Humanity's Greatest Minds

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 186 comments
  • 13,549 views
Legally? It's a thing. Morally? It shouldn't be. The "hate" bit is completely superfluous and discriminatory.

Oh, and.....

You'd be counting the targeted murder of a Muslim as less wrong compared to the targeted murder of a black person? I'd assume so, given your choice/non-choice rationale. Me? I'd count all innocent people as equal - something both of you seem unwilling to do.

The distinction you make is often not that of people who agree hatecrimes should be a legal thing.

I don't think the murder of one person is more or less bad then of an other.
But most of us live in a country where intent matters to how bad your punishment will be. We d9n't punish people killing someone in a car accident as bad 1s first degree murder.

So important I don't think any crime performed by a person belonging to a majority on a person from a minority should be instantly classified as a hate crime. But when the reason behind that crime is hatred for the minority group it's a crime made out of hate for that group. So why shouldn't that be part of the sentencing process?

Isn't especially vile to commit a crime towards someone just because they belong to a certain group they haven't even chosen to je part of?

So shouldn't be punished more for comitting a crime towards a minority person, he's punished more because he commited a crime towards a minority person for being in that minority. It's not the crime but the intention behind it.
 
If discrimination (based on anything) is wrong (which I agree with) then wouldn't that make the murder/eradication of said group based on any reason (postal worker, race, religion), worse than just random murder?

No, because every murder is discrimination of some kind.

220px-Charles_Babbage_by_Antoine_Claudet_c1847-51-crop.jpg


Charles Babbage

Babbage invented the computer (a device for performing mathematical calculations) in 1832, and went on to design a more complex version of the computer (including a CPU, memory, input device and output device). His more complex design was not possible to implement at the time, but was later created from his specifications in 1991. The creation of a computation machine irreversibly changed the course of human history and was a key step on the exponential curve of human development of knowledge in practically all areas.
 
The distinction you make is often not that of people who agree hatecrimes should be a legal thing.

I don't think the murder of one person is more or less bad then of an other.
But most of us live in a country where intent matters to how bad your punishment will be. We d9n't punish people killing someone in a car accident as bad 1s first degree murder.

So important I don't think any crime performed by a person belonging to a majority on a person from a minority should be instantly classified as a hate crime. But when the reason behind that crime is hatred for the minority group it's a crime made out of hate for that group. So why shouldn't that be part of the sentencing process?

Isn't especially vile to commit a crime towards someone just because they belong to a certain group they haven't even chosen to je part of?

So shouldn't be punished more for comitting a crime towards a minority person, he's punished more because he commited a crime towards a minority person for being in that minority. It's not the crime but the intention behind it.
Is it (the bolded part)? That's the question. Is it especially vile if I kill you because you're a Muslim or a Jew rather than because I don't like how you park you crappy wrecked cars in your driveway beside mine? If both cases are intentional and with malice why is one worse than the other?
 
No, because every murder is discrimination of some kind.

220px-Charles_Babbage_by_Antoine_Claudet_c1847-51-crop.jpg


Charles Babbage

Babbage invented the computer (a device for performing mathematical calculations) in 1832, and went on to design a more complex version of the computer (including a CPU, memory, input device and output device). His more complex design was not possible to implement at the time, but was later created from his specifications in 1991. The creation of a computation machine irreversibly changed the course of human history and was a key step on the exponential curve of human development of knowledge in practically all areas.

I know the definition of computer varied overtime, but I was also under the impression the Antikythera device was considered the first computer? As for the first computer to perform math calculations, didn't that come from Blaise Pascal?
 
No, because every murder is discrimination of some kind.
I’m not sure this is true. If that was true couldn’t you then charge not only murder but also hate-crime charges too?
Also the Wikipedia definition seems to define discrimination as relating to a group of people. If you where murdered because you where an individual person (someone just didn’t like you personally), how would that be deemed discrimination?

