/lit/ - Literature

(((Spinoza)))

'Smart as fuck' at inverting white values to destroy our societies.

Spinacho xD

Spazito

>>9977477
Socrates
Shakespeare
Da Vinci
Tesla

no one comes close to these 4

>>9978469
They say Newton don't be like that, but he do.

>>9978477
Einstein's contributions to physics are slightly more important imo

Newton was cool for discovering calculus though

>>9978469
>shakespeare
the anglo is strong in this one

>>9978469
>2017
>Still thinking Shakspeare wrote anything

>>9978483
>Einstein's contributions to physics are slightly more important imo

Not really. He just had/has better PR.

>>9978507
Nigga Homer probably didn't write his shit but we still attribute the poetry to him. Convenience, bitch.

>>9978518
He literally invented the two hemispheres of modern physics. Newton should be appreciated for his maths, his physics are less interesting.

>>9978528
>literally invented
The language of PR.

>>9978528
Newton literally invented physics.

>>9978596
That's an ignorant statement

>>9978483
Wouldn't it be funny if two people independently came up with Calculus about the same time but only one person was able to take credit for it...

Descartes
Leibniz
Bolzano
Frege
Wittgenstein

Especially leibniz

>>9978495
hes only universally accepted as the greatest writer ever, but yeh for sure a parochial reference

>>9978992
>hes only universally accepted as the greatest writer ever
>the universe is composed of the commonwealth and the usa

>>9978992
[laughs in spanish]

>>9978992
He wouldn't be considered 'clever' though; Milton was the great 'scholarly' neoclaccicist (12 languages, incredibly learned etc); Shakespeare was more of the 'natural' genius (with a little Greek and less Latin), esteemed by the German romantics. This is the stereotype, anyway.

>>9979024
Youre ignorant if you think Shakespeare isnt revered in Spain, at least as the worlds pre-eminent dramatist

>>9979024
>>9978992
[laughs in italian]

>not STEM
>smart
pick one

>>9978466
DES

>>9979049
laughs at you all in linear B

>>9978477
Newton spent 99% of his time on alchemy and the other 1% on stealing Leibniz's calculus and slandering him in the press

>>9979097
[atlantean]

>>9978596
see
>>9978598

>>9977477
>tfw too smart for own good

unironically tho

>>9978740
How can other demons even compete?

>>9978524
Yeah but this is a thread about individuals, not symbols of a collective.

>>9979537
>Writes 3000 pages of commentary, probably would have been 10000 if he hadn't died so young
>Gets absolutely fucking rekt by Hume in 5 pages
Truly a genius

>>9979039
>This is what anglos believe

>>9978469
>Hegel
>Marx
>Von Neumann
>Hegel
>Hegel

Bro your list is /pleb/ as shit. What are you... In high school?

>spinoza
>smart

>>9979607
Hume misinterpreted everything.

>>9979658
bitch

too many white males itt

>no mention of Goethe
>even though he has a proven iq 210
Educate yourselves http://www.assessmentpsychology.com/301geniuses-2.htm

>>9977506
What's the point of making a truly abhorrent and wrong post

>>9979537
Is that Marlon Brando smoking a joint

>>9978528
You are so fucking retarded it is unbelievable

>>9979607
How did Hume "fucking rek" Aquinas? Please enlighten me

>tfw STEM
>tfw I know for a fact that Einstein haters are full of shit who are completely unaware of his actual work

I can assure you that any physicist worth their salt would laugh at subhumans like you, who genuinely believe they've outsmarted both Einstein and the entire global scientific community.

>>9979844

good goy

>>9979881
>physics is about religion and heritage, even if Einstein was not religious and his political stances would have been considered as Anti-Semitic by actual Zionists

Your mind is a joke.

>>9979839
He was the first one to question on what basis causality could be known for certain. Although he was wrong about almost everything, he still started the chain of events that invalidated everything build on Aristotle philosophy.

