Who had the most powerful human mind in history?
Un noteworthy. The wisest people in history would have inferior brains to 22 year old men.
In addition, intelligence is a meme. Life is learning from experiences then playing your luck, there is not even free will. All the prodigies you know are memelords. The richest 400 people in the world would have lost 130 m in brexit unless they correct their positions, soros himself only was in the green because he hedged into gold, and that hyper jew nazi sith lord would shit on your favorite intelligence celebrity.
>>1341824
Has cynicism ever gotten anyone laid?
>>1341805
Obviously, this guy.
>>1341827
It didn't work for Diogenes.
>>1341824
Buddha would be a good contender for having mastered humanity/self.
>>1341844
The Critique of Pure Reason was the most painful fucking read of my life.
>>1341827
Camus.
>>1341951
He was hardly a cynic.
Probably Tesla or von Neumann.
Da Vinci would be a top 3 as well.
As far as mental fortitude, probably Alexander or Napoleon.
>>1341973
>Probably Tesla
he was undoubtedly a genius, but lets be honest
nigga is really fucking overrated
>>1341998
I just noticed how much of an odd portrait this is. Why was this taken from the profile?
>>1341997
nah pham the only reason you can sit here today and shitpost on your computer is because of Tesla
Edison on the other hand was a total hack
The true answer. If his autism didn't was so much time on bible codes who knows where we would be now
>>1342048
>implying he had anything to do with the invention of transistors
>implying AC wasn't conceptualised by Faraday and put into practice by over 20 people which Tesla was only one of
you're such a fucking meme-kin
>Da Vinci
>Alexander
>Napoleon
Absolute memes.
Real GOAT list would contain:
Euler
Liebniz
Aristotle
>no Einstein
Literally the poster boy for genius and he earned it.
Feynman would probably be up there.
Hawking as well, since the man has had little to do but exercise his mind for decades.
shakespeare
>>1341805
Oppenhiemer
>>1341844
yeah, nah
he's a kant
either Socrates or Confucius
>>1342069
>Da Vinci
>Alexander
>Napoleon
>Absolute memes.
stop being such a retard
da vinci was a inventor who came up with the most ingenuous shits and he's work can't fall under the "meme" category just because anyone can understand his projects
napoleon on the other hand was not a genius in the common sense and that was why he was so successful - genius peak in some things and are absolute shit in others and that's why they're only good in very specific areas; napoleon on the other hand combined versatility with a very inteligent mind
alexander seems mostly like it was just smart for its era and had a strong and charismatic presence but nothing else...
but the thing is powerful mind =/= scientist genius
>>1342355
>Socrates
>real
>>1342451
jokes on you
Confucius isn't real either
>>1342380
>Alexander the Great was a genius
You're falling for a huge meme here senpai. Nothing about Alexander the Great should be associated with genius. He was handed a united Greece that was forged by his father and a Persia that was waning for reasons completely unrelated to him. The man had some huge balls on the battlefield, as far as being a lead-from-the-front kind of guy, but nothing he did should earn him consideration anywhere close to the 'most powerful human mind in history'. He's the epitome of a privileged kid born in the right place at the right time.
>>1342073
>>no Einstein
>Literally the poster boy for genius and he earned it.
I think they're busy trying hard not to be "memeboiz"
Anyway, yeah, him. Or Newton.
>>1341805
Aristotle
>>1342469
that was pretty much what i just wrote
probably not clearly enough since i haven't had the sleep i needed but my point was da vinci was a genius, napoleon was almost a genius and alexander was just a smart guy
>>1341805
I think the only answer is von neumann, even if he wasn't very "powerful" socially or politically the RAM on that thing must have been fucking insane
Somewhere I read it was that man called Goethe with the highest IQ ever. But I dunno, he barely contributed to science.
Aristotle of course
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF6044hZ0i8
>>1342073
not an argument
>>1342031
It's a great picture though
Hegel
>>1341827
Me. Once. In highschool. Go figure.
>>1341844
kek
I'd say Aquinas and Newton.
Also Boutang, but it's quite a phenomenon.
>>1344756
>t. fourteen year old white kid
>>1342048
Nah, Edison was good at what he did, being a businessman.
How about a scale of power of the mind multiplied by what the personality was able to achieve with it?
Two categories:
1.Best scientific/mathematical mind+personality
2.Best arts/humanities mind+personality
Example: 1. - Einstein because he literally just thought up all by himself so much of what we understand about physics and the literal makeup of our entire universe just by using numbers. Plus, he was un-autistic enough to join societies of other scientists and communicate his discoveries effectively for the benefit of mankind. A famous eccentric character too.
