Were geniuses and polymaths just normal people?

[Anonymous No.18430203]

The vast majority of people throughout history were illiterate. Among the minority who could read, there were the famed literary geniuses and intellectuals. A lot of those weren't autodidacts; some were just born into money that handed them an education.
Does that mean that a 21st century individual with above-average IQ would end up a genius if he was born centuries earlier and had an education?
If so, why aren't there any groundbreaking scientific accomplishments or literary masterworks anymore?
Has science reached the limit of what can be accomplished by a single person? Has literature become exhausted, with everything that could be said already having been said?

[Anonymous No.18430227]

>>18430203
>Does that mean that a 21st century individual with above-average IQ would end up a genius if he was born centuries earlier and had an education?

What do you think dipshit. Could you independently discover any of: the Euler equation, Newton's physical laws, chemistry, evolution, calculus, machinery, the principles of hydraulics, the principles of materials science, evolution, steelmaking, hydraulic cement, etc.

>If so, why aren't there any groundbreaking scientific accomplishments or literary masterworks anymore?
These are two very separate domains; science has become limited in its paradigm to pushing the boundaries of mundane knowledge. The early paradigm-shifting discoveries have already been made. Remaining for science are problems that are difficult to solve without massive amounts of data and experimentation.

There are no literary masterworks anymore because people have fallen to the plague of capitalism, and our culture and morality have likewise fallen to a low level. Also, we are more nihilistic now, and a nihilistic society doesn't see the point in art.

[Anonymous No.18430235]

>>18430227
>Could you independently discover any of: the Euler equation, Newton's physical laws, chemistry, evolution, calculus, machinery, the principles of hydraulics, the principles of materials science, evolution, steelmaking, hydraulic cement, etc.
Who knows? If I had lived in Darwin's place, had no internet to distract me, and were exposed to the same info as he did, then I'd probably discover evolution too. It's not that unintuitive, given that Anaximander and Empedocles already thought of it.

[Anonymous No.18430247]

>>18430203
No. The reality is that very intelligent people have squeezed themselves into power, eventually. Intelligence and all talents being genetic, even if they didn't become a hero from zero, in few generations their descendants did. Even in India, with strict caste system you can find families who's talent eventually brought them up on the social ladder, it is silly to think that in much more elastic Europe(where if needs be a patron of a particularly talented individual would just fabricate claim to nobility for him).

[Anonymous No.18430250]

>>18430235
>If I were Darwin, I'd have discovered evolution

No shit, sherlock.

[Anonymous No.18430256]

>>18430203
Not necessarily, he would just have an above-average IQ. You'd still have to attend school and such in order to contribute to science in those times. Science was always a social endeavour, that's why you could have 50 people listed as authors for a physics paper, but not for a philosophy essay.
>why aren't there any groundbreaking scientific accomplishments or literary masterworks anymore
There's plenty of important scientific work being done, mate. Far more advanced than whatever scientists were doing in Newton's time. And as for why there are comparatively speaking so few great literary masterpieces in the last 75 years, it probably has to do with the time it takes to establish a canon. Sure, some enter it more quickly than others, but others will have to wait to have their stuff taught in schools. I think another possible reason, and probably more important one, is the fact that we have largely lost our piety and reverence for divinity.

[Anonymous No.18430272]

>>18430256
>There's plenty of important scientific work being done, mate. Far more advanced than whatever scientists were doing in Newton's time.
It's not about being "advanced". The point is that there aren't any paradigm-shifting discoveries as was the case with Newton. The most recent such genius was who, Einstein?

[Anonymous No.18430298]

OP the problem with what you're trying to do is that you're trying to remove individuals from their historical context and compare them in some kind of powerlevel IQ hierarchy. It doesn't work like that.

It's easy to look back at these discoveries and cultural creations in hindsight and dismiss them as obvious because we're simply presented with these things in our upbringings. However it's much different looking forward into the fog of ignorance to see what is still undiscovered. And that was the condition faced by the great discoverers of the past.

We still can look forward into that fog today, though.
I could similarly ask of you, so you're well-educated, why haven't you produced any masterwork of literature or some massive scientific discovery?

> The answer is, it's because you're not a genius

[Anonymous No.18430300]

>>18430272
The current paradigm in physics is very good.