220px-Charles_Babbage_by_Antoine_Claudet_c1847-51-crop.jpg


Charles Babbage

Babbage invented the computer (a device for performing mathematical calculations) in 1832, and went on to design a more complex version of the computer (including a CPU, memory, input device and output device). His more complex design was not possible to implement at the time, but was later created from his specifications in 1991. The creation of a computation machine irreversibly changed the course of human history and was a key step on the exponential curve of human development of knowledge in practically all areas.

This is a good shout tho
 
I know the definition of computer varied overtime, but I was also under the impression the Antikythera device was considered the first computer? As for the first computer to perform math calculations, didn't that come from Blaise Pascal?

I suppose it depends where you draw the line between calculation and computation; I'm sure there's a specific meaning for each.

But Babbage's difference engine is a wonderful thing. The fact that it worked perfectly when built in 1991 is testament to that fact, yet Babbage died a pauper and a laughing stock; only four people attended his funeral including the corpse.
 
Is it (the bolded part)? That's the question. Is it especially vile if I kill you because you're a Muslim or a Jew rather than because I don't like how you park you crappy wrecked cars in your driveway beside mine? If both cases are intentional and with malice why is one worse than the other?
On the basis of a single instance, one may or may not be worse than the other, but genocide isn't defined by a single instance. With genocide, it's the execution of mass murder in an effort to "cleanse" because of what the targets of these efforts are rather than what they did. It's this intent that makes genocide worse than mass murder, and the whole greater (worse) than the sum of every individual instance.

I might have momentarily misconstrued 'thinking' with 'drinking', but I'm still not certain :lol:
"My fault, my failure, is not in the passions I have, but in my lack of control of them."
 
I know the definition of computer varied overtime, but I was also under the impression the Antikythera device was considered the first computer? As for the first computer to perform math calculations, didn't that come from Blaise Pascal?

I think that the difference between Pascal's calculator and Babbage's difference engine was the degree of autonomy. My understanding is that Pascal's is more like a abacus with an atomatic ten's digit carryover. For the Antikythera device I think the distinction is analog vs. digital.

On the basis of a single instance, one may or may not be worse than the other, but genocide isn't defined by a single instance. With genocide, it's the execution of mass murder in an effort to "cleanse" because of what the targets of these efforts are rather than what they did.

In all cases, what they are is someone the murderer wanted to murder, and what they did was exist in that state. What they are is a postal worker, what they did was become a postal worker. What they are is white, what they did is continue to live as a white person.

Whatever your reason for killing an innocent person, you're wrong. The wikipedia definition of genocide includes things people did (such as belonging to a religious group). Killing people because they are ethnically jewish (how they were born) and killing them because they are religiously jewish (something they choose) is not distinguished between on wikipedia, both can be genocide. I see that you're trying to draw a line between the two, but I don't see why it matters - both hypothetical criminals are horrible and dangerous. It seems like an impossible splitting of hairs to distinguish between them.
 
Last edited:
On the basis of a single instance, one may or may not be worse than the other, but genocide isn't defined by a single instance. With genocide, it's the execution of mass murder in an effort to "cleanse" because of what the targets of these efforts are rather than what they did. It's this intent that makes genocide worse than mass murder, and the whole greater (worse) than the sum of every individual instance.


"My fault, my failure, is not in the passions I have, but in my lack of control of them."
You're simply saying it's true. Why is it true?
 
"Existence as action."

n725075089_288918_2774.jpg

I'm not sure why you want to discuss that... but since you do...

You always have the option to kill yourself. Or the option to go live somewhere else. Or the option to cover or disfigure yourself. Ultimately, at the most fundamental level, living is a choice.
 
I'm not sure why you want to discuss that... but since you do...

You always have the option to kill yourself. Or the option to go live somewhere else. Or the option to cover or disfigure yourself. Ultimately, at the most fundamental level, living is a choice.
Best defense for murder ever: "I killed them because they didn't kill themselves."
 
