/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2393841]

>Most intelligent person who ever lived
>Most intelligent person you'd have as a bro for life
>Most intelligent person you'd never hang out with

Go.

[Anonymous No.2393847]

Back to /b/ please.

[Anonymous No.2393854]

1. Nikola Tesla
2. Sean Connery
3. Steven Hawking

[Anonymous No.2393855]

>>2393854
Fuck, Stephen
Also, why ask this on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.2393859]

OP here, I'm talking philosophers and writers, this has to be fucking obvious, c'mon...

[Anonymous No.2393860]

>ramanujan
>feynman
>idk, nietzsche or some other continental philosopher

[Anonymous No.2393862]

1. Rene Descartes
2. John Stuart Mill
3. Henri Poincare

[Anonymous No.2393865]

>>2393859
>implying that writers and philosophers are MOST intelligent
>2012
Come on, it's pretty fucking obvious why I asked. But really, I wasn't sure why you were asking here.

[Anonymous No.2393868]

>Siddharta Gautama
>Aristotle
>Probably someone like Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.2393871]

>>2393865
>implying they aren't
Are you serious here bro?

[Anonymous No.2393876]

>>2393871
no joyce could have ever pulled off a reinmann, don't be silly.

[Anonymous No.2393878]

>>2393871
Of course I am dickweed your false sense of entitlement and superiority has blinded you.

[Sir Namefag the Queer !.7yzW7gp5Q No.2393883]

>I don't know
>Ernest Hemingway
>fucking Van Gogh

[Anonymous No.2393888]

Euler
Sagan
Newton

[Anonymous No.2393892]

>da Vinci
>don't know
>Hawking

[Anonymous No.2393894]

>>2393876
>>2393878
You guys are idiots. I have in no way a sense of entitlement or superiority, I'm not even a writer, for fuck's sake I'm not taking sides. And I have all the respect for the men of science. Hey, those guys managed to conquer their tools all so well and dive into incredible abstractions, I admit. But they are too specialized, philosophers were always the most intelligent men, they twist logic itself. Some of them were scientists too, of course, one thing does not exclude the other. Except that when you are talking about absurd levels of abstractions in language, trying to figure out existence, write something that only makes sense when written, go against everything that was ever taught to you and make sense... Shit gets preety heavy.

[Anonymous No.2393901]

>Some bloke.

>Feynman or Tesla.

>Newton. Fuck him and his eyes.

[Anonymous No.2393905]

>>2393894
>men of science

grunt work. mathematicians are the most advanced.

>they twist logic itself
>this is what philistines actually believe

lol

[Anonymous No.2393908]

>>2393894
You feel that philosophy is entitled to a superior status by declaring that philosophers were always the most intelligent of men.
I don't see how musing about the meaning of life can help anybody; technology and knowledge, however, solve scarcity and increase the standard of living. They have their negative aspects but, on the whole, offer a greater benefit than sad old dudes that never worked a day in their lives sitting around begging for money or receiving funds and making up abstract ideas.
Also, calling others idiots before hearing the entire argument...come on, man.

[Anonymous No.2393909]

>Erwin Schrödinger
>Slavoj Sizek
>Emil Cioran

[Anonymous No.2393916]

>>2393905
A. Math alone brings us nowhere; however, it is truth that math is unbelievably valuable to all other useful forms of study.

B. Well said.

[Anonymous No.2393922]

>aheenstaeen
>aheenstaeen
>aheenstaeen

[Anonymous No.2393923]

>>2393894
evariste galois' principle treatise was a letter he wrote the eve of his death, of which Hermann Weyl wrote: "This letter, if judged by the novelty and profundity of ideas it contains, is perhaps the most substantial piece of writing in the whole literature of mankind."

so there.

also, nevermind >>2393908, not everyone pretends that the satisfaction of the needs of some apes equals intelligence.

[Anonymous No.2393926]

>>2393916
when did intelligence become the ability to bring 'us' 'somewhere'.

[Anonymous No.2393929]

>>2393926
You've...you've got to be fucking kidding me.
The point of intelligence is to rise above other species and end up never having to worry about anything, ever; as a species, not as an individual.
At least historically and (I believe) biologically, that is the point.

