 07:57 PM
Post #101
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,973
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- Jul 18, 2011
|
- Dantos4
- May 10 2012, 07:40 PM
- Chocl8215
- May 10 2012, 07:28 PM
- Warden of Wisdom
- May 10 2012, 07:25 PM
I also think you can't argue the greatest artist, because it's all opinions. I, for one, hate Shakespeare's work.
you have to look at what can be objectified, for instance squee put it well when he said "if the fire extinguisher can put out a fire, then it is a good fire extinguisher" for instance; I hate twilight, but I can't argue that it isn't successful, the thing grossed what, over $200,000,000? $300,000,000? you can't say that isn't success.
I fear you have fallen into the trap of defining greatness based upon money, popularity or recognition at the time. Success financially does not necessarily deem something great. E.g. If a man won battle after battle which he was heavily favoured in, yet that battles result in lots of popularity and financial gain as it was an important war... Does that make him greater at commanding than one guy who wins one battle where he is outnumbered by thousands, and gains no financial advantages or popularity? How about a well known author with lots of advertising money behind her, who sells millions of books and gets a lot of money? Is she a greater writer than a man who writes a book which changes 10 peoples lives and makes no money? Art is, in particular, very hard to define as great or greatest as it is mostly subjective. I would also point out Leonidas or Hannibal as great generals The problem with that is when it comes to a debate. If we are trying to figure out what is the best art, we have to use something as a common ground, or the debate falls apart. I can say I like it, and you can say you hate it, and that is fine, but there is no debate then. I think what Chocl was saying was that the only real common ground you can point to with art is how successful it was. Does being successful make Art good, not in and of itself, no. But it does give us something to work with. For example, I think everyone would agree that "most" famous writers have skill at crafting a story. "Most" successful artist have a high degree of skill in their art.
|
|
|
| |
|
RandomMan1
|
May 10 2012, 07:59 PM
Post #102
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,815
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #47
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2011
|
- Warden of Wisdom
- May 10 2012, 05:17 PM
- Chocl8215
- May 10 2012, 04:44 PM
I see sun tzu as the best general on here by far, I mean when you write something down that still gets used almost a thousand years later, SOMETHING has to be right with it. it's why I originally put Thomas Jeffesron on the list, rather than J.K. (I figured I needed at least one or two women on the list). The constitution was written up almost 400 years ago, and yet it still stands as the foundation of every law america has made since creation. As for tsu, The man was ahead of his time and still managed to be totally successful, whereas many "should have been born in five hundred years" types like leonardo davinci, never got their big projects done for lack of (for lack of a better word) a catalyst.
But this is who is the best General. Yes, the book is used today as people mentioned in business and finance amongst other things, but how many times do you see people covering plains in sesame oil now a days? "The Art of War" was revolutionary, of corse, but today the specific strategies and methods of warfare aren't in use. I just realized something. From what I recall about "The Art of War", it never lists specific stratedgies, only strategies that would be useful far into the future.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chocl8215
|
May 10 2012, 07:59 PM
Post #103
|
|
Man of great chocolate
- Posts:
- 2,876
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jul 19, 2011
|
dunno, who they are, so they aren't important... what? if you're supposed to be in the running for most intelligent human ever, then I's think I should have heard of you. While it's true that some very smart people are totally unknown, You can really only base this off of what we know, and if I havn't heard of something, then i can't have any opinion worth posting about them. i refuse to give uniformed commentary about something serious.
|
|
|
| |
|
Warden of Wisdom
|
May 10 2012, 08:00 PM
Post #104
|
|
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
- Posts:
- 4,361
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #273
- Joined:
- Mar 7, 2012
|
Well then yes, if you're judging art purely by success, Shakespeare is amazing.