2.- Beethoven, the fact he is one of the greatest composers of all time, creating beauty and making it fucking excellent to listen to even 200 years later, he trumps Mozart and others in my opinion due to the fact he went FUCKING DEAF but still managed to create more masterpieces without even being able to hear them, that takes some serious brainpower considering that it is the hearing of music which releases endorphins in your brain making it enjoyable. His legacy proves his ability to benefit humanity effectively and was apparently a great character.
other suggestions go
>>1341805
>powerful human mind
I don't think minds work like Dragonball Z power levels.
I don't think we should argue 'who was better' but rather as a collective.
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were the greatest minds of the time and I don't think one was better than the other.
Each in their own way contributed to the world.
>>1342469
does that mean Scipio and Hannibal are even further below him since they saw themselves as inferior to Alexander or was the misconception that Alexander was a genius present then too?
>>1345657
They saw themselves as inferior commanders to Alexander. OP was asking for the most powerful human mind in history, and honestly I don't think Alexander, Hannibal, or Scipio should be considered at all. Pyrrhus was a better commander or statesman than any of them.
>>1345147
I'm norwegian, so I'm probably biased here. Infact, scratch that, I know I'm biased, but I'd still give it to Grieg.
>>1341824
This
Intelligence is a meme that gone too far
>>1341824
Wow thats pretty raw
OSHO would agree
also vote for most wise osho
>>1345786
>>1345782
but seriously
>>1341805
marcel vogel
made the microchip and the closest thing to the philosophers stone we can get
also
the artist Giotto but you niggas don;t know shit bout dat pre renaissance
>>1341805
>no mention of based Maxwell
Just meme about religion instead boys
>>1345844
jordan maxwell?
![F1.large[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4OzJqsd.jpg "F1.large[1].jpg")
>>1341805
Gauss was literally a mutant mastermind.
>>1345147
>he literally just thought up all by himself
>People actually believe this
Einstein wouldn't be shit if it wasn't for Poincaré who basically etablished the basis of his theory and wasn't even credited for it.
me
I'm just lazy though
>people actually think the most intelligent man was someone we know of
more than likely he was a hunter-gatherer or farmer who did nothing of historical note
>>1346078
jared diamond pls
>>1346078
>more than likely he was a hunter-gatherer or farmer
>>1346078
More humans are alive today than in the past couple thousand years, so probably not.
>>1346095
But most humans who have been alive were/are hunter-gatherers or farmers who did nothing of historical note, so chances are the most intelligent man is one of them.
>>1346078
Actually intelligence is largely shaped by society and upbringing. Raw mind power is one thing, but dealing with the hypothetical is something that was basically impossible for laypeople until the modern era with public education. Hypothetical reasoning has to be programmed, thats why IQ scores have steadily risen since they were invented, by a staggering 20-30 points. So, in all likelihood is was someone who was educated and well-brought up (of it isn't someone who exists now, which chances are, it is) however that doesn't necessarily mean we know about them so in that way you are correct.
>>1346104
You're forgetting that intelligence is increased by nutrition and learning. IQ's been steadily rising.
How do you guys deal with the eroding feeling of mediocraty? When you look at the men named in this thread it's easy to despair that you will never match them. It's a constant struggle I have with myself. That I want to be a freethinking intelligent being but I know in my heart I'm just another common person slogging through academia.
>>1341805
Maybe Genghis Khan, he did about as good a job with the steppe horse archers as anybody could have, really shook the fuck out the world, I mean if powerful mind includes imposing their minds will, he went from nothing to practical god emporer
>>1344477
That's because Goethe did all kind of shit, he was a jack of all trades.
>>1346156
http://sacred-texts.com/tao/ycgp/ycgp01.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BODdXkLs8Y
>>1341805
Herr Doktor Karl Marx.
>>1345778
The way I see it, "intelligence" is strictly binary, subjective, and relative.
A subject is either intelligent or not, since "intelligence" cannot be quantified. Just what level of knowledge-skill makes one "intelligent" must be determined by an individual, but in general, intelligence refers to the aforementioned "knowledge-skill", or, how easily you can acquire and use knowledge.
You learn quickly and are good at using what you've learned throughout your life to solve problems? Most would consider you intelligent. You don't exhibit those features? Most would not consider you intelligent.
