Humanity's Greatest Minds

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 186 comments
  • 13,551 views
220px-Carl_Friedrich_Gauss_1840_by_Jensen.jpg


Ebenezer Scrooge Carl Gauss
~1800

Gauss is the Mathematician's mathematician. If you've gotten very far into math or statistics you've heard of Gauss. Gauss made it his pursuit to shore up mathematical proofs of problems that had plagued the great thinkers of the time. Proofs such as the fundamental theorem of algebra, Fermat's polygonal number theorem for n = 3, Fermat's last theorem for n = 5, Descartes's rule of signs, Kepler's conjecture for regular arrangements. He also invented the Fast Fourier Transform to track Ceres, which was thought to have been invented in 1965! Gauss apparently made it a habit of waiting until he perfected his findings to publish, and according to his wikipedia article this cost mathematics approximately 50 years of development (compared to if he had rushed his findings). He also invented non-euclidean geometries (which he apparently never published because it wasn't perfected), which was later relied upon for the development of the non-euclidean model of the universe postulated by Einstein as relativity.

Gauss has to be the most boring brilliant person I've posted so far. But he made dramatic improvements in many areas through math.
 
Last edited:
Henryii-227x300.jpg


King Henry II
~1150

I realize that I'm out on a limb nominating an English king as one of the greatest minds of humanity in a forum full of Brits. And before mentioning Stephen Hawking! That's crazy talk. I haven't done a ton of research on Henry, and from what I can tell, there are some missing pieces that make it difficult to attribute him with specific details. But here's why I'm listing him...

In 1166 Henry instituted the Assize of Clarendon. A royal proclamation and resulting court which was responsible for overseeing some aspects of law in England. The Assize of Clarendon was the primary court, overseeing the "important" issues. And from it came the foundation of trial by jury (an important even if fundamentally flawed aspect of impartial justice), and from the Assizes in general came much of the basis of English common law, which is still today the basis of much of US law, and many of the laws around the world. But I'm interested in one particular aspect...

Habeas corpus is a legal recourse entitled to any person who considers themselves unlawfully imprisoned. A prisoner can invoke the right of habeus corpus to bring their jailer before a court to verify that the jailer has the authority to hold them. If the jailer does not have the authority, the prisoner must be freed. Habeus corpus is believed to have originated in the Assize of Clarendon under King Henry II (the legislator king), and is the first legal codification I know of that represents a human right.

Habeas corpus isn't necessarily a major win for human rights. If the jailer is within their authority they can hold you, even if you are innocent. And of course slaves must have been considered to have been properly imprisoned (or maybe just weren't considered people), I should look this part up... Ok I looked it up, it appears that Habeas corpus actually played a key role in undermining the institution of slavery, because it was considered such a sacred right that it forced people to question whether slavery should be allowed. As far back as the mid 1700s slavery was being challenged on that basis.

Prior to Habeas corpus, I know of no other legal provision that is considered a right of the people that shall not be infringed by their government, including the king. This particular right was the foot in the door for human rights that followed.

As best I can tell, King Henry II gets the credit for that and many other contributions to British common law, which have shaped the world's legal systems.
 
Henryii-227x300.jpg


King Henry II
~1150

I realize that I'm out on a limb nominating an English king as one of the greatest minds of humanity in a forum full of Brits. And before mentioning Stephen Hawking! That's crazy talk. I haven't done a ton of research on Henry, and from what I can tell, there are some missing pieces that make it difficult to attribute him with specific details. But here's why I'm listing him...

In 1166 Henry instituted the Assize of Clarendon. A royal proclamation and resulting court which was responsible for overseeing some aspects of law in England. The Assize of Clarendon was the primary court, overseeing the "important" issues. And from it came the foundation of trial by jury (an important even if fundamentally flawed aspect of impartial justice), and from the Assizes in general came much of the basis of English common law, which is still today the basis of much of US law, and many of the laws around the world. But I'm interested in one particular aspect...

Habeas corpus is a legal recourse entitled to any person who considers themselves unlawfully imprisoned. A prisoner can invoke the right of habeus corpus to bring their jailer before a court to verify that the jailer has the authority to hold them. If the jailer does not have the authority, the prisoner must be freed. Habeus corpus is believed to have originated in the Assize of Clarendon under King Henry II (the legislator king), and is the first legal codification I know of that represents a human right.