>>9979890
>Hume was the first one to question on what basis causality could be known for certain
This is incorrect. Leibniz was fully aware that there is no necessary connection between cause & effect. Read the Monadology.
>Hume started the chain of events that invalidated everything built on Aristotle's philosophy
He did not, you are writing nonsense. Hume is a relatively trivial philosophical figure - it is Descartes who offered the West a new philosophical system that had finally replaced Aristotle & Aristotelian philosophy of the Middle Ages.

So apart from writing factually incorrect gibberish, you have also failed to provide an argument on how Hume disproves Aquinas. But hey, you do know for sure that "Hume fucking rekt Aquinas lmao".

>>9980168
>Hume is a relatively trivial philosophical figure
I lol'd out loud

"I freely admit that the remembrance of David Hume was the very thing that many years ago first interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave a completely different direction to my researches in the field of speculative philosophy."

>>9977477

>>9980249
>he still believes Hume is relevant in comparison to the most eminent philosophers of his philosophical era
Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Berkeley and Locke. Hume is nothing in comparison with these names.

It is funny how you're trying to refute my point by sharing Kant's quote that is completely irrelevant. So what if he held Hume in high esteem? He didn't even read much of him, he is only praising the criticism of causation, which is, as I already said, something Leibniz had done before.

Greatest genius coming through

>>9979028
>He wouldn't be considered 'clever' though;
The morons one find on this fucking board

>>9980491
Tennyson is the opposite of that, though. He had genius but no intelligence.

>>9980497
>Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Berkeley and Locke
All brainlets

>>9979697
Then rec some non European authors

>>9979386
>to smart too lie

>>9978483
>Newton was cool for discovering calculus

You mean for his unprecedented contributions to alchemy

>>9980516
Almost, at times, ridiculous - almost, at times, the Fool.

>Now is your time.

>>9980168
>its wrong becuz i sed so

>>9980497
>list of brainlets
>much better philosopher is 'nothing in comparison'
Back to r*ddit

>>9979844
Science, especially physics, is for the most severe of brainlets.

>>9980710
Rip:(

>>9978740
>couldn't get a single thing right
>all real life applications of his theories failed horribly

>>9980522

>When you're the only one in the family who chose humanities, so you go full autist about it, completely change a scientific discipline, cofound another one, and make the French academia fall in love with you, only for their disciples to end up rejecting their method along with any kind of logic, starting a chain of events that ends up destroying both social science and the humanities.

>>9978469
>Shakespeare
He was a good playwright, that's all.
>>9977477
I nominate Newton.

>>9981053
Saussure didn't come up with anything that wasn't already in play in Plato's time, and modern linguistics had been well underway since the late 1700s. The fact that French philosophers and their illegitimate offspring in Anglo English departments obsess over him is more of a proof of both their general ignorance and their chronic navel-gazing than a proof of Saussure's genuine intellectual value. Nobody talks about this guy outside of your bubble.

>>9981072
>STEMsperg
>smart

>>9980975
>he's wrong becuz i sed so
>muh false application is a reflection of theory
jej

>>9978483
Leibniz*

>>9980502
this

Legitimately, this guy.

Can you imagine being born in a fucking Brazilian slum in the 19th century, frequent school for 2 years and from there become a self-taught polyglot, unbelievably well read and cultured, and write a huge, masterful ouvre that spans basically every literary genre, which rightfully places you in the uncontested number one spot as the most accomplished author in your language?

>niggas who were smart as fuck
>posts white people

What?

>>9977477
Me, desu.

>>9982438
Post an excerpt from your diary desu

>>9982434
see >>9982405

>lose fortune over tulips
>never get laid
>believe in alchemy
>steal calculus from leibniz
>get overshadowed by jew whole stole ideas from patent office

I'm just joking of course. Newton was obviously smart.

>>9980685
Sperg-tastic post, anon! Did you write it on a scroll? No? Did you mark it on a tablet? What's that? A samsung galaxy, you say? Gosh, anon, you're so funny!

>>9978469
>Shakespeare
>Tesla
The Eternal Anglo strikes again.