[Anonymous No.2393945]

>>2393929
>implying there's a 'point' to intelligence

intelligence is the ability to make logical deductions accurately. your pretense purpose is laughable, and appealing to its historical point (maybe you meant 'use'?) is pointless. its biological 'purpose' or cause is of no relevance when considering the abstract concept of intelligence. i wasn't talking about any relativist 'point' to intelligence, i was talking about what it was.

[Anonymous No.2393948]

1. Jesus
2. Jesus
3. Steven Hawking

[Anonymous No.2393954]

>>2393929
you believe wrong

[Anonymous No.2393955]

>>2393945
There's no intelligence in using intelligence for nothing.
Obviously.

[Anonymous No.2393956]

>>2393929
>>2393908
Are you retarded? Are you too tired to think or something?

I refuse to believe people think like this.

[Anonymous No.2393959]

>>2393955
And to what then? Bigger buildings? That's the go-to answer. Philosophers are there to show you that's just one of thinking things. How about intelligence for being happy? Or intelligence to understand one's own language?

[Anonymous No.2393966]

>>2393959
It's easier to be happy with on worry for survival.
>>2393956
I would like to ask the same of you, if I could.

[Anonymous No.2393973]

>>2393955
a) that sentence has absolutely no meaning whatsoever, b) even if we assume that makes any kind of sense, that doesn't follow from anything, you're assuming that there's a 'goal' or 'pragmatism' inherent in the concept of intelligence, which is fucking absurd.

[Anonymous No.2393982]

>>2393966
>It's easier to be happy with on worry for survival.

You see, that's debatable.

[Anonymous No.2393985]

>>2393966
>It's easier to be happy with on worry for survival.

while this is unrelated to your retarded definition of intelligence, this is also false. constant struggle fills about the same space as constant escapism, fully satisfied humans fall into ennui. which you could also argue is a form of happiness, but i wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.2393984]

>Most intelligent person who ever lived
As apposed to the most intelligent dead person eh? Isaac Newton. The guy was a fucking genius.
>Most intelligent person you'd have as a bro for life
Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci
>Most intelligent person you'd never hang out with
Nietzsche probably. Not going to gain any point with /lit/ for saying that.

[Anonymous No.2393992]

>>2393966
You're not merely a colony of cells, pal, you are a human being. It doesn't matter who is the best match to give you healthy children, when that girl looks at you, you'll fool yourself for that to be the one. My advice would be for you to read more and stop being so full of yourself, because once it hits you, it will be tough for you to accept.

I have no intention to debate you, but you have some growing up to do and for once, put it in your head that you might just be wrong there.

[Anonymous No.2393998]

>most intelligent person who ever lived
Einstein.

>Most intelligent person you'd have as a bro for life:
Teddy Roosevelt.

>Most intelligent person you've hung out with:
The guy who is one of the intellectual fathers of post cold war Neorealism and US foreign policy, won the American Political Science Foundation's "man of the year" award for it last year. Also happens my major adviser in cawlidge.

[V. Rasity !4sOqyWuBDA No.2394022]

>>2393908
>>2393871
Ah, the good old STEM vs. humanities debate. Feels like I'm back in high-school.

Saying that the most intelligent people must be bound to one of these fields is like saying that the most intelligent people must only wear white.

Because it's easier to grasp the importance of the STEM fields in relation to everyday life, a large majority of people assume that these fields must be the only important ones, and that the more abstract world of humanities must be useless. Mainly because they have little to no understanding of the importance of the humanities.
E.G. This guy: >>2393865

Conversely, people who argue that the humanities are the only important field of study are just as ignorant.

>>2393894
This guy has it right.

Tl;dr: If you're going to continue being ignorant at least be aware of your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.2394030]

>>2394022
You're going with the guy who said philosophers 'twist logic itself'? Do you have to fall below the median IQ in order to apply for a trip?

[Anonymous No.2394035]

1. Dunno. Newton? I saw an IQ list once, with Goethe near the top.
2. David Hume.
3. Newton.

[Anonymous No.2394036]

>>2394030
Can you think about logic? Or logic "just is"?