Habeas corpus isn't necessarily a major win for human rights. If the jailer is within their authority they can hold you, even if you are innocent. And of course slaves must have been considered to have been properly imprisoned (or maybe just weren't considered people), I should look this part up... Ok I looked it up, it appears that Habeas corpus actually played a key role in undermining the institution of slavery, because it was considered such a sacred right that it forced people to question whether slavery should be allowed. As far back as the mid 1700s slavery was being challenged on that basis.

Prior to Habeas corpus, I know of no other legal provision that is considered a right of the people that shall not be infringed by their government, including the king. This particular right was the foot in the door for human rights that followed.

As best I can tell, King Henry II gets the credit for that and many other contributions to British common law, which have shaped the world's legal systems.

Interestingly (perhaps) the ideas of habeus corpus go back to mootlaw (practiced in England in the Danelaw) which comes from Nordic traditions - men would be judged by their peers at a moot gathering. It was Henry II who wrote it into new law not long after the Norse men (this time in the shape of the Frankish Nor'men under William the Conqueror) had been thoroughly assimilated into English society.

I don't know if I'd present Henry II as the greatest mind on the basis of this although he undoubtedly wrote into law one of the things that we consider most fundamental to legal rights.
 
Interestingly (perhaps) the ideas of habeus corpus go back to mootlaw (practiced in England in the Danelaw) which comes from Nordic traditions - men would be judged by their peers at a moot gathering.

Habeus corpus is a legal remedy against unlawful imprisonment. Trial by jury is a separate thing to come out of Clarendon (and maybe has roots that go further). I couldn't find a citation for habeas corpus in connection with Danelaw or mootlaw. But I did find a reference that talks about Danelaw and habeas corpus and gives credit to King Henry II (page 36).

But I don't know my ancient european history all that well.
 
Habeus corpus is a legal remedy against unlawful imprisonment. Trial by jury is a separate thing to come out of Clarendon (and maybe has roots that go further). I couldn't find a citation for habeas corpus in connection with Danelaw or mootlaw. But I did find a reference that talks about Danelaw and habeas corpus and gives credit to King Henry II (page 36).

But I don't know my ancient european history all that well.

Henry II definitely takes the credit. I should have added that the Jarl (Earl) presides over the jury as judge during the þing, the judge being (as you were quite right to point out) the whole point of habeus corpus. However... while mooting was an "automatic" right it wasn't necessarily one that a person was given, it depended on who they'd wronged. Henry made it a claimable right regardless of any other circumstances and formalised some due process. As altruistic as Henry's actions might seem it was really about putting the power of law in the hand of God's true representative (The King of England) rather than allowing English law to be made by Holy Roman Papal decree. Thomas Beckett, Archbishbod of Cadbury, got his head mashed onto the floor of Canterbury Cathedral for his opposition to those ideas.
 
19557-004-21162361.jpg


John Locke
~late 1600s

Locke is attributed with nothing less than creating libertarianism. He invented the concepts of natural rights, the labor theory of property, and supply and demand. On supply and demand he influenced Adam Smith (whom I listed earlier), the father of capitalism. The labor theory of property, while much debated, is ultimately very difficult to completely deny - that you own the products of your labor. His notion of natural rights put a name to the concepts that people had been trying to pin down since the time of the ancient Greek philosophers and even Confucius (mentioned earlier). His work in these areas was apparently extremely influential in the US Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.

Locke was by no means perfect. He got quite a few things wrong, and one of the things that has kept me from listing him farther up was his axiomatic reliance on religion as the underpinning of all of his efforts. "That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights" was a Lockean philosophy and was his explanation of the origins of natural law. He also argued in favor of social contract theory - that the people voluntarily agree (at least to an extent) to let their government handle disputes for them. Of course that's demonstrably false, the moment you have a single person that considers themselves to have been wronged by the government - regardless of whether they are right.

Locke's ideas about natural rights, property, and supply and demand were profound and important. Like Descartes, I would do a better job of overlooking his missteps if they weren't so persistent in society to this day.
 
lecciones-vida-SH.jpg


Stephen Hawking
~2000

It's time for Stephen Hawking. Also my neighbor just died of ALS, so it seemed fitting. Stephen Hawking brought us profound new understandings of black holes, and also the origins of our universe through quantum physics. He was the first to discover that black holes should emit radiation, and slowly evaporate. He was also the first to understand the origins of galaxies from the big bang, coming from small imperfections or fluctuations during the big bang - in doing so he developed the idea that our universe exists because precisely because it is stable (very similar to the work that Richard Dawkins did mentioned earlier). A "natural selection" of universes, if you will. The universes that exist for a long time are those that originate with stable physical constants and just the right amount of imperfection during the big bang. His work on time, black holes, and the big bang deeply furthered our understanding of the nature of our reality and drastically improved our ability to at least address the question of why there is something instead of nothing. Indeed hawking radiation is proof of something from nothing.