I'd like to unpack one from my original list - Le Corbusier. It's hard to really overstate the influence he (and some of his contemporaries) had on the physical space of the world today.

corbusier_585x350_400240a.jpg


Le-Corbusier-Do-mino-diagram_dezeen_2.jpg


Below is selections from this rather good article from the independent

Le Corbusier was, among other things, the apostle of concrete, the artist of high-rise. To his critics, he is the father, or grandfather, of a million charmless tower blocks, sink estates, shopping centres and multi-storey car parks. One architectural writer has even suggested that Le Corbusier - real name Charles Êdouard Jeanneret Gris - was "evil".

To his admirers, the Franco-Swiss architect is a traduced genius, a man whose ideas might have offered - and might still offer - a vision of civilised urban living for poor and rich alike.

snip

Le Corbusier spoke of his building as "machines for living": His critics have stressed the word "machine"; Le Corbusier stressed the "living". He saw his approach as a way of using the "machine" - modern materials and engineering techniques - to free ordinary people from the airless, light-deficient, cramped, damp slums of the 19th century.

He seized on the idea of the tower block as a way of providing, at reasonable expense, spacious, peaceful, light-filled homes for the masses. By building upwards, space would be liberated to surround such buildings with gardens and sports and cultural facilities.

Le Corbusier's idea was that such districts should be built within or alongside the historic centres of existing cities. Many of the normal amenities of the street - shops, schools, restaurants, cafés, social centres - would be incorporated into streets within the tower blocks themselves.

snip

Le Corbusier's more subtle critics accept that he had a "humanist" vision of the city of the future, but they suggest that he was too abstract and too sweeping in his rejection of the past. One of his pet schemes - never taken seriously, like many of his plans - was to knock down much of the right bank of Paris and replace it with gardens and freeways surrounding neat rows of "unités d'habitation".

Le Corbusier was guilty, say his critics, of a form of architectural totalitarianism. His humanist vision, like other would-be humanist visions of the 20th century, became inhuman. It tried to impose too uniform and clean a mould on the complexity and irregularity of human nature.

And overview highlights from the art story

-Le Corbusier was and remains a highly polemical figure in the history of modern architecture. Widely praised as a visionary whose imaginative plans for urban agglomerations and spaces dramatically transformed our understanding of what a city should be and could look like, he is equally reviled for the soulless monotony that his strand of modernism encouraged and the wanton destruction of the urban fabric that he both championed and prompted among his followers in urban planning during the latter half of the 20th century.

-Le Corbusier is one of the major originators of the International Style, along with such contemporaries as Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Walter Gropius, with whom he once worked, among many others. His work was featured especially prominently in the landmark exhibition in 1932 at the Museum of Modern Art in New York - and subsequent book - that gave the movement its name.

-Le Corbusier's role in the birth of modern architecture is magnified because of his ability to elucidate and disseminate his principles succinctly and forcefully. His Five Points of a New Architecture, which form the backbone of his architectural thought of the 1920s, constitute some of the most direct set of ideas in architectural theory, which he successfully demonstrated in his numerous contemporaneous villas of the interwar period.

-Le Corbusier's early writings and buildings glorified modernism and modernity as the key to bringing society out of the cataclysm of World War I at the beginning of the 1920s, a time when many others shrank from the embrace of modern life. Indeed, his architecture and faith in technological progress and heavy industry helped create what many architectural historians would later call "the machine age."

-Le Corbusier's political and ideological positions remain fraught with complexities and controversy - at times he could be labeled a capitalist, a communist, or a Fascist - and his copious inspirations and voluminous records and archival materials provide critics and scholars with a seemingly endless array of possible interpretations.
 
Isn't especially vile to commit a crime towards someone just because they belong to a certain group they haven't even chosen to je part of?
What is it that makes the choice, or the lack of choice when it comes to who you are important? Say we could choose our ethnicity (and in a way with genetic advancements on the horizon, something like this may not be unrealistic in the future). Would that make targeting people because of their skin color/genes less bad?
 
Lionardo di ser Piero

davincileonardobio.jpg


Also known as Leonardo da Vinci. He didn't have a surname in the more modern sense; in the 15th century patronyms were used and his name means "Lionardo, son of Piero". da Vinci is a locative demonym which just means "from Vinci", i.e. Leonardo from the town of Vinci.