[V. Rasity !4sOqyWuBDA No.2394040]

>>2394030
Yeah admittedly that part was a poor choice of wording, I'll assume he meant something along the lines of "examine logic and foment new/different/better ways of thinking."

Aside from that he's pretty much correct in his views.

[Anonymous No.2394044]

>>2394040
>"examine logic and foment new/different/better ways of thinking."

except that's what mathematics and the other formal (not natural) sciences do, not philosophers, who are usually in the business of creating concepts or exploring linguistic artifacts and metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.2394047]

>>2394044
You are all sorts of dumb.

[The Importance of Being On Time and Being !dAqyKvNZuA No.2394049]

>>2394030
>>2394040
They sat together in the park
As the evening sky grew dark
She looked at him and he felt a spark tingle to his bones
It was then he felt alone and wished that he'd kept on-topic
And watched out for a simple twist of logic

[Anonymous No.2394050]

>>2394047
amazing how you find no refutation to the drivel spouted by such a dumb person.

[Anonymous No.2394052]

>implying twisting means "proving wrong" or anything of the like and not just thinking about it and articulating on it

[Anonymous No.2394056]

>Isaac Newton
>Carl Sagan
>Steven Hawking
Hawking's a huge dick.

[Anonymous No.2394058]

Anything but Da Vinci for number one means you're a faggot.
Tesla seems like a fucking bro. He was bros with Twain.
I wouldn't want to hang out with Einstien. He was a filthy kike

[Anonymous No.2394061]

>>2394050
" Controversy equalizes fools and wise men - and the fools know it."
--Oliver Wendell Holmes

[V. Rasity !4sOqyWuBDA No.2394063]

>>2394036
Logic has evolved over time and will hopefully continue to evolve.
Like mathematics, influential people have furthered it's development. For example you could say that Aristotle did for logic what Archimedes did for mathematics. However, unlike the field of mathematics, logic is rather stagnant, and up until recently (though this view still prevails) Aristotle's views were considered the pinnacle of logic.

Imagine if Archimedes views were considered the pinnacle of mathematics?

However, just like most people only need basic arithmetic, most people only need/use basic logic. Unlike mathematics, logic is not taught within most primary (by primary I mean the education everyone receives) education systems. By influence people learn common logic - though they are never taught it formally - in the same way one could learn basic arithmetic without being formally taught it.

[Anonymous No.2394065]

>>2394061
i'll take a cop-out as an admission that you have no reasonable response.

[Anonymous No.2394068]

>>2394065
I'm not even that guy. I just thought the quotation was apt.

[Anonymous No.2394071]

>Most intelligent person who ever lived
Probably died unknown on some farm in China.

>Most intelligent person you'd have as a bro for life
Giacomo Leopardi

>Most intelligent person you'd never hang out with
Kant. OCD types rustle my jimmies.

[Anonymous No.2394072]

>>2394058
Do you guys really know da Vinci? I mean, when I studied da Vinci, even though I admire him all the way, I didn't see him as the most intelligent person of them all. I think his fame makes people idealize him way too much as the "know it all / do it all" guy. His writings are interesting and wise, but are certainly not better than the philosophers we usually talk about here. His art is suberb, his scientific studies are also incredible. But I think that da Vinci's intelligence relies on how he handled his own life and how natural was of him to search for knowledge, on whatever field that was.

[V. Rasity !4sOqyWuBDA No.2394074]

>>2394044
See
>>2394063
There are different fields of philosophy just like there are different fields of mathematics. Broadly these fields cover:
-How individuals think.
-How societies think.
-How to think better (E.G. furthering our knowledge of logic)
-How these areas can be related to practical problems such as furthering ones ability to learn or governance or understanding of self.

Obviously that's a very broad and dumbed down overview, and it's missing some key fields, but it should hopefully be easy to understand.

Also, metaphysics is considered a subset of philosophy. So famous scientists such as Stephen Hawking could also be considered famous philosophers due to their contributions in this field.

