|
Who is the smartest person to have ever lived?
|
|
Topic Started: Oct 14 2011, 03:12 PM (4,203 Views)
|
|
Dantos4
|
May 10 2012, 08:18 PM
Post #121
|
|
- Posts:
- 1,018
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #162
- Joined:
- Oct 1, 2011
|
Sorry for taking a while to reply, I'm using my mobile.
I do agree that we need a common ground, but judging something purely on financial or popularity success is an unfair basis. Eg is twilight better than charlie and the chocolate factory simply because it sold more copies? Or because it made more money? I have read both books (only the first twilight) and seen all the films of both... And I can tell you that twilight is not better in any shape or form.
Success, again, is subjective. Success inherently depends on the purpose of the act, which we cannot always know. Success has only recently come to be known as financial or popular superiority with the invention of capitalism in the modern world.
also. Hannibal as a suggestion was based on what squee said before, he was forced into making/doing decisions that he disagreed with.
|
|
|
| |
|
RandomMan1
|
May 10 2012, 08:19 PM
Post #122
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,815
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #47
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2011
|
- Squee913
- May 10 2012, 08:14 PM
- Warden of Wisdom
- May 10 2012, 08:11 PM
- RandomMan1
- May 10 2012, 08:07 PM
- 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).
Once again I believe the Art of War is nothing short of your standard strategic guidebook, but I also believe Alexander's strategies and the way he attained them (through examining previous tactics and deriving and adapting similar ones) yielded better results and shows his resourcefulness and intelligence.
We really cannot compare the two since we have no idea of Sun Tzu's accomplishments. we can point to what Alexander did and marvel. Other than writing that book, we have no idea what Sun Tzu accomplished. Need more data... does not compute.... He conquered a city whose army vastly outweighed his, not to mention his test to become strategist was probably one of his toughest.
|
|
|
| |
|
Warden of Wisdom
|
May 10 2012, 08:20 PM
Post #123
|
|
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, 08:18 PM
- Warden of Wisdom
- May 10 2012, 08:13 PM
- Squee913
- May 10 2012, 08:09 PM
- Warden of Wisdom
- May 10 2012, 08:06 PM
- 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.
It is a hard thing for modern people to grasp since our loyalties are much smaller in scope. We are loyal to our families and friends. Being loyal to our country is a very abstract thing to us. To people back then, however, it was everything.
I wouldn't know nearly as much as being loyal to your country as you, so I can understand your reasoning in his defense.
Even soldiers today do not have the same concept of loyalty to our country that they had back then. The truth of the matter is, that the troops in the american army are not fighting for their country so much as for the guy in the fox hole with them. I am not firing my gun to defend the red white and blue, but to defend the trooper next to me. Back then, they really did fire arrows for the king, emperor, god, whatever. I understand that, I don't know what its like, but I do understand that as well as why Hannibal's actions were reasonable.
|
|
|
| |
|
Squee913
|
May 10 2012, 08:22 PM
Post #124
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,973
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- Jul 18, 2011
|
- Dantos4
- May 10 2012, 08:18 PM
Sorry for taking a while to reply, I'm using my mobile.
I do agree that we need a common ground, but judging something purely on financial or popularity success is an unfair basis. Eg is twilight better than charlie and the chocolate factory simply because it sold more copies? Or because it made more money? I have read both books (only the first twilight) and seen all the films of both... And I can tell you that twilight is not better in any shape or form.
Success, again, is subjective. Success inherently depends on the purpose of the act, which we cannot always know. Success has only recently come to be known as financial or popular superiority with the invention of capitalism in the modern world.
also. Hannibal as a suggestion was based on what squee said before, he was forced into making/doing decisions that he disagreed with. yes, but you are not offering an alternative common ground. If we are to debate this (it is the debate section after all) we have to have a common ground. You state success is not a valid common ground (and you are not necessarily wrong) but what other common ground is there? I am sure I can find someone who also read both books and felt that charlie and the chocolate factory was in no way shape or form better then Twilight. So unless we agree on some sort of measuring stick, we go nowhere.