Painter
Drawer
Mathematician
Physicist
Biologist
Inventor
Writer
Cartographer
Astronomer
Sculpter
Architect
Palaeontologist

Quite possibly the definition of a "renaissance man"; a polymath skilled in an exceptional number of disciplines. One story goes that as a young man, Lionardo was working on a fresco for one of the great painters of the age. The master painter took one look at Lionardo's work and is said to have broken his own paint brushes and never painted again, such was his astonishment at the young Lionardo's talent.

Unquestionably one of the greatest minds in the history of humanity. His limitless curiosity and scholarly approach left behinds a body of work which includes Vitruvian Man, The Last Supper, Mona Lisa, The Virgin & Child With St Anne, numerous detailed maps of Italian cities, several works and sketches on human anatomy and more.

Whilst most of his "inventions" simply would not have worked, he did anticipate the technology behind things such as concentrated solar energy, adding machines and double-hulled ships.

He also looks remarkably like Sha-Ka-Ri from Star Trek V.
 
Last edited:
Galileo (1564 – 1642)

"The father of modern physics - indeed of modern science" -- Albert Einstein

galileo-galilean-satellites.jpg


Galileo Galilei – most people simply call him Galileo – was one of the most significant people in the history of science. He lived at a crucial crossroads in time, when different strands of thought met and clashed. These were:
  • natural philosophy based on Aristotle’s incorrect ideas.
  • the beliefs of the Catholic Church.
  • evidence-based scientific research.
In the end, the ideas of Galileo and other scientists triumphed, because they were able to prove them to be true.

Although his ideas triumphed, Galileo paid a high price for his science: he spent the last eight years of his life under house arrest, and the Catholic Church banned the publication of anything written by him.

Galileo:
  • Was the first person to study the sky with a telescope.
  • Became a skilled telescope builder and made money selling them to merchants in Venice who were eager to see which ships were arriving as soon as possible in an effort to make money on the ‘futures’ market.
  • Discovered the first moons ever known to orbit a planet other than Earth. Jupiter’s four largest moons, which he discovered: Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto, are together known as the Galilean Satellites in his honor.
  • Discovered that Venus has phases like the moon, ranging from a thin crescent to full. This was the first practical, observational evidence that the sun sits at the center of the solar system.
  • Discovered the rings of Saturn, although he found their appearance very confusing.
  • Discovered our moon has mountains.
  • Discovered that the Milky Way is made up of stars.
  • Was the first person ever to see the planet Neptune. We know this from drawings in his notebook. He observed that it was moving, unlike the other stars. In Galileo’s time the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn had been known of for thousands of years, and no others were contemplated. Unfortunately, Galileo lost track of the moving star he had found. Neptune was not discovered until 1846.
  • Established that, if there is no air resistance, everything falls to the ground at the same rate regardless of its weight. Gravity accelerates all objects equally, whatever their mass.
  • Established that when gravity accelerates any object, the object accelerates at a constant rate so that the distance fallen is proportional to the time squared. For example, a ball falling for one second would travel a distance of one unit; a ball falling for two seconds would travel a distance of four units; a ball falling for three seconds would travel a distance of nine units, etc. It is probably a myth that he discovered this by dropping cannon balls from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. He used balls rolling down wooden ramps for most of his investigations of gravity and acceleration.
  • Identified that anything thrown or fired on Earth, such as a rock or a cannonball, flies along a curved path and that the shape of the curve is a parabola.
  • Stated the principle of inertia: a body moving on a level surface will continue in the same direction at a constant speed unless disturbed. This later became Newton’s First Law of Motion.
  • Proposed the first theory of relativity: that the laws of physics are the same for all observers moving in a straight line at constant speed.
  • Discovered that for pendulums, their period of oscillation squared is directly proportional to their length and is independent of the mass attached to the string or rod. Galileo realized pendulums could be used to keep time, but never seems to have put this into practice, other than showing his son a design for a clock. Clocks had not been invented in Galileo’s time and his experiments were conducted using his pulse as the timekeeper, or, better, the weight of water which escaped through a hole in a vessel.
  • Tried to measure the speed of light, but found it was too fast for him to measure.
  • Showed that the set of perfect squares 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100… has as many members in it as the set of whole numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 9, 10… even though, at first sight, the set of whole numbers appears to contain more members. This demonstration became known as Galileo’s Paradox. The basis of Galileo’s proof is that there must be as many whole numbers squared as there are whole numbers, because every whole number can be squared – so every whole number can be paired up with its square.
 