>>9982487
>Tesla
>Anglo

>>9982489
>implying any non-Anglos care about Tesla

>>9982495
>pic related Tesla museum in Serbia

>old people who got the low hanging fruit of their fields are smart

Also saying anyone in philosophy is a joke considering the whole field went on a 2000 year detour that amounted in nothing

>>9977477

>>9982443
my diary is basically my piece of work, so i'm not posting it because you would fucking steal it

>>9979049

Was going to post that. Here it is:

> (You)

>>9979386

Was he autistic?

>>9982405
SOPA DE MACACO

>>9978507
This tho
>>9981072
Will I Am Shake Speares was not an individual man, and was far more than a playwright. His work is a Wisdom Text, like the Bible, or the Upanishads. For him who has eyes to see and ears to hear.

Thomas Jefferson

unironically these two

>>9979890
No. Read Al-Ghazali's Tahafut al-Falasifa, 17th part.

>>9978483
>Einstein
>contributions
umm sweetie

the fact that he hasn't been posted yet is proof that /lit/ are peasants

So many triggered niggas in this thread lol

>>9978469
You're ignoring me, a pioneer of the radical centrist political theory that's dominated modern politics.

>>9983255
See >>9983220

>thread states smart niggers
>only posts white males

I finally understand the importance of blacklivesmatter

>>9982974
This isn't /pol/ your conspiracy hypothesis are unwarrarented

It's a me, Macron!

>>9981362
>false application
get out

>>9978469
>tesla
this b8 wew

>>9983285
>tfw to intelligent to be understood by journalists

>>9977506
master of lens-grinding and optics, tho

>>9980526
kurt cobain

True answer
>Maxwell
>Newton
>Faraday
>Einstein

No literary person comes close to scientist.

>>9983733
>tfw no mathemticians

>>9978469
>Socrates
I think you mean Plato, my dude

Badiou

>>9979644
>hegel
what, did you just take communist gender-syndicalism 101? cute. read a little of my man johannes climacus to see hegel BTFO:

>According to Hegel the truth is the continuous world-historical process. Each generation, each stage of this process, is legitimated and yet is only an element of the truth. Short of resorting to a bit of charlatanry, which helps by assuming that the generation in which Hegel lived or the one after him is imprimatur, and this generation is the last and world history is past, we are all implicated in skepticism. The passionate question of truth does not even come up, because philosophy has first tricked the individuals into becoming objective. The positive Hegelian truth is just as deceptive as happiness was in paganism.

>>9982977
nice taste. someone name-dropped william haz/lit/t the other day and i felt a groundswell of pride.

Richard Dawkins

>>9982977
True. But confess: you also have not read Boswell's biography in its entirety.

>>9978469

Socrates < Aristotle < Plato (< Democritus)

His lad engels died of depression trying to understand capital vol 2 and 3...
Let that sink in.

>>9979844
what!!
Einstein was smart yes but he was no smarter than any of the other dudes that were about at that time, granted that this was probably the best science period in terms of powerhouses that revoltionised the science world

>>9977477

>>9978469
>Tesla
Guy who made a car. Gr8 b8

>>9979537
his teacher Albert was better

>>9984474
he sucks titties in the first 5 minutes of his movie

>Walter Benjamin still not posted
holy shit

Grigori Perelman

>Solved a century old mathematical problem
>Declined the most prestigious awards in maths and a millions dollar prize because other mathematicians that contributed weren't acknowledged properly
>Now lives as a poor hermit in some shit hole in Russia

>>9984517
Vorticism was kind of a failure, man.

>>9984531
Any retard can do STEM, provided they're industrious enough.

>>9984535
Just because it was too advanced and complex for the art scene does not mean it was a failure, at all.

>>9984536
But any retard cant read apparently

He solved a century old problem, he didnt just "do math" you fucking idiot

>>9984547
I could solve a million "century old equations" given enough time.

>>9984539
You seem passionate about it, and I like that. What do you think was gained from Vorticism? Why are you so passionate about it? I'm genuinely curious.

>>9977506
Why can't you keep your bullshit on /pol/?

>>9984536
>>9984549
You clearly haven't done any real math

>>9978483
>are slightly more important imo
ho boy no. einstein is just an elaboration on the massive foundation that is newton.