|
|
|
| |
|
Squee913
|
May 10 2012, 08:01 PM
Post #105
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,973
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- Jul 18, 2011
|
- Warden of Wisdom
- May 10 2012, 07:53 PM
I agree that Hannibal was an amazing military mind, but after the North African counter invasion and when he was defeated by Scipio Africanus at the Battle of Zama, He seldom attained brilliant victories like before. I also think Leonidas was given too much credit, yes he used geographic advantage and more disciplined soldiers as a major advantage, but everyone fails to remember that there were around 300 spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae and around 22,000 others (says Wikipedia, not sure about that number though). He also should have found someone other than the Athenians to handle naval battles because they suck at it. Bah! Zama was not his fault! He never wanted to leave Italy. Carthage Forced him to. He told them they could not win a battle on the plains of Zama, they made him fight it anyway.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chocl8215
|
May 10 2012, 08:01 PM
Post #106
|
|
Man of great chocolate
- Posts:
- 2,876
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jul 19, 2011
|
- Squee913
- May 10 2012, 07:57 PM
- Dantos4
- May 10 2012, 07:40 PM
- Chocl8215
- May 10 2012, 07:28 PM
- Warden of Wisdom
- May 10 2012, 07:25 PM
I also think you can't argue the greatest artist, because it's all opinions. I, for one, hate Shakespeare's work.
you have to look at what can be objectified, for instance squee put it well when he said "if the fire extinguisher can put out a fire, then it is a good fire extinguisher" for instance; I hate twilight, but I can't argue that it isn't successful, the thing grossed what, over $200,000,000? $300,000,000? you can't say that isn't success.
I fear you have fallen into the trap of defining greatness based upon money, popularity or recognition at the time. Success financially does not necessarily deem something great. E.g. If a man won battle after battle which he was heavily favoured in, yet that battles result in lots of popularity and financial gain as it was an important war... Does that make him greater at commanding than one guy who wins one battle where he is outnumbered by thousands, and gains no financial advantages or popularity? How about a well known author with lots of advertising money behind her, who sells millions of books and gets a lot of money? Is she a greater writer than a man who writes a book which changes 10 peoples lives and makes no money? Art is, in particular, very hard to define as great or greatest as it is mostly subjective. I would also point out Leonidas or Hannibal as great generals
The problem with that is when it comes to a debate. If we are trying to figure out what is the best art, we have to use something as a common ground, or the debate falls apart. I can say I like it, and you can say you hate it, and that is fine, but there is no debate then. I think what Chocl was saying was that the only real common ground you can point to with art is how successful it was. Does being successful make Art good, not in and of itself, no. But it does give us something to work with. For example, I think everyone would agree that "most" famous writers have skill at crafting a story. "Most" successful artist have a high degree of skill in their art. exactly, especially since you're the one who said it earlier in TBTW. you have to have ome sort of measuring stick, and success is a pretty good one. I mean, would the average person say a garage band is better than elvis? no, because that band is unheard of, while nearly everyone in america knows who elvis presly is.
|
|
|
| |
|
Warden of Wisdom
|
May 10 2012, 08:02 PM
Post #107
|
|
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
- Posts:
- 4,361
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #273
- Joined:
- Mar 7, 2012
|
- RandomMan1
- May 10 2012, 07:59 PM
- Warden of Wisdom
- May 10 2012, 05:17 PM
- Chocl8215
- May 10 2012, 04:44 PM
I see sun tzu as the best general on here by far, I mean when you write something down that still gets used almost a thousand years later, SOMETHING has to be right with it. it's why I originally put Thomas Jeffesron on the list, rather than J.K. (I figured I needed at least one or two women on the list). The constitution was written up almost 400 years ago, and yet it still stands as the foundation of every law america has made since creation. As for tsu, The man was ahead of his time and still managed to be totally successful, whereas many "should have been born in five hundred years" types like leonardo davinci, never got their big projects done for lack of (for lack of a better word) a catalyst.
But this is who is the best General. Yes, the book is used today as people mentioned in business and finance amongst other things, but how many times do you see people covering plains in sesame oil now a days? "The Art of War" was revolutionary, of corse, but today the specific strategies and methods of warfare aren't in use.
I just realized something. From what I recall about "The Art of War", it never lists specific stratedgies, only strategies that would be useful far into the future. I've only seen lengthly excerpts, so my knowledge is limited, but most of what I have seen is rather vague guidelines to battle in general.
|
|
|
| |
|
Warden of Wisdom
|
May 10 2012, 08:06 PM
Post #108
|
|
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
- Posts:
- 4,361
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #273
- Joined:
- Mar 7, 2012
|
- Squee913
- May 10 2012, 08:01 PM
- Warden of Wisdom
- May 10 2012, 07:53 PM
I agree that Hannibal was an amazing military mind, but after the North African counter invasion and when he was defeated by Scipio Africanus at the Battle of Zama, He seldom attained brilliant victories like before. I also think Leonidas was given too much credit, yes he used geographic advantage and more disciplined soldiers as a major advantage, but everyone fails to remember that there were around 300 spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae and around 22,000 others (says Wikipedia, not sure about that number though). He also should have found someone other than the Athenians to handle naval battles because they suck at it.