[Anonymous No.2394076]

>>2394074
has hawking made actual contributions to metaphysics or are you just taking the name meta-physics on it's face?

[Anonymous No.2394077]

>>2393945
>intelligence is the ability to make logical deductions accurately

that's a bit of a narrow definition, friendo. within psychology, intelligence is generally recognized as the capacity to learn from experience and adapt when necessary.

[Anonymous No.2394078]

>>2394065
>>2394050
The most reasonable thing for me to say at all times is to suffice something that is needed. And you seem to be cocksure of yourself, seeing it's already impressive how one can confuse the intention to insult with an intention to refult, so regardless of what I could or could not say, it won't mean anything to you in the end.

You go to sleep knowing you are right.

[Anonymous No.2394097]

>>2394078
the insult "dumb" implies superiority on the part of the speaker,which tells me that the refutation to my argument is trivial. you might have not meant to refute me, but you implied that you easily could. if that is the case and you post it, i'll admit i was wrong and move on. if you cop-out, i'll just take that, again, as an admission that you had nothing of interest to say and only objected to my attitude or tone.

[Anonymous No.2394101]

1. Gonna agree with Siddhārtha Gautama. Jesus would be up there if I hadnt read Bart Ehrman, and realize that he has been so misrepresented we dont know WHAT he actually said.
2. Sagan
3. Spinoza. Fucking apostate jew recluse lens grinder with nearly perfect morals.

[Anonymous No.2394115]

Einstein was on a MAD trip

Castro / Dalai Lama XIV / Einstein / Bill Hicks / George Carliin

Christopher Hitchens A.K.A pompuous dill weed know it all, who couldn't argue on point because he's a psuedo-intellectual, who assumed he was right and talked shit without providing feasible arguments for his thesis.

[Anonymous No.2394123]

>>2394115

Man, that'd be a kick. Hanging around a campfire with Castro, the Dalai Lama and Bilbo Hicks. I feel a bit sad that it's an impossibility.

[Anonymous No.2394129]

>>2394115
I don't like Hitchens that much myself, but the ability to troll people posthumously is enviable.

[Anonymous No.2394143]

>>2394123

reading about communism, i'd like castro to fix human nature. Him and Carlin would be great social mediators.

also, imagine the conversation between Albert E. meets Hicks with the Lama twist on spirituality...

MFW that's fuckin heavy man...

P.S.
Edit, given his time, Da Vinci was a beast. If I could twist subject time and reality, I'd put Einstein in the reneIssance (sp?) and Da Vinci in the 30's - 60's

FTW...WTF?

[Anonymous No.2394146]

>>2394115
>>2394123
Was Castro intelligent like that? What did he think/say/do?

I'm no "gtfo commie", I just don't know much about him.

[Anonymous No.2394147]

1). ???
2). Dorothy Parker or Karl Sagan. Depends on if I'm drinking or toking.
3). Dostoevsky. He was antisemitic aspie asshole, but a smart one.

Also nobody cares about STEM vs. humanities.

[Anonymous No.2394148]

>Galileo Galilei
>Socrates
>Christopher Hitchens

Most people don't know this, but Galileo figured out that light actually moves, and tried to test its speed, but found it was too fast for him to calculate. This was in addition to laying the foundation for all study of physics after him.

[Anonymous No.2394151]

>This is tough. Implied that I don't know. Intelligence is also being used here in a broad sense.
For logic I'd go with Bertrand Russel.
For sheer volume of knowledge, probably Archimedes. hard to evaluate since different time periods have inefficient (read: lots of incorrect) knowledge.
For lateral thinking... that's the toughest, and the one most associated with genius. Newton, Godel, and maybe Hume are all candidates.

>Tesla all the way. infinite fanboy

>Newton. He was just not fun to be around.

[Anonymous No.2394153]

>>2394146

I haven't yet met Castro, but a book i'm reading is dabbling in his psychology and how he understood how people thought.

I wouldn't think he was "Duhr, light is fast, gravity is heavy" by any means (again haven't met him, don't know what we'd talk about.)

but for a man with no (known) background in psychology, he was brilliant in regards to political tact and human nature.