I believe it was Neil DeGrasse Tyson who said that nobody has ever understood time like Stephen Hawking.
 
Last edited:
Michael%2BFaraday%2B%2BPhoto.jpg


Michael Faraday
~1800s

It was partially upon Faraday's work that Maxwell laid the foundations of electromagnetism. Faraday discovered and mapped magnetic fields. He also discovered electromagnetic induction, and invented electrolysis. He is also credited with the invention of the electric motor. You've heard of a Faraday cage and possibly Faraday's law.

Special mention to Joseph Henry who independently discovered electromagnetic induction one year after Faraday and was 2nd to publish. Joseph Henry's name is the SI unit of inductance, "the henry".
 
@Danoff Your selection of Faraday reminded me that he's on one of my favourite Bank of England banknotes and this itself led me on to something interesting and worth posting.

Unlike the banknotes of the United States dollar for example, the banknotes of the pound sterling issues by the Bank of England rarely feature politicians. Churchill was introduced to the £5 a few years ago in extremely controversial circumstances. Apart from the monarch, of course, but even that only began in 1963. Before 1963 no persons were featured on British banknotes.

But beginning with the 1971 Series D issues, the notes featured prominent figures mainly in the fields of science, engineering and the arts, some of whom might qualify for this thread. It's a nice way to commemorate these figures. Here's a selection:

Isaac Newton, Series D £1 (1971-1984)

Astronomer, physicist, chemist, mathematician, geometrist, Master of the Royal Mint. It goes without saying that his achievements are some of the greatest but his tenure at the Royal Mint actually saved English coinage. He completely reformed the silver and gold standards in use at a time when England was heavily in debt and vehemently persecuted and prosecuted coin counterfeiters, a crime which was punishable by death as a form of treason. It was a token sinecure he actually took very seriously.

X7cfYvO.jpg


William Shakespeare, Series D £20 (1971-1993)

One of the most celebrated playwrights of English literature.

gxaixfH.jpg


George Stephenson, Series E £5 (1990-2003)

Stephenson was not the inventor of the train, that accolade goes to Richard Trevithick, but he was an extremely successful engineer and did build the first railway locomotive that was used on a public railway, Locomotion, as well as the first railway locomotive that was used on a fare-paying inter-city railway, Rocket.

He also designed the first railway carriage (boxcar or coach) as well as the first skew bridge.

787smoM.jpg


Michael Faraday, Series E £20 (1991-2001)

Already covered by Danoff.

W7IsCEp.jpg


Charles Darwin, Series E £10 (1999-2010)

Botanist, zoölogist, author of On The Origin Of Species. One of the most famous Englishmen of all time.

24908639069_8394c6c81a_o.jpg


Adam Smith, Series F £20 (2008-present)

An economist and author whose magnum opus work The Wealth Of Nations heavily influenced not only the industrial revolution but laid the foundations for free market economics and is the inspiration for numerous economists today.

20-specimen-back.jpg
 
Last edited:
1385473905_george-mason.jpg


George Mason
late 1700s

It has taken me some time to make this post, mostly because I have had to re-educate myself on the topic. I felt that at this point in the thread I needed to identify the mind most responsible for the great accomplishment of the US Constitution. I considered the Magna Carta instead, but I think that the US Bill of Rights is more radical and has had a greater impact on history.

My first thought was Thomas Jefferson, as I know from grade school that he was instrumental in the formation and evolution of the US government. His was a great mind but his life was so rife with contradictions that I began to look elsewhere. James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights - so clearly he would get the honors. But unfortunately Madison did so over an initial protest, he didn't think it was necessary and drafted it to assuage political concerns. He felt that it was so obvious that the new government lacked powers beyond those expressly prescribed that writing it in the Bill of Rights was redundant! Thomas Paine was a great writer of the time and wrote about natural rights and freedom from religion. His"age of reason" was a scathing takedown of all Abrahamic religions, and he was an outspoken abolitionist. But he was not responsible for the Constitution.

