Who do you consider the most brilliant person ever?
>>1381616
Myself.
First post best post.
>>1381616
Probably Isaac Newton and Richard Feynman, but if I had to pick one, it would be Newton.
Wittgenstein is up there though.
That guy who wrote the one book a couple centuries ago
Jesus Christ
Leibniz, Nietzsche, or Goethe
Socrates, or Aristotle.
>>1381620
This person is correct. I truly am a genius.
Hegel
sorry to say it
For me, it's hard to beat Christiaan Huygens or Montaigne.
>>1381616
Adam Smith
It really depends on your perspective.
Scientific brilliance
Artistic brilliance
Political/Military brilliance
Many of the polymaths from the Renaissance onward seemed to be just uncannily brilliant. Leonardo da Vinci, just for instance, was self-educated, a master painter, an engineer, musician, could write with both hands at the same time, literally invented technical drafting, just to name a few. It's just really hard to grasp how brilliant and in such varied manners certain individuals have been.
You
>>1381616
eh, gotta go with Gauss
>>1381625
>Richard Feynman
>most brilliant person of all time
topkek
>>1381707
This. DaVinci has that vibe of "uncanny brilliance" when it comes to art.
Jesus Christ.
>>1381616
Euler
>>1381753
His power to translate observation to drawing/painting are insane.
>>1381708
:^)
>>1381616
Wilhelm Wundt
I think he was brilliant and actually tried to make a difference.
Bach
>>1381754
Not really a fair entry, seeing as how he's God.
Whoever pisses you off the most
Who is that /his/?
>>1381616
As I can only speak from what I have personally experienced (i.e. I've read their books)
>James Augustine Aloysius Joyce
>Robert Anton Wilson
Granted I haven't read many books, so take my opinion with a fat pinch of salt.
>>1381754
anon, his name was Jesus H. Christ!
>>1381990
Constantine & his council of cucks (exoteric-dogmatic Christ-worship was a mistake)
that dude who standardized English, and thus killed the dialectization process within our illustrious language
Without question.
>>1381616
Not really a question up for debate, if you ask me.
>>1381986
Dude, just fuck off. Seriously, no one on this board likes you. The only reason you post is because your cock gets rock hard when you think about Jesus rubbing your back while you shitpost about the Bible. I see you in here all the time. All you do is shitpost, and master the art of mental backflipping and circular reasoning whenever you get proven wrong. Do yourself a favor and kys. Heaven will be better than this dump anyway right? Just do it.
>>1381616
Napoleon Bonaparte.
And whichever Somali dude invented the Techniko.
Moses
>>1382099
>And whichever Somali dude invented the Techniko.
?
>>1381747
>eh, gotta go with Gauss
This.
Aristotle is a close second
>>1381616
Richard Dawkins
>>1381747
>Gauss
is the only correct answer
Me.
None of you are worthy to empty my trash.
That's why mommy does it.
Alexander the great if the stories about him are actually true.
Otherwise Leonardo da Vinci
>>1381620
This due to the fact that no one else has objective perception except for me
>>1382090
I actually appreciate Constantine's knowledge on matters related to theology
>>1381754
What a faggot
>>1382090
This
the guy who writes one punch man
>>1381990
some anonymous internet troll probably
>>1381707
>Gary Stu
>>1381616
Aristotle and Plato
Everything right now lies on either
>>1382830
You've got some catching up to do
Bobby Fischer
Redpilled and confirmed for supergenius IQ
>>1382090
Don't be rude to my waifu.
>>1382830
Wow. Seriously?
Jaden Smith
Jesus Christ of course, he was literally omniscient and even if he isn't quadrillions of people on history thought that he is and that isn't a small feat either.
>>1381616
Does tay count?
>>1381625
>Richard Feynman
haahaahahahah
Can't believe von Neumann hasn't been posted yet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann
>Posting people who do subjective works of literature or art and saying it makes them the most brilliant
>Posting very few scientists that have been confirmed by thousands of experiments against reality
>Non-STEM plebs
>>1383075
Seems to be really impressive, to be honest.
>>1381616
Dawkins by far.
>>1382051
definitely one of. He and spinoza.