[Anonymous No.2394154]

None of these people would waste their time hang out with the preteens posting here.

[Anonymous No.2394158]

>>2394148
Not just physics. Scientific causality in general.

Brief history of science up to Galileo:

Aristotle argues for observational empiricism over platonic necessary a posteriori

A bunch minor contributions of medieval philosophy, e.g. Occam's razor

Galileo invents the idea of a controlled experiment, allow you to define causal inputs beyond mere observation

[V.Rasity !4sOqyWuBDA No.2394164]

>>2394076
Quantum physics is seen by many as a merger of physics and metaphysics. If however, you chose not to accept that, Hawking's has made some notable contributions to the notion of Determinism, which is considered a metaphysical notion.

[Anonymous No.2394167]

Newton
Wittgenstein
Marx

[Anonymous No.2394170]

1. Robert Oppenheimer
2. Christopher Hitchens
3. Thomas Edison

[Anonymous No.2394184]

>>2394044
It is curious to me that you would mock the study of linguistic artifacts.

For 200,000 years, humans have been on the earth with minimal genetic change. We possess a 1% difference with that of a chimp. Do you suspect that is what changed the surface of the planet?

What changed it is language, sir. More specifically our ability to transfer knowledge for generations, and our ability to use that knowledge to improve its transfer. First words. Then scribes. Then libraries. Then printers. Then archives. Then photographic media. Then computers.

Information. All of it embedded in language. The entirety of your cerebrum can be reduced to 2 things- sensory primitives, and concepts that link together those primitives. All of the knowledge- all 6 or so petabytes of it- can be reduced to that.

And you think that the study of concepts is trivial?

[Anonymous No.2394194]

>>2394044
Mathematics is language.

[Anonymous No.2394207]

>>2394184
Your knowledge is dilettantish, at best.

There is more genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees than was previously asserted. Regardless, it is misleading because genetic material is largely similar among all life forms. Humans share an estimated 40% genetic similarity to lettuce, for example.

[Anonymous No.2394216]

>>2394194
Mathematics is a special case of language. Specifically, it is a language with ~100% transmission. No ambiguity. That is why isolated cultures can independently derive and communicate with it.

>>2394207
Everyone's knowledge is dilettantish outside of their area of expertise. Yet you do absolutely nothing to refute my central point. Language is centered around a neural capacity to form concepts, and that is the sole relevant biological difference between living in trees and living in skyscrapers.

[Anonymous No.2394218]

>not being bros with Homer

[Anonymous No.2394222]

>>2394218
I'd be bros with Homer. He just isn't first pick is all...

[Anonymous No.2394254]

1. Marshall McLuhan
2. Samuel Johnson
3. Pythagoras

[Anonymous No.2394258]

>3. Pythagoras

Considering that Pythagoras never wrote anything down, refusing to hang out with him is tantamount to refusing to find out why people considered him intelligent.

[ZERO !!Bfg7MXZ93gR No.2394260]

1) Nikola Tesla
2) Leonardo da Vinci
3) Thomas Edison

[Anonymous No.2394267]

Jesus
Jesus
Judas

[Anonymous No.2394269]

>>2394184
i never mocked the study of language artifacts, i just said that's what philosophers do, among other things.

>>2394194
mathematics are represented by mathematical notation, which i don't think qualifies as a language, similar to how programming languages don't, but i may be wrong.

>>2394164
>Quantum physics is seen by many as a merger of physics and metaphysics

by whom? not by anyone respectable. quantum mechanics has some implications on metaphysics, but so does the entirety of the natural sciences. furthermore, hawkings is a cosmologist, not a quantum physicist.

>>2394077
sorry. i'm too reductionist. what you're saying is probably true.

[Anonymous No.2394272]

So many Tesla bros here.

Too bad his only bro was a pidgeon

[Anonymous No.2394273]

>3 way tie: Newton, Euler, and Gauss
>Feynman
>Chomsky (Oh God kill me now, that dry boring fuck, Babby's first ideas)

[Anonymous No.2394286]

>>2394269
>>2394184 here

Since the thread was about the triviality of philosophy, I thought the mockery was implied. I'll withdraw my critical tone, considering this revision.