It turns out that James Madison borrowed much from the Virgina Declaration of Rights, which he had a small hand in writing but which was written primarily by George Mason.

The Virgina Declaration of Rights borrowed some from Locke (mentioned earlier in this thread) and the English Bill of Rights. But it contained some revolutionary elements. That governments derive power from the people, and should be of the people, and protect the people. It broke with the English Bill of Rights in that it demolished hereditary inheritence of power over others, espousing equality. It also called upon rights for all, rather than rights within parliament.

The Virgina Declaration of Rights contained much of what is in the US Bill of Rights today. The first and second amendment, and many others as well. Separation of powers, separation of church and state, unreasonable search and seizure, self incrimination, cruel and unusual punishment (that bit is taken from the English Bill of Rights), due process, it's all outlined there.

It represents the first ever codification of freedom of the press.

To the extent that the Virgina Bill of Rights borrowed from English law, it made radical and crucial changes. For example the freedom of speech within parliament probably inspired the right of freedom of speech to all. But what a difference it makes, and what a fantastic step to take!

For this, more than James Madison, more than Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, or Thomas Jefferson, I credit George Mason.

Footnote: Mason was staunchly anti-slavery, writing about the the horrible institution on several occasions and making it clear that it had no place in the civilized world. He also remained a slave owner until he died. So pretty much he pulled a Jefferson.
 
jimi-hendrix-getty-hero.jpg

Jimi Hendrix

There are just some names in the history of music that always pop up, and Hendrix is one of those. There was nothing like Hendrix before him. Sure there were blues players who improvised and explored. I've listened to their music for days - B.B. King, Eric Clapton, Buddy Guy, Muddy Waters. It's nothing like Hendrix. Sure we had rock and roll before him. I've listened to it for days - Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles. It's nothing like Hendrix. There were musical gods that came before him, crafting every chord you could imagine, Beethoven, Chopin, Debussy, Gershwin, Rachmaninoff. I've immersed myself in those too. I'm sure we all have. Hendrix is something else. Hendrix could just... exist... in the song. I don't know how else to describe it. He could just go away within the song, like he does in his famous National Anthem rendition at Woodstock... he just goes somewhere else for a while... and you follow him there and it's, well it's an experience. It's like he picks his head up and looks around in another dimension, and you get to go along.

He died at 27. His recordings started in 1964, 6 short years before he died. 6 years, in which he destroyed countless preconceptions about music. 6 years! It boggles the mind.

I can't do him justice, so I'll let some legends of the industry do it:

https://www.thecurrent.org/feature/2017/02/06/jimi-hendrix-in-through-the-eyes-of-the-worlds-best-guitarists
Kirk Hammett (Metallica): "His music was so visual. When he played a song and wanted sea-gull sounds in it, he would get those sounds. If he wanted his guitar to sound like it was underwater, he could do that. And in the live 'Machine Gun' from Band of Gypsys, he goes into that whole thing where he's mimicking the bombers coming in, dropping bombs, the voices crying out. Hendrix had a way of saying something political without speaking outside his own musical language. He said it in sonic terms. And his guitar tone is something he completely invented. There is no one who sounded like him, before or after. He invented the Church of Tone. He had monster tone, monster technique, monster songs. And soul to spare."

John Mayer: "When I listen to Hendrix, I just hear a man, and that's when it's most beautiful — when you remember that another human being was capable of what he achieved. Who I am as a guitarist is defined by my failure to become Jimi Hendrix. However far you stop on your climb to be like him, that's who you are."

Bob Dylan on Hendrix's take on "All Along the Watchtower": "It overwhelmed me, really. He had such talent, he could find things inside a song and vigorously develop them. He found things that other people wouldn't think of finding in there. He probably improved upon it by the spaces he was using. I took license with the song from his version, actually, and continue to do it to this day."

The narrator in this video has a voice that's tough to listen to, and he says iconic too much, but he does a very thorough and technical deconstruction of Hendrix which is sometimes insightful and sometimes less.




Edit:

For myself I have to admit that Hendrix is not my favorite musician. I love some of his music, and hate some of it, but it was all pure innovation.
 