>>1341805
Euler
>>1346078
Most likely he was actually
>22 years of age
>had multiple languages and trades
>did nothing notewortht and died anonymously
>>1346078
There is no "innate intelligence" aka IQ, it's a bullshit metric
Your average middle schooler is smarter than a hunter gatherer, depending on how you judge. IQ tests would heavily favor today's people
The best minds are who produced the greatest results, any other measure is bullshit circlejerking for insecure NEETS
that would imply Newton or Euler are the greatest minds
>>1341805
Bolzano
>>1342469
top fucking laugh. did you just blow in from reddit pham?
you're a fucking dunce. Alexander had the finest military mind in history. Strategically brilliant, never betrayed by his nerves, decisive, cunning, perspective as all fuck. He studied directly under Aristotle and was the greatest philosopher king in history. A sublime mind to go along with demigod courage.
Also nice reading comphrension fuckwit, the guy you quoted had Alexander down for mental fortitude, rather than sheer brilliance
go the fuck back to where you came from and stay there faggot
>>1346311
>I'm going to disagree with you, but then not offer any evidence
Talk about Reddit. Like I said, most of his success was due to being the right person at the right time, or just plain luck. He was handed the most powerful military in the Mediterranean with a waning Persia on his borders. And as soon as the Persians began to gain an advantage after Granicus and were on the verge of inciting a revolt in Athens and Sparta, Memnon of Rhodes just happened to die. The only thing that saved him at Guagamela were the companion cavalry that his father created. Was he ballsy and quick-thinking, sure but that doesn't make him a genius.
pre agriculture man.
they had to master a wide variety of skill sets. pass and receive vast amounts of information purely by oral tradition. maintain a exacting map of their area.
agriculture, civilization, and writing, made man stupid.
>>1341998
I can't help but to think that his mustache makes him look like a pug
>>1346455
this is wiki tier knowledge pham, do you even read books?
He didn't benefit from luck. If anything, he was unlucky in many instances, such as any of the countless times he suffered serious injury in battle. Yes, he was heir to the throne of Macedon, but that didn't mean a damn thing if he wasn't capable of leading the army and running the kingdom. Which he did, with marvelous efficiency. First order of business was to crush the revolts that broke out as soon as Philip was dead. That powerful military had already been refined and drilled by Alexander prior to his father's death, and was much improved by time it crossed into Asia. All his major battles were lopsided: he was almost always outnumbered, and had to rely on superior tactics and clear battlefield vision. Sparta did revolt, and they got blown out by the Macedonian reagant without Alexander having to lift a finger. And Athens? A military threat? After Chaeronea? Not a chance.
He was a genius in every way. In battle, in running his empire (you'll notice how it all fell apart without him, proof positive of his masterful statesmanship), in moving, clothing, feeding and paying his army. He had the supreme functional intelligence, but also a great deal of theoretical understanding from his days with Aristotle. Exceptional originality and an unparalleled ability to think and problem solve on the fly. He was not a philosopher, but something even greater: a philosopher-king, one of only a handful in history.
>genius
>>1346311
you can have the best teachers, the best education and still not be a genius; like in my opinion, it's the case.
his legacy is pretty shallow and revolves around killing many people on the battlefield, unlike napoleon, for example, who was mentioned before who revolutionized the whole country in every single area - creating a timeline just like christ: there's a before and after napoleon.
in alexander's case, there isn't because all he ever did was to conquer by force or diplomacy and die young without planting any real seeds to be reaped by the generations that preceeded him
and it might sound stupid and even offensive but he can be compared with genghis khan without risking going too far
>>1346104
it must be hell to have a prodigious mind and live a pointless life in some backwater farm in the middle of nowhere
>inb4 millions of genius are dying in africa, china and india because humanity can't get his shit together
>>1346112
>tfw ""scientists"" - "recent studies" tier say that we're not getting better at IQ tests but we're getting literally more intelligent than our ancestors just because we can ape our way in some pointless test invented so you can brag your friends how superior you are
>>1346991
t. medieval peasant
>>1345187
>Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were the greatest minds of the time
Oh, and they all just happened to be from the same city, in the same social circle? What a coincidence!
Probably Isaac Newton, and in more modern times, Richard Feynman.
>>1347033
Wow maybe the surroundings can influence the growth of a person i better call the scientific community to tip them off that if you lift heavy weights you become stronger
>>1345864
This.
>>1346156
I don't care. It's surprising how little you are happy with when you actually start living in the real world.
>>1341805
Probably Voltaire to be honest
>>1345864
>Einstein wouldn't be shit if it wasn't for Poincaré who basically etablished the basis of his theory and wasn't even credited for it.