I will also back you that QM has little impact on metaphysics. And that is of great misfortune to both physics and philosophy. The problem is that all the philosophers I've read and met- including big names at conferences- fail to treat "random" as anything more than a simple term with no further reduction. But in fact it reduces into critical statistical breakdowns, which are anything but random, although they are undetermined. This misunderstanding has muddled basically every contribution QM could sensibly have in philosophy.

On the whole, and I say this as a philosopher of cognitive science, metaphysics is mostly rubbish. It is, at its core, the attempt to treat certain psychological simples as objective facts about the world. Kant called it "synthetic analytic". Kripke calls it "necessary a priori". Every finding in the past 5 years in cognitive science calls it "bias".

>>2394077
I'll also second/confirm this. I've always quantified it as a rate of concept acquisition i.e. rate of learning. Learning with fewer repetitions/less experience = more intelligence.

[Anonymous No.2394309]

>>2394286 synthetic and analytic are two distinct categories not a single category you idiot.

what a tremendous surprise that someone who dismisses the entirety of metaphysics turns out to be a posturing jackass

[Anonymous No.2394316]

>>2394309
What a surprise that someone who defends it has no idea what it is they are defending. Kant proposed a hybrid category between the two- specifically synthetic facts that could be obtained a priori or analytically.

[Anonymous No.2394919]

>>2394269
>>2394216
Mathematics is language, it's a translation of the world into things we are able to understand and maybe convert it back later, but it is language, it's an instrument of abstraction, but it is still an instrument.

3.1415.... is not pi, but "pi" is pi. If I say to you "1 million plus 1 million", the answer comes to you instantly, but if you saw 1 million of things and added that to another million of things, you'd be confuse. When you get an equation like 2x + 5 = 10x - 40 and make it into another equation like x = 5, you are only solving it in the sense of making the languistic signs clean of what is unnecessary (assuming your priority is to find x), but it's not saying anything new in comparisson to the first equation, you're just exposing something that is already there. If we have a problem in the physical world, like those mathematic puzzles we use to see, what is complicated is that they are expressed verbally, so you have to translate to mathematics, simplify inside the realm of mathematics and propose a solution in the real world, which is not mathematics anymore.

cont

[Anonymous No.2394923]

>>2394919 cont
It proposes itself to be 100% accurate in transmission and does a very good job, but that doesn't make it so. The limit to our understanding is our language. Two great chess players vould see so much into future turns, into each other's use of language, that they are able to sit at the table and not play, then after a couple of minutes they would shake hands and know who would win. Except they don't do it, because the game is the game and it's never pure and predictable to that extent, even if the good players are able to call the game to an end after just a few turns. In the same sense, mathematics is not just merely there, it's not 100% accurate on itself because it depends on what we understand of it. Going back to the equation example, a math teacher might be used to it, and find the answer as one reads a word, but to a primary school student, the teacher will have to explain it step by step. When we learn mathematics in school we are learning a very strict form of grammar, that will demand precision for us later, not because it is perfectly precise, but because that's what we are striving for.

The great mathematicians of the past were able to identify knots and ties that no one else could see or untie knots that no one else could handle. The lace is the same though. The numbers are the same, what changes is how we understand them. Look: odd, even, odd, even, odd, even... And why is that? What can we do about it? What all of the odds have in common, and what about the evens? And we create these new ways to deal with those numbers. Now look: two can be divided by two and by one; three can be divided by three and by one; five, seven, eleven, thirteen... What is this? Why are those special? And so new more complex problems arise. It was always there, but we have to perceive them.

cont

[Anonymous No.2394925]

>>2394923 cont

I'm sure you can say pi is 3.1 and substitute in the formula, do the math here and here and get to a final result that is similar to that of a guy who used pi as 3.14. But that is considered unhealthy, because the farther you go, the biggest difference you'll be able to see, so if you ultimately have to translate pi into a numerical value, you leave it to the final step. The information contained in "pi" is not 3 or 3.1 or 3.14, it is unknown to us, we pass it from here to there as a secret, a concept, to open it when the engineer asks for numbers, because that's the answer he is looking for, a distance, a number. And that is going to be different than the answer you'll give to the astronomer who wants more decimal places or to the school teacher who doesn't want you to reveal the secret of "pi".