Last edited:
thomaspaine.jpg


Thomas Paine
late 1700s

Thomas Paine was a very influential writer during the period leading up to the American revolutionary war and immediately after. He was one of the great voices for abolitionism of slavery (and spoke out to Jefferson against allowing slavery in new territories), and an advocate for human rights and a freedom from monarchistic rule. He was wildly critical of the English monarchy, and encouraged revolution to create a government of and by the people. His work was seen as pivotal to the creation of the United States as an independent country. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that without Paine's "Common Sense", the American Revolution would not have happened.

Beyond those items though, and I think one of the main reasons for listing him here, is that he was an early outspoken critic of religion. "The Age of Reason" is a brilliant and thorough takedown of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam - to such a degree that it's amazing that those religions still exist so long after their flaws were pointed out so publicly and thoroughly. His work against organized religion is some of the earliest advocacy against the Abrahamic religions that I can find (although I'm sure there was some when they were competing with the religions that predated them). Paine was not an atheist though, he was a Deist. He believed in a creator, and he even believed to know the creator's mind - that the creator speaks to us not through some clunky human language that can be misinterpreted, mistranslated, or denied outright to the masses, but through that language of nature, which is available to all to understand as they wish. He strongly believed that nature was the language of god. In that sense, he was more in line with some of the more modern physicists that describe learning about the cosmos as learning the mind of god. Paine's Deism may not be particularly off-putting to a modern Atheist.

I'll include the words of John Adams in 1805 here:
I know not whether any man in the world has had more influence on its inhabitants or affairs for the past 30 years than Thomas Paine … Call it then the Age of Paine.

Edit:

Also, major Kudos to him for have an absolutely metal last name.
 
I love seeing Michael Faraday’s name in here. I wouldn’t call him a childhood hero of mine, but my grandfather gave me his biography when I was like 12 or 13, and I ended up writing an essay on him in junior high.

He grew up very poor, the son of a thatcher. His father wanted better for him, so he apprenticed him to a book binder at age 14. That’s where Michael learned to read, and would stay up to the wee hours of the morning reading anything and everything he could get his hands on.

He actually started out as a chemist, studying under Humphrey Davy (iirc the man who discovered chlorine, amongst other elements). When Davy went on his first European tour, Faraday went along as both valet and assistant. Davy’s wife insisted that Michael not ride in the coach, eat with the servants, etc, because he was not from a high class family. Faraday later discovered Benzene. If I remember his biography correctly, it was the combination of a childhood fascination with electricity, combined with his work in chemistry, that sort of naturally led him to work on electromagnetism. Using various elements to make batteries, studying the transfer of electrons from one element to another, etc.

In regards to inventing the electric motor, he actually invented the electric generator first. He basically made a copper coil, and then would insert and remove a magnet from the coil, with a homemade volt meter hooked up to the coil. Once he made that discovery, that mechanical energy could be converted into electrical energy via magnetism, he worked backwards to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy. He applied his knowledge of chemistry to make homade batteries (I think technically, they weren’t even batteries, but a predecessor to batteries. He was stacking copper and led plates, with cloth soaked in something, I forget exactly what, in between each of the plates). Once he had his power supply, the actual “motor” was a copper pot, filled with liquid mercury. and then a cork attatched to an arm which pivoted around the center of the pot. Iirc, he placed a strong magnet on the cork, and then hooked up his “battery”, one wire to the pot, one wire to the magnet. His first attempts actually failed, I can’t remember exactly why, or what the eurika final step to get it to work was...but I do remember from the book that when he did get it to work, he went through the roof.

He was extremely disorganized. His lab was a disaster, and his notes were chaotic. He eventually got an assistant/apprentice who would rewrite his notes in a legible way, every single night. He would spend endless hours in his lab, to the point it effected his health, and would often only take a break when his wife would drag him home. I don’t remember this from the biography, but according to Wikipedia, he was actually very under accomplished in mathematics, with simple trigonometry being the extent of his abilities.

I’ll always be greatful to my grandpa for giving me that book :)


In regards to Hendrix, here’s a clip from a Joe Rogan podcast with Eric Weinstein where the get onto the genius of Hendrix, talking about the mathematics of music...even going so far as to say Hendrix may be an alien lol.