>>9979386
>tfw Hegel does everything you did but better

>>9980249
If you had actually read the CPR you would know that Locke is the anglo that lords over the book, not Hume

It's pretty embarassing how many of you have been memed about math and science being for brainlets.

>>9984813
t. STEMbrainlet

*blocks your path*

>>9984896
He's a genius in his own way, but not a historical mind. I'd put him right next to tarantino unironically

>>9983760
>>9984336
confirmed as never having actually read greek philosophy

>>9980497
>actually thinking any of those philosophers are more important than hume and kant

my god

>>9984896
what took us so long to post this

>>9978483
I hope this is bait

>>9978507
can you give me a quick rundown on Shakespeare not writing the plays attributed to him?

tfw no Euler, no Gauss, no von Neumann
All of you should hang yourselves

these guys were so smart their lives read like a fucking manga

>>9985142
the stipulation was smart, so no STEMmers allowed

>>9985160
Everyone can read a book, not everyone can do real math
Fucking brainlets everywhere

>>9984950
>He thinks the Socrates we read about existed

>>9979011
nah

>>9979644
Your list is far worse.

>>9977506
What values are you referring to, and how are they white?

>>9977477
are*
>Mochizuki has estimated that it would take a maths graduate student about 10 years to be able to understand his proof, and Fesenko believes that it would take even an expert in arithmetic geometry some 500 hours. So far, only four mathematicians say that they have been able to read the entire proof.

>>9984919
I major in history, and I get pretty good grades. do I have a historical mind?

>>9980497
are you srs m8? berkeley btfo locke, hume btfo berkeley. in epistemology, hume's insights, though clearly built upon locke's and berkeley's (and why do people always forget hobbes?), completely set the stage for german idealism. outside epistemology, kant was still unable to answer the is-ought problem, given by hume. that problem is still incredibly relevant today. to think hume is any less a philosopher than the names you've listed is batshit retarded. hume was a fucking gun

Chances are no one who posted in this thread is smarter than the dumbest person posted in this thread.

>>9982512
>bashes philosophy
>uses argument
=uses p h i l o s o p h y

>>9984549
>being this fag

>>9981085
>Saussure didn't come up with anything that wasn't already in play in Plato's time
Is that the same Plato that would come up with etymologies on the spot you're talking about?

>modern linguistics had been well underway since the late 1700s
Who's denying this?

Also, it would be pretty useful if you actually said what ideas were already know by these philosophers rather than spend most of insulting an imaginary opponent.

>>9981085
not the guy you're replying to but..

>modern linguistics had been well underway since the late 1700s
Nope, you're thinking of philology which was basically trying to figure out language families by comparing similar words across living languages. The essential methodology and concepts of modern linguistics were not succintly stated until Saussure.

>Nobody talks about this guy outside of your bubble
He is a pivotal figure in the social sciences, and anyone who knows anything about those fields recognizes that.

The real question is why you're so buttmad about Saussure in the first place

>singlehandedly b& an entire methodological perspective of science and philosophy
>proceeded to found cognitive science, precursor to modern AI research

>>9985850
>The essential methodology and concepts of modern linguistics were not succintly stated until Saussure.
Not only that, but they're so radically different they can't even be said to be the same thing.

Oh, and let's not forget how he managed to predict what the Proto-Indo-European vowel system actually looked like thirty years before Hittite was discovered.

I love Spinoza but the fact that he was so anti-christian and yet still believed in this ultimate deity just proves that even the smartest are certainly not perfect. Also, is there one person here that can explain concisely expound upon Ethics? It uses a lot of wishy washy logic and some of it is downright indecipherable. It's almost mysterious in a way. Same thing with Newton and Alchemy.

>>9985896
>the fact that he was so anti-christian and yet still believed in this ultimate deity just proves that even the smartest are certainly not perfect

>>9985925
Yes as I tip my fedora. If you read his work you'll start to see what I mean, especially his letters. I don't want to get into a religious debate but sometimes it seems strange pantheists just don't go one step further - sometimes their writing is downright comical and frustrating considering the abundance of logic mixed with this idea of god with no logic or evidence behind it. Such were the times however. I doubt Spinoza would have been religious today (christianity is not exactly thriving in Europe today). Maybe if he was born in the US. But anyways.