Both were autistic ascetic philosopher monks.
Give a definition of intelligence. It depends on that.
>>1381754
Guy couldn't even remember the holy books he prophetically inspired other people to write.
Guy was a dumbass.
Kurt Gödel
Archimedes
Anaxagoras
Newton
Jan van Eyck
Democritus
Kant
Just to name a few contenders in a few fields
>>1382558
Well, he's not wrong.
Is the God Delusion actually well written, or is it like on the 4th grade reading level like all modern books?
>>1382090
this, please end your life
>>1385189
Honestly, the so-called "new atheists" are entirely uninteresting and uncompelling in the disciplines in which they have not specialized. I have read Dawkins' accounts of evolutionary biology and find them fascinating and engaging on a popular level. Great stuff. The God Delusion, however, is a complete mess. The problem is that the new atheists are pretty much entirely lacking in any philosophical training, so anyone who has any real input to the debate has already seen numerous iterations and rehashes of their arguments, as well as numerous competent rebuttals to the same. Just because they happen to be on the right SIDE of the debate, doesn't mean they got there honestly, or have anything useful to add to the conversation.
Hitchens was the only one I ever found engaging, and I think he was quite aware of his own limitations. It was the chutzpah he had that I admired. Also, he's a pretty decent fellow on the whole. But as a journalist, he was trained in the weaponization of shock value. Harris is a doofus. He's not even smart enough to be aware that he has no fucking clue what he's talking about. He's probably really adept at neuroscience (I am not able to even approach being able to judge his competency here), but his public statements about nearly everything else are so facile that I feel kind of bad for him. He's an embarrassment.
>>1385221
Why do I need philosophical training to be an atheist? It seems unfair considering that your average beliver also knows jack shit about philosophy.
>>1385221
Hickens was also an edgy Marxist that went after people that were better than him just to tear them down. He would rail against the church but say nothing about the Soviet Union or about his friends in South America. Hell he railed against a system that made him well off and famous.
>>1381620
nell'd it
>>1381616
Kurt Godel's crazy ass
>>1382619
>this post
>knowing and understandingthe definition of objective
Pick one anon
>>1381616
>>1385388
If you're writing a book attempting to persuade people to accept a philosophical position you should probably know more than a few things about philosophy.
>your average beliver also knows jack shit about philosophy
And they really really should.
Alan Turing
>Formalized the idea of the Algorithm
>Universal Computation
>Cracked the Enigma
>Father of CS and AI
>All while sucking mad dick
>>1381747
gauss
Marshall McLuhan, bitches.
Newton or Einstein.
>>1385189
> Is the God Delusion actually well written
It isn't, but it isn't really that horrible. I remember that I read it, but doesn't remember to be offended, bored or inspired by it. Pretty okay book. Even if mediocre one.
>>1385388
The only reason you want to delve into philosophy is not to be an atheist or a theist, but to become more patrician, in the non-meme sense. You can be a patrician whether you're an atheist or not. The possibility of some personal Being/Beings that created what we know of as reality or embody some force, is just that, a possibility. One which we cannot verify or deny and there doesn't seem to be a way to "prove" their external existence because by definition they are something completely beyond human comprehension, God goes beyond our categories of thought.
You can view God as impersonal as well, as the emanation of Universe itself, just the-thing-in-itself.
Karl Marx. Most people I know have prejudiced views about this person and have not bothered to read what he had to say. Reading his work was mind blowing for me, considering I was completely opposed to his ideas before I began reading his work. I made every attempt to attack it but kept my honesty while reading him and I lost. His work provides with a thorough analysis of why capitalism would eventually fail and a practical framework for the socialist system to replace capitalism.
>>1382585
mah niggie
>>1381641
>he bought into the Leibniz meme
>Orchestrated the biggest robbery in history of mankind, 160 Billion RS
>Doesen't know how to read
probably Archimedes, a man who was way too far ahead of his time.
the man discovered steam as a potential power source nearly 2000 years before the steam engine was ever put to reliable use.
Marcus Aurelius. He had unlimited power and wasn't corrupted by it.
(probably go for Leo Da V or Aristotle otherwise)
>>1383075
Back to the autism containment board fuccboi
>>>sci