To contribute a name to the thread, here’s one I just discovered the other day:

Sam Vaknin

Born April 21 1961 in Kiryat Yam Israel, he was identified as a “gifted child” at age 8, where his IQ was tested and found to be 180, which ranked him in the top ten in the world. He was sent to study at university at age 9, started medical school at age 12. He has too many degrees to list, but along with his MD, he has a doctorate in psychology, was a physics professor, and today, is considered the world’s foremost authority in Narcissism. He has been diagnosed as being a narcissist himself, along with having multiple personality disorder, which he blames mostly on his highly unusual childhood. His diagnosis is what led him to investigate the field.

That’s not all he’s done though. Driven by his narcissism and a desire to upstage Einstein, Vaknin published a paper when he was 21 that basically rewrote all the laws of physics, deriving everything from time, and only time. It’s waaaaay over my head, but interesting none the less.

The other major contribution he’s made is that he is responsible for writing some very key lines of code in the logic sequences that are in the computer chips of every single smart phone, computer, toaster, etc.

The fascinating thing is that he does these things as “hobbies”. He claims that after publishing his physics paper, he got bored of physics, and got interested in computer science. Then he got bored of that, and moved onto the next thing. Furthermore, specific to the computer coding, he gave away his work for free, as purely an academic. The reason he doesn’t brag about his exploits in computer science, or why we don’t hear his name like Musk or Zuckerberg, is that according to him, whenever he mentions “you know, I programmed your phone...I made that work”, the first response he gets is, “how much money did you make off that,” to which he replies, “none,” to which people reply, “idiot, moron, dumbass, etc”. So for him, as a narcissist always seeking recognition, it’s too painful for him to deal with that negative criticism, so he’d just rather not mention it.

He’s not entirely clean though. His Wikipedia entry says that he went to jail for financial crimes, and apparently he can be a real asshole :lol:

Oh ya, he was also one of the founders of Wikipedia.

I randomly came across him while on a YouTube rampage. I found a whole series of interviews with him, I’ve watched most of them, and found them all quite entertaining and informative (huge range of topics covered from physics to politics, mental health, and more). Here’s one of the videos, in this one he’s talking about his physics paper


The rest of this series of interviews is on the interviewer’s channel (the Richard Gannon guy). They’re not organized on his channel, kind of all over the place, but I found them all just by scrolling down through his uploaded videos.

Some of these videos, particularly the discussion about capitalism and feudalism, kind of blew my mind, and made me look at what’s happening in the world today through a completely new lens.

Edit: I added a few more things I remembered about Faraday, and a few things from Wikipedia.
 
Last edited:
0214_douglass-1000x667.jpg


Frederick Douglass
1800s

What amazes me about Frederick Douglass is not necessarily his contribution to human thought, which of course was strongly felt leading up to and during the American Civil War. He did not invent his abolitionist views, they predated him by others who had articulated the position as well as he did. What is truly astonishing about Frederick Douglass was his journey to reach his ultimate state of being an influential, powerful, unique, and highly intellectual and philosophical voice within the United States. To have started as a slave, to have been bought and sold, failing escape from multiple masters... to have never really known his mother...

He learned how to read and write on his own. He started by observing and noting the writings of men at a shipyard indicating where lumber should be put on a boat. He would then trick the white kids of the neighborhood into teaching him to read and write by challenging them to best him at it. Almost unbelievable.

That person, who was taught that he was cattle, whose family was broken (intentionally), who had to trick people into teaching him to read and write, went on to sway the nation with words like this.

Douglass
Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither.

Douglass
One thing which they ought to do, in order to hold their own against this enemy, is to give up cultivating what they call 'race pride', a sentiment too much like that which is 'the lion in the way' of our progress... Do we not know that every argument we make, and every pretension we set up in favor of race pride, is giving the enemy a stick to break our own heads? ... You will, perhaps, think this criticism uncalled for. My answer is that truth is never uncalled for... In some of our colored public journals I have seen myself charged with a lack of race pride. I am not ashamed of that charge. I have no apology or vindication to offer. If fifty years of uncompromising devotion to the cause of the colored man in this country does not vindicate me, I am content to live without vindication. While I have no more reason to be proud of one race than another, I dare to say, and I fear no contradiction, that there is no other man in the United States prouder than myself of any great achievement, mental or mechanical, of which any colored man or woman is the author. This not because I am a colored man, but because I am a man; and because color is a misfortune, and is treated as a crime by the American people.
 