Mathematics has all the characteristics of a language. Just like we say "I love you so much" to present our priorities, I am able to say "I have two cars" and you'd visualize something similar to what it really is. They are all forms of abstractions that we use to communicate and they are the instruments that we use to understand our world and they have different intentions, they take different routes and they can all be discussed. So a religious symbol, a mathematic scientific answer and a word might be different in nature, but are all part of the same realm of language.

[Anonymous No.2394931]

>Nietzsche
>Hemingway
>Stirner

[Anonymous No.2394939]

>Most intelligent person who ever lived
Marcus Aurelius
>Most intelligent person you'd have as a bro for life
Albert Camus or Mozart
>Most intelligent person you'd never hang out with
Wittgenstein seems like a mopey tight ass but smart nonetheless

[Anonymous No.2395371]

>>2394931
Nietzche was an awesome dude. And he did manage the first break with 4000 years of philosophical tradition (all philosophy is footnotes on Plato, except Nietzche). But I would neither bro with him (he was depressing and unhappy) nor would I claim he's the smartest man by any stretch. I mean, I independently derived a lot of his conclusions before I even got to college. The finer points would have been lost on me, sure, but he isn't *that* profound.

[Anonymous No.2395380]

>>2395371
>I independently derived a lot of his conclusions before I even got to college

Well aren't you a precious little flower.

[Anonymous No.2395381]

>>2395371
>all philosophy is a footnote to plato except Nietzsche
Nietzsche's philosophy is a footnote of Sextus Empiricus

[Anonymous No.2395384]

Tesla
Asmiov
Bloom

[Anonymous No.2395386]

>Goethe or Da Vinci
>James Joyce
>Ayn Rand (is she classed as intelligent?)

[Anonymous No.2395394]

>>2394074
Philosophy is merely a product of our abstract thinking, i.e. applied psychology.

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.2395414]

>>2395384
>Bloom
>Most intelligent person you'd never hang out with

>not wanting to find out if the story about his wandering hands is true
>on /lit/
get out

[Anonymous No.2395427]

>>2395394
Speaking as a philosopher, that's not terribly inaccurate. But at the same time psychology today benefits tremendously from analytic philosophy. All sciences require properly constructed analytic paradigms in order to become quantitative (read: hard) sciences. Psychology also encounters the special problem of self-referential dilemmas- which is still an unsolved problem in philosophical logic and epistemology.

[Anonymous No.2395438]

1. Arthur Schopenhauer
2. Noam Chomsky
3. Sigmund Freud

[Anonymous No.2395439]

>>2393841
Beckett
Beckett
and weirdly, Beckett.

[Anonymous No.2395444]

>>2395427
>>2395394
Psychology is just applied biology which is just applied chemistry which is just applied physics which is just applied mathematics which is just applied logic which is just applied philosophy which is just applied psychology, all fields are interconnected, great fucking news Sherlock.

[Anonymous No.2395449]

what myth?

[Anonymous No.2395451]

>>2395414
Seeing that Bloom is currently a roaming zombie busy raping Jewish Crit Lit female students after his recent encounter with Stephen King and J.K. Rowling, I wouldn't hang out with him. I still like my brain.

[Anonymous No.2395453]

>>2395449
meant for
>>2395414

[Anonymous No.2395460]

1. Tesla
2. Tesla
3. Edison

Robert Oppenheimer would be a cool bro to have too ;_;

[Anonymous No.2395488]

>>2395451
wat

[Anonymous No.2395502]

>>2395451
Awww shit son. I wrote that Choose Your Adventure thread and am honoured that you consider it canon.

[The Importance of Being On Time and Being !dAqyKvNZuA No.2395509]

>>2395502
Keep it up, formerOP. That thread was all kinds of good.

>>2395488
Perhaps when you're older.