[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 754 KB, 2230x2955, connections.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1388352 No.1388352 [Reply] [Original]

Just a little something I found over at /v/. Thought you'd like it.

Merry christmas!

>> No.1388359
File: 445 KB, 1024x680, 1285158667002.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1388359

Hey, that's pretty cool, dude. But now I feel bad for not getting you anything. . . well, I guess Jane Doe might help. Merry Xmas!

>> No.1388361

Maybe I'm just too stupid but what do the colors mean?

>> No.1388363

>>1388361
Pink/red is philosophy, green is authors it seems to me. Haven't looked at the others yet.

Also this is interesting but god knows who had the time and the effort to do it considering you can never really make one of these which encompasses every link/influence.

>> No.1388366
File: 81 KB, 620x412, IJ_chart1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1388366

>> No.1388367
File: 14 KB, 620x412, IJ_chart6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1388367

>>1388366

>> No.1388370

Blue are scientists, purple analytic philosophers I believe, and brown are artists/musicians.

>> No.1388372

It's a bit inaccurate...Quine -> Carnap? Should've been the other way around. Pretty sweet though.

As for the colors:
Gold: Painters
Green: Writers
Red: Philosophers
Blue: Scientists
Purple: Mathematicians/logicians

>> No.1388375

>>1388366
>620x412

...

>> No.1388376

>>1388372
>Gold: Painters

Not just painters. Wagner, Rossini and Satie are there.

>> No.1388379

Is this supposed to illuminate anything in particular?

>> No.1388383

>>1388370

Purple seems to be Mathematicians (for example see Euler, Fourier, Poisson, etc at the bottom) but the chart seems to include logicians as a kind of Mathematician, and a bunch of Analytic Philosophers get lumped in there because there's some crossover.

>> No.1388385

>>1388379
My thoughts exactly.

>> No.1388393

>>1388385
>>1388379

Probably not, but it's still interesting. Might help some people discover new things by following the connections from people they know and like.

>> No.1388472

I assume the size of the squares is determined by influence, not aesthetic merit.

>> No.1388784

We could easily extend that, there's a lot of shit missing...anyone else up for it?

>> No.1388796
File: 40 KB, 560x375, aww fuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1388796

>>1388367

>> No.1388795

>>1388791

I think you might need glasses, bro. The text size is just fine...

>> No.1388791

Looks interesting, but I can't read shit. Too small, horrible resolution.

>> No.1388816

Lol@Germans completely separate from everyone else

>> No.1388817

Schrodinger->Crick and Watson? wat?
Impressive in scope even if some of the details are off.

>> No.1388833

>>1388817

>Crick was born in Northampton, England, in 1916. He studied physics at University College in London until the outbreak of the Second World War. He then joined the British Admiralty Research Laboratory, where he contributed to the development of radar for tracking enemy planes, and magnetic mines used in naval warfare.

>During this time, Crick read What is Life?, a book by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger. Schrödinger's book popularized the work of physicist Max Delbrück, who had begun to apply the analytical tools of physics to inquire what a gene was and how it might behave. Like many other physicists at that time, Crick was excited by Delbrück's approach, and turned his attention to biochemistry and biological physics.

>> No.1388844

>>1388833
Yes, Crick studied physics. But he did only one thing in his life of note, and that was in biology. Crick's biology contributions had nothing to do with Schrodinger's physics contributions.

>> No.1388850

>>1388844

Did you even read my post? Schrodinger's book inspired Crick to go into biology in the first place. Without Schrodinger he would probably have just kept making radars or whatever.

>> No.1388983

>>1388850
Yes, Schrodinger's book describing Delbrück's work in molecular biology.

In science, math, and philosophy, you have one persons accomplishments serving as the basis for the next person's, which is what I took this chart to be showing. There's no such relationship between Schrodinger's work and Crick's work.

>> No.1389289

So apparently Jesus didn't influence Aquinas. Um... what?

>> No.1389315

Uh, Melville's biggest influence was Shakespeare. And how could Shakespeare have influenced Dante when he lived 300 years after Dante? What are you smoking, OP?

>> No.1389317

>>1388359
Name?

>> No.1389327

>>1389315

As mentioned above, some of the arrows seem to be pointing the wrong way for some reason. Then again for something found on /v/...

>> No.1389540

>>1388352

Not useful. Too messy and random to make any sense.
Also: implying authors state their true influence. They hide those like a prospector hides his own gold mine

>> No.1389554

There's no evidence whatsoever that Shakespeare was influenced by Montaigne.

>> No.1389719

Martin Luther King Jr. is in there but Gandhi isn't? Who the fuck do you think you are OP?

>> No.1389730

>>1389719

It's not like I made it, I fucking found it on /v/. You can amend it in fucking mspaint if it's not up to your fucking standards.