"Turn it on, Salvador
Brutally offensive, but never a bore
Ants in hands, no demands, eyeing out a point of view
Or two
Bang them out, hang them up
Nothing is what it appears

Didn't he say how he likes to make the holes?
Time melts away while he tries to make the holes
Turn it on, Salvador"

(Source)
 
What?! 17 posts in four-and-a-half years--none in nearly two years, by the way--and you're able to not only recall the avatar but the user who has it? [sing-songy] Stalker alert!
I've read today about your avatar changing to honour people's deaths recently and couldn't remember noticing any of the changes. & I see yours most days.
Sorry @Tex :(
 
I've read today about your avatar changing to honour people's deaths recently and couldn't remember noticing any of the changes. & I see yours most days.
Sorry @Tex :(
I change them for a variety of reasons. I acknowledged the passing of Neil Peart of Rush, Mark Hollis of Talk Talk, Doris Day, Dr. John, David Bowie and probably others I can't recall right now. But sometimes I'll just gut a bug up my butt and switch to someone for no particular reason. I don't smoke myself, but I kind of like black and white pictures of music icons with cigarettes, and had Nick Cave as well as Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull.

I may change from this one just because, but I also may if someone's passing affects me.
 
Here's Salvador Dali emerging from the Paris underground with his pet anteater, as one does.

dali-anteater1.jpg


That surely suffices as evidence of a great mind, right?

It's worth mentioning André Breton - the founding father of Surrealism and (very probably) the reason that Dali had an anteater. Like he needed a specific reason, but yeah.
 
I'm going to write more on this later, but Christo Vladimirov Javacheff has died today. Together with Jean Claude (died in 2009), they did some truly monumental, inspiring, and unprecedented work in the realm of art and I will miss them. Dedicating my Avatar to them.

Christo-05.jpg
 


Voltaire - 1700s
I have yet to watch the video but I'll never forget his last will and testament: "I have nothing. I owe much. ...And the rest I leave to the poor."

... Aw, crap, that was Rabelais.
 
Last edited:
"Hide away in secrecy
You chop away this fantasy
This private fascination
This private fascination"


Oh, wait...that's Cabaret Voltaire.
 
The Greatest Minds Are Often Wrong

I've mentioned it a few times in this thread, but a lot of my nominees have some pretty big flaws. Newton, for example, was a devout Christian and saw god in the n-body problem. Descartes thought he'd proven the existence of God (like so many others). I struggle to think of anyone in this thread that is without some sort of major flaw. I don't usually go out of my way to point out their flaws unless it seems to really define them.

Often I list people whose entire contribution to human thought boils down to a single sentence. The person I'm about to list is one such person. It's also through the lens of today that I typically view someone's contribution. So, for example, Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham or Karl Marx come to mind as people who each contributed some very fascinating work that furthered their field and really made people think. And yet, I haven't previously listed any of those people, not because they're not great minds, but because I don't see the positives from their work that has survived intact to today. In some cases, maybe in all three of those examples, I see some elements that survived that have great negative influence on modern thought. Perhaps that still makes them some of the greatest minds in history, but I'll let someone else champion them here.

With that being said, here's someone who has contributed something positive that survives relatively unscathed to today.
=======================================

p01h6t3l.jpg

David Hume
1711-1776


Hume got a lot wrong. As I said I don't mention this part often, but with Hume I'm listing him for one basic principle, so I'm going to cover a little bit of what I'm not listing him for. His theories about causality were way off base, and didn't survive long before being debunked. His theory of humans being governed by passions, and the concept of the identity of humans were also both pretty far off. I guess you could say that the latter is more not fully formed if you want to be kind. Hume was a pioneer in philosophy, and is required reading at a lot of universities when it comes to metaphysics and philosophy of mind and ontology. But I'm not really listing him for any of that. I'm listing him for "Hume's Guillotine".

hume
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.

This is Hume's Guillotine, or "the is-ought problem". In short, you cannot derive an "ought" statement from an "is" statement. This principle is alive and well today in philosophy, and basically murdered (though it died a slow death) the notion of truely objective morality. Philosophers have ever since been reduced to assumptions that sidestep this with another premise. Ayn Rand's formulation, for example, was to assume a "nature" of a being. And of course she was wrong about that (and plenty of other stuff), but the form of the solution - the introduction of another premise is one that philosophers have been required to live with ever since. It's either that or abandon, as Hume did, all grounding of morality in anything remotely objective.

So often with the great thinkers in this thread, their great contributions can be summarized in a single line. Hume is perhaps on the extreme end of this. But Hume's Guillotine lives on.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back