Love the thread, not so much the off topic :)

I'll point out 4 geniuses I admire in this post. I'll share some others later on.


1. Giordano Bruno.

What I admire in him is his willingness to defend his ideas (much more interesting than those that ruled the society he was a part of) until death.

His idea of a much larger universe, with galaxies and planets and suns was an heretical idea at the time and, even though he was a theist and part of the clergy, he didn't have a closed mind. A man ahead of his time.


2. Sipress, the cartoonist.

I won't say a lot because I think you'll understand why I love his mind. Just goole his cartoons to have a laugh. :)

I love his line too, especially the funny expressions he can create with a very rough and almost childish style of drawing.


3. Caravaggio

Mostly for his skill. He painted directly on canvas without any previous sketch as everyone else used to do. The light / shadow work is absurdly great. The fact he put himself as a character in all his paintings is also pretty peculiar. He was quite a rebel and trouble maker, having killed at least one person.


4. Gian Lorenzo Bernini

The man for whom marble was like wax, as he has said himself. Impressive detail!

He's not was well known as Michaelangelo or Rodin but he was the greatest during his time and, according to many artists and scholars, superior to both of them.

Michaelangelo was a sculptor first and foremost but most people know him because of his paintings in the Sistine Chapel, which is a shame, really.

That's it for now. You'll find way better info about them on google / YouTube. :)
 
29.3_0_1.jpg


Albert Einstein

Newton being one of the most amazing thinkers in human history, it would take someone equally amazing to "overturn" or improve on his findings. Newton's laws are taught in high school, and are put into practice in early University years in Engineering. By about age 20, there are thousands upon thousands of people who have a really deep understanding of Newton's laws and with the aid of computers put it into practice in ways that Newton himself thought was beyond possibility. When I speak with physicists who have had strong graduate work in relativity and spacetime, the tell me things like "when I think I understand relativity, I usually realize I don't". Neil DeGrasse Tyson likes to describe Quantum Mechanics as something that human beings find to be something like magic, because it's not the world we live in. If we grew up, and our brains developed, in a microscopic world, Quantum Mechanics would be intuitive, he postulates, and the world of F=ma would be magic. Well Einstein's world, a relativistic world, while maybe not being quite as magical or far flung as Quantum Mechanics, is also not the world we live in. It's similarly difficult for people to wrap their brains around. Yet he did, and it's a good thing too, because spacecraft just do not work without taking into account relativity. Einstein's relativity linked Newton and Maxwell's work together.

Einstein's concepts of relativity, spacetime, and gravity waves unlocked the cosmos in a new way and vastly improved our understanding of the nature of the universe. Likewise Einstein helped to unlock the atom by providing evidence for the existence of atoms, solidifying atomic theory. In the process of explaining atoms he developed a way to determine their size, leading to Avogadro's number. He developed the particle theory of light. He developed the famous E=mc^2, which enabled nuclear reactors (and nuclear physics) and black hole theory (and understanding of light in general). And he helped to shape Quantum Mechanics (through skepticism).

The absolute range... from space time to the atom... of his accomplishments means that there is very little in science that his work didn't influence. In an almost unrivaled way, Einstein gave nearly all of science an enormous shove.
 
Einstein and a few other white European males brought you the atomic bomb. Great minds, yes. But in the long run, great fools.
 
Einstein and a few other white European males brought you the atomic bomb. Great minds, yes. But in the long run, great fools.

