Plato or Einstein?

[Archangel]

It's been a while, hasn't it? Sorry for neglecting my favourite section for so long, it won't happen again.

In my little run-in with the good folks over at the Dawkins board, the thing which probably shocked me the most was the utter disdain those ostensibly smart people had for any kind of non-empirical thought. I mean, I get that those people hate Christianity, or religion, for that matter (and all thought associated with it), but one of the people there actually dismissed everything from Plato to Wittgenstein by saying "people wrote fiction for millennia, but it took true intelligence to come up with the theory of relativity". What is their fucking beef with, say, Plato?

I'm fairly certain Einstein himself held Plato in higher regard than that (and would have objected in no uncertain terms to his name being thus instrumentalised), and personally, I am rather taken aback by this ridiculous arrogance displayed by the disciples of empirism. It's ignorance, mostly, to believe that science exists in a vacuum, or that it even creates its own paradigms: Before Columbus could ever set sail, the idea of reaching and challenging as something else than sin had to be established by the Humanists; before actual geology could happen, Kant had to wonder about the philosophical implications of the Lisbon Earthquake.

I admire science. I see its place in the pantheon of human endeavours, and I respect and enjoy what good it has done for mankind. But, let's face it, of all the applications of human intelligence, it is by its very nature the least human. Natural phenomena occur without any care for human observers (Doc Manhattan ftw); a trained monkey can solve equations; a computer can create formulae; and only hundreds of linked computers can de-code the human genome. None of them can come up with Timaeus. Only man can do that. As I keep saying, the falling of the tree should only matter to us, as humans, inasfar as it affects us.

And that's where I'm guessing that this ridiculously overblown sense of primacy originates: As with all delusions of grandeur, it's a result of a profound inferiority complex. Empirism cannot even be merely elevated above its equals in thought; it has to define itself as the only worthwhile application of the human mind, to the exclusion of all others. This blatantly cultic and blind trust in something... Well, I've rarely seen such devotion oustside of the Taliban. And it becomes all the more pathetic once you see that while people have been studying and applying Aristotle for more than two millennia now, most all scientific attempts at explaining the world prove themselves spectacularly inadequate after, oh, two centuries or so.
Hell, Lichtenberg, pretty much the smartest man of his day (and a renowned physicist AND atheist) hit the nail on the head when he postulated that "[w]ith most men, unbelief in one thing springs from blind belief in another"...

Anyway, who do you think is "smarter"? The originator of all our paradigmatic thought, or the most renowned champion of the natural sciences?

[Limp]

Plato is fun... I like the McDonalds Fun Factory play set where you can make little hamburgers and french fries out of them.

And Einstein's just makes badass bagels and lox.


I'M SOOO TORN!

[mxlplkt]

Einstein by the hair alone.

[mxlplkt]

WTF am I doing in the philo section anyway?

[Archangel]

And they wonder why I don't bother anymore.

[Morfin]

Apple and oranges, both in terms of "ages" and in terms of concentration. Both have contributed greatly to society and learning.

I go with Plato because, through several thousands of years his work has been the basis for so much learning, thinking, and philosophy. Einstein, whose contribution obviously cannot be overstated, has lead a specific area of physics and science that, while great and revolutionary, still is developing since I believe that discovery of the Great Unifying Theory is a "when" not an "if." His contribution has been over merely a century.

Champion of the Natural Sciences? Could not one make a similar argument about Darwin as for Einstein? Gregor Mendel?

I am always uncomfortable with these types of questions to which there can never be an argument. Like who was the greatest basketball player or the best President, because there is no intersection of eras, etc. Nevertheless, I choose Plato.

One final thought (or question): Why do you get wound up over some idiot posting on Dawkins' forum, or this forum, for that matter? It is not like some scholar has made an assertion that all past thought is "fiction" or insignificant -- it is merely an idiot forum poster like me, or taters, or tockit. It is no different than the people who think that George W Bush orchestrated 9/11: Idiots. Call them idiots and let them be, their idiocy is there for all to see.

[freegood]

I think the distinction the Dawkins board is making is that they can't worship Plato, but they can worship Einstein.

Can't really say who is smarter, but in significance, Plato>>>>Einstein.