So what? Both Poincare and Einstein wouldn't be shit without Newton anyway.
All scientists are standing on the shoulders of giants before them anyway. In the end it doesn't matter who figures shit out, because it's bound to happen.
>come to this board first time to discuss history
>oh this thread about greatest minds might be interesting
>90% of suggested people are some philosophy shitters
>one guy says Tesla
>"Tesla is overrated"
is this the board where all the retards with useless diplomas come?
>>1347096
Maybe read the whole thread before you shitpost fagtron.
Dont be faglord contrarians. Newton
>>1346205
I like generalist tho. We need more polymaths these days.
>>1342048
>nah pham the only reason you can sit here today and shitpost on your computer is because of Tesla
Electronics are DC. Tesla invented simple AC and even then he was retarded because he thought 2-phase>3-phase, not because he had any proof of it, mind you, it was just "wew lad I think it is like this".
While DC is shit for energetics for several reasons outside of limited instances, in the theoretical world without Tesla, the only difference in "computer" stuff would be that PSU's would be 10 times cheaper because they would only have some step-down converters, control and safety circuity as they would be able to get DC voltage straight form the wall.
>>1341805
Wow. All these posts in here, and NOT A SINGLE FUCKING WOMAN?
-Marie Curie
-Joan of Arc
-Catherine the Great
-Cleopatra
-Boudicca
Pythagoras,
The 3 great saw him as a great teacher. And they in return gave birth to western society as we know it today.
>>1347279
>-Marie Curie
>-Joan of Arc
>-Catherine the Great
>-Cleopatra
>-Boudicca
A bunch of aristocrats, nutters, losers and barbarians.
I might have agreed with your point if you had stopped at Marie Curie or included Ada Lovelace.
How would anyone rate Bouddica or Joan D'Arc among the greatest minds that ever lived? What the fuck is wrong with you?
>Gauss
>Euler
>Confucius
>Archimedes
>Pythagoras
>Aristotle
>Socrates
>Plato
Any of these guys are acceptable answers
Julius Caesar and Augustus were pretty smart. I don't know if they were contenders for powerful, but I think they might be taken into consideration.
>>1348324
Why Confucius?
>>1348828
Why not Confuscius? He laid the framework for Chinese society for millennia, and it's still immensely influential on their culture even after the communists tried to break it down.
You might not necessarily agree with Confucianism, but billions of Chinese do.
>Gauss
>Euler
>Einstein in his annus mirabilis
>Von Neumann
>Turing
>Newton before he went mad
>Shakespeare
>Perelman
>Grothendieck
Not in order. The older these people were when they made their groundbreaking contributions to mankinds history the more powerful their mind was.
>>1348843
Oh, I forgot Riemann.
>>1348835
That really isn't a measurement of intelligence though. By your definition then Jesus should be in the list too.
>>1348860
Jesus only expanded on Judaism, what he did took charisma and social intelligence, not the kind of philosophical or scientific greatness this thread is searching for. Confucius is clearly above other religious figures in this regard, though I personally still wouldn't put him even near a GOAT list.
>>1348860
I think if you can include Socrates and Aristotle than Confucius deserves a spot. He laid a generally effective social framework that endured for thousands of years.
>>1348860
>Jesus
>Human Mind
>>1348883
>biblical Jesus
>existing
>>1341973
I would say that Da Vinci is the winner for best mind, in that he was both his generation's greatest engineer and (arguably) its greatest artist.
There's a reason that STEM and the arts are usually so separate. It's a rare thing indeed to find someone who can simultaneously exhibit great talent in both fields.
Einstein. my criteria is his capability to grasp concepts that were unthinkable at the time. That is the power of his mind.
Comparing to other people cited here like Socrates , kant etc they came up with stuff that any guy with time in his hands and some education could achieve (something that was really scarce at their time)
>>1341805
I'm going to guess someone who never got around to using it or whose possible contributions have not spread and thus survived him or her.
>>1341947
Explain? i've never read it
>>1348860
But Jesus is just God. Not really human, you know.
>>1346248
can you explain the text? it's very hard to read and english is not my 1st language. I'm not sure I understood it
>>1349376
People wish to appear good in order to obtain pleasure, yet in the process they don't act good and mostly obtain pain, even doing things like striving for a good posthumous name, which by definition they are incapable of enjoying.
>>1341824
>inferior brains to 22 year old men
22 year olds are still children and should be seen but not heard