Every natural discovery has the potential to bring with it an effective weapon. How humanity uses technology is separable from the discovery of that technology. The mistake you're making here is to confer responsibility for the actions of others (those who might use a weapon) on the person who invented it. The people responsible for developing the first gun, or bow and arrow, are not responsible for its every use any more than you are - and there is no way to link them in a way which does not also link countless other individuals. Perhaps you think Einstein is responsible for some future atomic disaster, but Einstein could not have done it without Newton, or Galileo, or Maxwell - basically the entire body of human knowledge at the time, and everyone who has touched it, enables every discovery.
 
I know it seems frivolous to nominate a musician in amongst all these polymaths and renaissance men so this is obviously a biased recommendation on my part which may be accepted or disregarded as necessary. However for me without Tatum I feel the music of Charlie Parker, Ray Charles and even Stevie Wonder would be different to what we know today.

Art Tatum (1909-1956)

upload_2018-6-29_16-41-30.png


Arthur Tatum Jr. was born on October 13, 1909, in Toledo, Ohio. Despite being legally blind—he had only partial sight in one eye—Tatum learned to read sheet music via the Braille method and memorized piano rolls and phonograph recordings. He received some classical training at the Toledo School of Music, but otherwise was mostly self-taught as a pianist.

Influenced by jazz innovator Fats Waller and the stride sound, Tatum began making a name for himself on the local music scene as a teenager. By 19, he was playing with vocalist Jon Hendricks at Toledo's Waiters & Bellman's Club, where jazz heavyweights Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington and Count Basie first took note of the skilled young pianist.

Tatum arrived in New York City in 1932 as the accompanist for vocalist Adelaide Hall. There, he made his first recordings for the Brunswick label, including his first of his famed interpretations of "Tea for Two."



Tatum played in Cleveland and Chicago in the mid-1930s, but his return to New York in 1937, which led to high-profile club and radio appearances, made him a full-fledged star. The following year, he introduced his act to an international audience with a tour of England.

Tatum became known for his rapturous reworking of pop standards like "Begin the Beguine" and "Stormy Weather," as well as his improvisational ability and delicate, multi-layered arrangements. Some critics dismissed his style for being overly ornate, but his peers were overwhelmed by the magnitude of his talents. The great Waller once stepped aside to let Tatum take over the piano at a club, noting, "I only play the piano, but tonight God is in the house." Earl Hines, another legend idolized by Tatum, reportedly refused to share a stage with him out of fear of being eclipsed.

After years of primarily performing as a soloist, Tatum formed a trio with Tiny Grimes on electric guitar and Slam Stewart on double bass in 1943. He went on to play in a jazz concert at the Metropolitan Opera House the following year, and made a cameo appearance in the film The Fabulous Dorseys in 1947.

Tatum's popularity waned as jazz shifted to the bebop sound in the late 1940s, but he continued to play at clubs throughout the country.

Teaming up with record producer Norman Granz in 1953, Tatum recorded more than 100 solo tracks and several sessions with such musicians as Benny Carter, Roy Eldridge and Ben Webster. However, by that point the revered pianist had begun showing signs of uremia, a kidney disease brought on by his prodigious drinking.

Tatum was just 47 when he died from complications from the disease on November 5, 1956, in Los Angeles, California. Despite his short life, he is considered one of jazz's most important and influential figures, and was honored as such with a posthumous Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 1989.
 
Last edited:
Einstein and a few other white European males brought you the atomic bomb. Great minds, yes. But in the long run, great fools.

Nope. Atomic physics was just another part of the progression of human knowledge. Applying that to make a bomb was a natural extension of that knowledge.

The great fool is the one who thinks that knowledge can be contained. The wise man considers that things will always be known because that is human nature, and that true wisdom is how you use that knowledge.

There have been great advances that have come from nuclear research, and only one of them is the nuclear bomb. They are not separable. You cannot throw away nuclear bombs without also disowning everything else that nuclear science has brought.
 
Richard_Feynman_Nobel.jpg


Richard Feynman


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

Richard Feynman made a number of key contributions to particle physics, quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and mathematics.