Bah! Zama was not his fault! He never wanted to leave Italy. Carthage Forced him to. He told them they could not win a battle on the plains of Zama, they made him fight it anyway. Haha, what great friends he had. But then again, it comes down to how intelligent exactly was he to fight there anyways. If I were faced with the decision of running away and facing potential demotion or resignation vs. risking the casualties suffered at Zama, I would go with the first one. But that's also a matter of loyalty, which I'm sure he was loyal.
|
|
|
| |
|
RandomMan1
|
May 10 2012, 08:07 PM
Post #109
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,815
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #47
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2011
|
- Warden of Wisdom
- May 10 2012, 08:02 PM
- RandomMan1
- May 10 2012, 07:59 PM
- Warden of Wisdom
- May 10 2012, 05:17 PM
- Chocl8215
- May 10 2012, 04:44 PM
I see sun tzu as the best general on here by far, I mean when you write something down that still gets used almost a thousand years later, SOMETHING has to be right with it. it's why I originally put Thomas Jeffesron on the list, rather than J.K. (I figured I needed at least one or two women on the list). The constitution was written up almost 400 years ago, and yet it still stands as the foundation of every law america has made since creation. As for tsu, The man was ahead of his time and still managed to be totally successful, whereas many "should have been born in five hundred years" types like leonardo davinci, never got their big projects done for lack of (for lack of a better word) a catalyst.
But this is who is the best General. Yes, the book is used today as people mentioned in business and finance amongst other things, but how many times do you see people covering plains in sesame oil now a days? "The Art of War" was revolutionary, of corse, but today the specific strategies and methods of warfare aren't in use.
I just realized something. From what I recall about "The Art of War", it never lists specific stratedgies, only strategies that would be useful far into the future.
I've only seen lengthly excerpts, so my knowledge is limited, but most of what I have seen is rather vague guidelines to battle in general. Well then you've basically seen most of the content. None of the strategies are specific, they are all very vauge. Which makes them useful, since there is nothing that could not be used in the modern day (though he lacks urban warfare, but that really makes sense, as fighting in cities wasn't that common).
|
|
|
| |
|
Squee913
|
May 10 2012, 08:07 PM
Post #110
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,973
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- Jul 18, 2011
|
- Warden of Wisdom
- May 10 2012, 08:02 PM
- RandomMan1
- May 10 2012, 07:59 PM
- Warden of Wisdom
- May 10 2012, 05:17 PM
- Chocl8215
- May 10 2012, 04:44 PM
I see sun tzu as the best general on here by far, I mean when you write something down that still gets used almost a thousand years later, SOMETHING has to be right with it. it's why I originally put Thomas Jeffesron on the list, rather than J.K. (I figured I needed at least one or two women on the list). The constitution was written up almost 400 years ago, and yet it still stands as the foundation of every law america has made since creation. As for tsu, The man was ahead of his time and still managed to be totally successful, whereas many "should have been born in five hundred years" types like leonardo davinci, never got their big projects done for lack of (for lack of a better word) a catalyst.
But this is who is the best General. Yes, the book is used today as people mentioned in business and finance amongst other things, but how many times do you see people covering plains in sesame oil now a days? "The Art of War" was revolutionary, of corse, but today the specific strategies and methods of warfare aren't in use.
I just realized something. From what I recall about "The Art of War", it never lists specific stratedgies, only strategies that would be useful far into the future.
I've only seen lengthly excerpts, so my knowledge is limited, but most of what I have seen is rather vague guidelines to battle in general. Yes, there are no specific tactics. The Art of War is just that, guidelines on what to or not to do in war of any kind. It tells you what and why. It leaves the how, up to you. An enemy spear is worth 10 of your own since you are taking their resources while not using yours. How you get their spear, is your problem 
This is why the book is still so valid. The more specific you get, the more limited it focus is. For example, Clausewitz On War, has some good ideas, but much of it is invalid in today's wars
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|