[Anonymous No.18430302]

>>18430203

>If so, why aren't there any groundbreaking scientific accomplishments . . . anymore?

there are you just don't pay enough attention. In the past 100 years humans have put a man on the moon, landed a rover on mars, broken the sound barrier; made incredible advances in medicine, which contributes to doubling the average lifespan in that time... this is just off the top of my head

>>18430272

Einstein's theory of relativity is already being challenged by quantum mechanics

[Anonymous No.18430313]

>>18430298
>It's easy to look back at these discoveries and cultural creations in hindsight and dismiss them as obvious because we're simply presented with these things in our upbringings
Nobody's saying they're obvious

[Anonymous No.18430320]

>>18430302
He means paradigm-shifting accomplishments such as the discoveries of fundamentally new modes of viewing the world: physics and microbiology and evolution and so on.

But those paradigms are sufficient to explain most phenomena we experience, and there's not a need for new paradigms. One could say.

However on the other hand the present and upcoming period of crisis for humanity, with the simultaneous crises of overpopulation, climate catastrophe, garbage catastrophe, pending ecological collapse, economic catastrophe, rising geopolitical tensions and so on, could drive new paradigmatic shifts in science, philosophy, politics and culture

[Anonymous No.18430322]

>>18430302
>In the past 100 years humans have put a man on the moon, landed a rover on mars, broken the sound barrier; made incredible advances in medicine, which contributes to doubling the average lifespan in that time
That was in the 20th century. Right now there's more educated people than ever before, and we even have the Internet. So why has technological progress been stagnating in comparison to the past century when there were just a few decades between inventing the airplane and landing on the Moon?
>>18430298
>I could similarly ask of you, so you're well-educated, why haven't you produced any masterwork of literature or some massive scientific discovery?
Yes, that's the point of the thread.

[Anonymous No.18430342]

>>18430322
>So why has technological progress been stagnating in comparison to the past century

My thesis is that it's unironically capitalism which is holding us back. To a certain point capitalism helped us develop into a post-industrial condition. Now it holds us back with the profit motive driving research and mass culture, literally the profit motive is driving EVERYTHING now, even primary education and the universities. We ended up in a cultural vortex here at the end of history where all we can do is incrementally iterate on the same death spiral that's dragging us into the abyss. If we don't overcome the profit motive somehow we will just keep going on and on like this

[Anonymous No.18430346]

>>18430320

I do not understand, you do not believe that landing a rover on mars required revolutionary advances in physics? Do you think Newtonian physics put a man on the moon...?

>But those paradigms are sufficient to explain most phenomena we experience, and there's not a need for new paradigms. One could say.

this is not true. Astronomy is still trying to explain dark matter. Economics went from keynesian theory to efficient markets to now behavioral "adaptive" markets in an attempt to explain market behavior. Physics is still trying to understand processes at the quantum level.

[Anonymous No.18430366]

>>18430346
>landing a rover on mars required revolutionary advances in physics
No, while an impressive feat, it used normative physical theories.

>Astronomy is still trying to explain dark matter. Economics went from keynesian theory to efficient markets to now behavioral "adaptive" markets in an attempt to explain market behavior. Physics is still trying to understand processes at the quantum level.

And still no major, qualitative shifts in our understandings of reality

[Anonymous No.18430373]

>>18430322

I said last 100 years not 21st century. I do not see how you can say technological progress has stagnated; on the other hand, I believe it has exploded. Look at the progress on something like mobile phones alone in your lifetime - virtually unrecognizable even if you are 18 years old. Computing power has exploded. Automobiles are exponentially faster and doing it on an electric engine... how long did it take to transition from steam to internal combustion??? Battery power, solar power, wind power... just days ago a company called Biogen received FDA approval for a drug that treats alzheimers

[Anonymous No.18430377]

Where there is no vision, the people perish.

Proverbs 29:18

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18430382]

>Campbell’s Soup kid

[Anonymous No.18430388]

>>18430342

lol

>>18430366

I think I am starting to see where you are coming from here, you have a good one anon

[Anonymous No.18430397]

>>18430373
>Computing power has exploded.
Incrementally

>Automobiles are exponentially faster and doing it on an electric engine...
Electric motors are literally 19th century technology. They're not exponentially faster either. We're still driving the same speed that we were in 1950.
also >we're still driving automobiles in 2020

>how long did it take to transition from steam to internal combustion???