But he was also one of the purest examples of a scientist you'll ever see. He was a magnificent teacher, and a extraordinarily clear thinker. His interviews are marvellous to watch, some of his lectures exist (in relatively poor quality) and they're intelligible and comprehensible even to a layman. His work on the Challenger Disaster investigation is a great overview of how the man thought and approached problems (there is a BBC dramatisation which is very good).





In addition to his own works, he also collaborated with and inspired numerous other great thinkers. He was a man without which the world as we know it would be very different. He is relatively unknown compared to the big names like Newton and Einstein, but he's absolutely been profoundly influential.
 
*sigh*

I suppose I'll spend part of my lunch hour expanding on my own submission. After citing a presumed lack of conviction with those list submissions and no response for a defense of certain names on them, my piece on Buckminster Fuller seems lacking to a significant degree compared to these essays.

:rolleyes:

...

...

:P
 
184710-004-587AA143.jpg


Confucius (~500 BCE)

"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others."

The golden rule. Others would put Confucius in this list for a multitude of other accomplishments and the continuation of his influence over Chinese culture today. Confucianism has much to it, and I don't agree with most of it. I'm not even a huge proponent of the golden rule as a rule, it's more like a guideline. But this, as best I can tell, is the first clear annunciation of what would ultimately become human rights, and for that I put it among one of the great accomplishments of humanity. Human rights are borne out of an understanding that what you do to others affects how others might treat you. The fact that everyone reading this knows this moral rule (and might even know exactly how it breaks down) speaks as a testament to just how enduring this particular meme is (and how often it has been borrowed and re-invented). While it might not be perfect, it's the beginnings of understanding that all human beings can be seen as equal, and equality of rights is the cornerstone of modern civilization.

So for that contribution (and pretty much that alone actually) I add Confucius to the list. It's somewhat ironic that I add him to this list for this reason, because he did not believe that people were equal. But he grasped at a concept which eventually unraveled that truth. Even if he believed that some people were superior to others and meant to rule, he still espoused that those people should treat the people they rule based on this concept of reciprocity.

Gandhi is attributed with a quote that I like "be the change you want to see in the world", which was a re-imagining of his actual words: "If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. ... We need not wait to see what others do.” But this notion ultimately comes from Confucius, that you need to personify what you think is right, and it follows from the golden guideline.
 
Last edited:
Richard-Dawkins-Wordpress.jpg


Richard Dawkins

Dawkins introduced to evolutionary biology the concept of the phenotype. And I'm pretty sure that's super important, but I don't completely understand it. What I'm adding him to the list for is his complete view of stability in nature as the fundamental form of natural selection, expanding Darwin's work to a universal view. I foreshadowed this in the post above with the word "meme", which Dawkins invented in his book "The Selfish Gene" in 1976.

Dawkins adapted the understanding that stable forms emerge in nature through a natural selection process to explain genetic replication at a fundamental level. He wasn't the first to invent the concept of natural selection at the level of the "gene", but he perfected the argument and fit it with all of nature. Out of the chaotic messy rocky accretion disk of our solar system formed discrete orbs, some of which we call planets. Planets form because they are more stable than rocky dust. Planetary formation is a form of natural selection. If dust were more stable, every time a planet formed it would ultimately be broken back down into dust. Over time, stability is "selected for" in a competitive process which chooses that which endures over that which does not. In a very real sense, planets are the evolutionary development of a dusty mess.

The same is true at the molecular level, a molecule which replicates itself is more stable in nature than a molecule which does not. Almost by definition, that molecule is selected for. Replicating molecules which have walls to prevent themselves from being broken down are more stable than those that don't. Our DNA has in its coding our bodies and brains to wall it off from being broken down by other molecules, and we are the net result of that process of stability.

The concept of stability can also be introduced into abstract thought (which physically manifests itself in the brain) in the form of memes, which are self-replicating ideas that propagate and collide with one another. Stable memes emerge over time out of chaotic collision of thought much in the same way that planets and human bodies emerge.

This is a broad, unifying view of the universe that expands our understanding of our origins and their relation to the origins of all other forms.
 

Latest Posts

Back