>>9979890
this is what happens when you get your hist of philosophy from blog posts and wikipedia articles

>>9979890

>invalidated

kill yourself faggot

>>9985700
> deduction
> 2000 years later
> we can't REALLY KNOW xD

>>9985057
He did, it's just "he" was a black womyn.

>>9982512
What is it that you think philosophy should be "amounting to"?

>>9984581
are you literally retarded

>>9986028
See
>>9986025
Unless that original post was not you, in which case you have added nothing so fuck off yaself bub.

>>9984517
>nobody knows who this is and that is sad
if only there were some way for you to alleviate that tragedy even a little

>>9984698
this fuBBin niBBa clearly hasn't read hegel or immanuel Bant

>>9985877
Damn he looks pretty sexy here

>>9985877
why do people like Thomas Sowell claim that Chomsky should stick to linguistics and that he knows nothing about political science because he didn't specialize in it? Is Sowell saying that a fresh political science phd is a better analyst of power and politics than Chomsky?

>>9984607
I've tried reading the perelman paper. That is infinitely harder to understand than any philosophical paper. The level at which he is at and would require years, if not decades of intense mathematical training. Philosophers don't seem to realize that any laymen can pick up on their concepts within a few months/years. Mathematicians are on an entirely different level of intellectual rigor.

>>9988598
I don't think difficulty is a factor here. Nobody becomes a philosopher because it's "hard". The point I think, is that there needs to be something irreproduceable to the particular geniuses; otherwise we're no different than a machine.

I'm making no implications on whether this or that person is a genius however, since I don't know squat about mathematics and find those guys attitudes unwarranted.

>>9984470
In general individuals are 'overrated', most great leaps forward are collective/team/zeitgeist efforts.

>>9988661
This whole thread is so teenage. Surprised it hasnt devolved into IQ talk yet

>>9987878
I dont know if he does this but anybody who does is a silly sausage, political science is essentially sociology, if im going to appeal to any authority it would an historian on matters of politics. I love Historians, even the bad ones, their writing is so much denser with information than anything else

>>9978598
not really.
>>9983733
no
>>9984549
faggot retard

>>9988598
>Philosophers don't seem to realize that any laymen can pick up on their concepts within a few months/years
Unlikely. Speaking as grad student of both mathematics and philosophy, I've found both equally hard.

I think we have to do a finer work on what "pick up" means. When laymen consider philosophical works, the level of acquaintance with any philosophical thought is often rather shallow; knowing the definition of trascendental subject does not give any particular insight into why Kant believed it to be right - how the argument unwinds is complex and it is the reason it is rare enough for professional philosopher to not have much knowledge of the KdV. This does not mean philosophers haven't read the book, but an in-depth study of Kant is rare, and it is for most philosophers the work of a lifetime - only those with interest in neo-kantianism or a historical interest in Kant go deep into its waters.

Mathematics is the very same thing. Provided we agree to speak in shallow terms - just as non-philosophers most often do with philosophy- I am sure enough anyone can "pick up" the basics of a theory with matter of days. Likewise with philosophical matters, this does not mean much knowledge has been gained. Being able to give a quite long description of Smale's paradox rarely is a guarantee of any knowledge in topology or algebra. /sci/ is a fantastic example of people posting buzzwords without knowing much about it.

When can we say that a person knows any mathematics? When he is able to solve problems. Any other answer is wrong. If someone is unable to write proofs in any branch of mathematics, it is absurd to say he has any knowledge of it. The very same thing applies to philosophy, and although we can argue if philosophical problems are really solved, it is the very thing philosophers do when they publish papers. Any discussion outside academy hardly has any value - the main reason is the lack of rigor that will encounter and that is by no means acceptable in the philosophical community.

>>9987878
I wouldn't know. Chomsky has an almost absurd knowledge of politics, and it is baffling to see how much knowledge he had gathered of everything.
The thing is I never heard a specific enough critique of Chomsky's political thought to make me think he should stick to lingüistics. A lot of people may disagree with some of his points, but never seen any convincing argument that it´s all foolish.