>Battery power,
still dogshit, environmentally toxic

>solar power,
still dogshit, environmentally toxic, not feasible largescale

>wind power...
still dogshit, not feasible largescale

>just days ago a company called Biogen received FDA approval for a drug that treats alzheimers
Will not fundamentally change the human perspective. Just more incremental shift. Missing the point of the OP. We're talking about radical leaps in this thread

[Anonymous No.18430428]

What would Newton be doing now if he was born in the late 20th/early 21st century?
He'd probably be a code monke for some large-scale scientific project and then Katie Bouman would steal his fame.

[Anonymous No.18430443]

>>18430428
He'd be making schizoposts on /x/ and squandering his talent

[Anonymous No.18430445]

>>18430428
4chan sperg

[Anonymous No.18430446]

>>18430203
>Has science reached the limit of what can be accomplished by a single person?
probably yes, also science isn't done by individual people anymore. every tiny result gets published instantly (figuratively speaking, of course) and is available to multiple scientists around the world. there are very few individuals secretely working on their grand theories which they unveil to the world only when they're finished and sure of the results, this is why progress seems incremental.

[Anonymous No.18431229]

>>18430397
>>Wind power, still dogshit not feasible largescale
AND environmentally toxic

ftfy

[Anonymous No.18431263]

>>18430446
Cope. The geniuses of 'yore also had academic advisors, assistants, in other words: coworkers. Sorry but even the likes of Newton needed to get along with people, maybe work on that before you declare yourself a misunderstood genius.

[Anonymous No.18431283]

>>18430227
>Euler equation, Newton's physical laws, chemistry, evolution, calculus, machinery, the principles of hydraulics, the principles of materials science, evolution, steelmaking, hydraulic cement

[Anonymous No.18431368]

Why do people think everything "progresses" on a linear plane? Or that acceleration will continue to accelerate? Especially with science. You know its a measurement of physical reality right? It'll have its limits. Its like a person, the most growth and discovery happens between age 0-25 than stagnates for a while, until declining at age 45-60.
Its not a societal problem, its a physical reality problem. There isn't that much left of it

[Anonymous No.18431376]

>>18431283
You have to be 18 years old to post here

[Anonymous No.18431384]

>>18430203
>Does that mean that a 21st century individual with above-average IQ would end up a genius if he was born centuries earlier and had an education?
no
>If so, why aren't there any groundbreaking scientific accomplishments or literary masterworks anymore?
this is self-refuting.

[Anonymous No.18431964]

>>18430203
>If so, why aren't there any groundbreaking scientific accomplishments or literary masterworks anymore?
It is because the large amount of information today immediately buries them. So they are less relevant.
i.e

>day 1
>scientific discovers quantum teletransportation for humans
>oh wow holy shit
>one minute later
>something else takes away the limelight

[Anonymous No.18431974]

>>18430203
>If so, why aren't there any groundbreaking scientific accomplishments or literary masterworks anymore?
It is just because the large amount of information today immediately buries them. So they are less relevant.
i.e

>day 1
>scientific discovers quantum teletransportation for humans
>oh wow holy shit
>one minute later
>something else takes away the limelight

[Anonymous No.18432467]

>>18430250
But it was the combination of Wallace and Lamarque's work rather than Darwin.

[Anonymous No.18432481]

>>18430272
With Einstein you mean Poincaré?

[Anonymous No.18432532]

>>18430203
You would be a brainlet compared to the old timers. There is a degenerative effect of the average IQ which is currently dropping like a brick. The main explanation is that there are at least 2 components, genetical stock and environmental. If we speak average IQ, multiple studies say that supposedly the genetic component of IQ peaked somewhere in the 1800s, but this loss was offset by better environmental IQ increase (i.e., education and food). Only now that education and food quality peaked some years ago as well in the western world we see the IQ drop.

The scientists and great men of old times ate very well as they were most of the time well off. They also had excellent education already in the middle ages based on the trivium and quadrivium and more. In many cases, better than the current meme degrees of modern education. Thus, I don't think you would be able to compete.

[Anonymous No.18432542]

>>18430235
>had no internet to distract me
You would have had alcohol, whores, social gatherings, and other more immediate shit to do.