I am open to suggestions.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chocl8215
|
May 10 2012, 08:22 PM
Post #125
|
|
Man of great chocolate
- Posts:
- 2,876
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jul 19, 2011
|
- Dantos4
- May 10 2012, 08:18 PM
I do agree that we need a common ground, but judging something purely on financial or popularity success is an unfair basis. Eg is twilight better than charlie and the chocolate factory simply because it sold more copies? Or because it made more money? I have read both books (only the first twilight) and seen all the films of both... And I can tell you that twilight is not better in any shape or form.
you may think that, but you can't know an opinion, only think it. if you have a better modem for determining the intellect of a person then please, tell me. (apparently squee and I share brainwaves)
|
|
|
| |
|
Warden of Wisdom
|
May 10 2012, 08:25 PM
Post #126
|
|
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
- Posts:
- 4,361
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #273
- Joined:
- Mar 7, 2012
|
I still think art should be determined on how much cheese the artist ingested, just saying.
|
|
|
| |
|
Squee913
|
May 10 2012, 08:25 PM
Post #127
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,973
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- Jul 18, 2011
|
- RandomMan1
- May 10 2012, 08:19 PM
He conquered a city whose army vastly outweighed his, not to mention his test to become strategist was probably one of his toughest. My friend, we are not even sure Sun Tzu was a real person. It could have been a collection of works written in story form. We have multiple accounts of Alexander's deeds and so we can say with some certainty they happened. All we have of Sun Tzu is the book he wrote himself. Historians never use a book to prove the same book. That is why few Creationists are historians....
|
|
|
| |
|
Warden of Wisdom
|
May 10 2012, 08:27 PM
Post #128
|
|
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, 08:25 PM
- RandomMan1
- May 10 2012, 08:19 PM
He conquered a city whose army vastly outweighed his, not to mention his test to become strategist was probably one of his toughest.
My friend, we are not even sure Sun Tzu was a real person. It could have been a collection of works written in story form. We have multiple accounts of Alexander's deeds and so we can say with some certainty they happened. All we have of Sun Tzu is the book he wrote himself. Historians never use a book to prove the same book. That is why few Creationists are historians.... I agree, while he does have more believable evidence for existence than say, Apollo, it'd be like saying Romulus and Romus indefinitely existed because Rome does.
|
|
|
| |
|
Chocl8215
|
May 10 2012, 08:31 PM
Post #129
|
|
Man of great chocolate
- Posts:
- 2,876
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jul 19, 2011
|
- Squee913
- May 10 2012, 08:25 PM
- RandomMan1
- May 10 2012, 08:19 PM
He conquered a city whose army vastly outweighed his, not to mention his test to become strategist was probably one of his toughest.
My friend, we are not even sure Sun Tzu was a real person. It could have been a collection of works written in story form. We have multiple accounts of Alexander's deeds and so we can say with some certainty they happened. All we have of Sun Tzu is the book he wrote himself. Historians never use a book to prove the same book. That is why few Creationists are historians.... but for such a story to exist, would not the writer(s) him/herself have to be a genius? and as we know not who they are, we must refer to them by their pen name; Sun Tsu. ergo, even if Sun Tsu wasn't a real person, the maker of Sun Tsu would be the genius, and we would only know him as Sun Tsu, so Sun Stu is still in the running, even if Sun Tsu does not exist.
|
|
|
| |
|
Warden of Wisdom
|
May 10 2012, 08:34 PM
Post #130
|
|
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
- Posts:
- 4,361
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #273
- Joined:
- Mar 7, 2012
|
- Chocl8215
- May 10 2012, 08:31 PM
- Squee913
- May 10 2012, 08:25 PM
- RandomMan1
- May 10 2012, 08:19 PM
He conquered a city whose army vastly outweighed his, not to mention his test to become strategist was probably one of his toughest.
My friend, we are not even sure Sun Tzu was a real person. It could have been a collection of works written in story form. We have multiple accounts of Alexander's deeds and so we can say with some certainty they happened. All we have of Sun Tzu is the book he wrote himself. Historians never use a book to prove the same book. That is why few Creationists are historians....
but for such a story to exist, would not the writer(s) him/herself have to be a genius? and as we know not who they are, we must refer to them by their pen name; Sun Tsu. ergo, even if Sun Tsu wasn't a real person, the maker of Sun Tsu would be the genius, and we would only know him as Sun Tsu, so Sun Stu is still in the running, even if Sun Tsu does not exist. But that doesn't mean that in our scenario we've just now created that the mystery author is the same person that actually did all those things that mystery man did. Damn that sounded metaphysical
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|