[}{arlequin]

Expanding a bit on morfin's last thought, reading between the lines it seems you're offended that someone dared to attack (insult?) one of your favored disciplines. Putting up a choice between einstein n Plato is certainly not gonna resolve the issue.

Also, Hawkins does a lot more philosophizing than einstein so maybe he would be more acceptable by you?

[hatepoppy]

nikola. fucking. tesla.

/thread

[}{arlequin]

btw, putting up two of such differing choices certainly makes your approach to this much more scientific than anything else.

[hatepoppy]

nah man, i get it. einstein = tesla for the purposes of this discussion.

its my contention that the disdain harbored by empiricists ('meters') towards 'thinkers' is inherent in their school of thought. they define truth by observed facts. they are quick to dismiss the thinkers, because thinkers refrain from constraining themselves to observable facts. they allow themselves to postulate and conjecture beyond contemporary means of observation or proof. i think it is this freedom that meters have trouble with - "sure, you can say anything that pops into your head, but how do you know?"

their condescension stems from the relative possibility of unintelligent people to practice in the field. it's a type of scientific elitism that leads to a mentality that is reasonably summed up as 'prove it or youre a retarded whimsyfag.'

[hatepoppy]

the irony is that guys like tesla or einstein were so buttfuckingly ridiculous bc they allowed themselves to venture beyond commonly accepted ideas.

[freegood]

Newton was so buttfuckingly ridiculous that he never married.

[Archangel]

Expanding a bit on morfin's last thought, reading between the lines it seems you're offended that someone dared to attack (insult?) one of your favored disciplines. Putting up a choice between einstein n Plato is certainly not gonna resolve the issue.

Also, Hawkins does a lot more philosophizing than einstein so maybe he would be more acceptable by you?

They did it. I'm not offended; shocked is more like it. Basically, they say that every metaphysical thought, hell, every thought ever recorded was a waste of time - and that's just silly. They dismiss Plato because to admit that metaphysical thought is of value would bring that ridiculous house of cards they've built for themselves crashing down in a heartbeat. Put simply, they have no choice but to act stupid - and all this in the service of their god, "reason". Lulz.

I just keep laughing at those Dawkins sheep, whose blind allegiance to empirism makes them so fucking stupid that they don't even realise that they've fallen prey to the same mechanisms of any ritualistic faith.

Maybe if they bothered to read such wastes of time as Paul or Freud, they'd realise just how badly they've been had.

[}{arlequin]

those people are very result-oriented, and i can understand that. after all, thinking about a roof over your head ain't gonna get your house built, no matter how much thought you put into it. i don't see how giving metaphysics value will make their world collapse though. if you choose, the disciplines can coexist, and if you do not, it will still be the same status quo.

philosophy has no value to them so i can see why they ignore it. after all, even if plato didn't exist, leonardo and einstein would still come up w/ their stuff. engineering, or any other math/science isn't dependent on philosophy as a basis.

[Archangel]

nah man, i get it. einstein = tesla for the purposes of this discussion.

its my contention that the disdain harbored by empiricists ('meters') towards 'thinkers' is inherent in their school of thought. they define truth by observed facts. they are quick to dismiss the thinkers, because thinkers refrain from constraining themselves to observable facts. they allow themselves to postulate and conjecture beyond contemporary means of observation or proof. i think it is this freedom that meters have trouble with - "sure, you can say anything that pops into your head, but how do you know?"

their condescension stems from the relative possibility of unintelligent people to practice in the field. it's a type of scientific elitism that leads to a mentality that is reasonably summed up as 'prove it or youre a retarded whimsyfag.'

It's also that certain not very smart people need easy to understand yardsticks in order to judge intelligence - those yardsticks usually being of the "cui bono?" variety. If a thought didn't help raise some company's stock, they want no parts of it...

I'd almost understand science's haughty attitide if it weren't rather incompatible with its prostitution to economics.

[Archangel]

those people are very result-oriented, and i can understand that. after all, thinking about a roof over your head ain't gonna get your house built, no matter how much thought you put into it. i don't see how giving metaphysics value will make their world collapse though. if you choose, the disciplines can coexist, and if you do not, it will still be the same status quo.


Wrong. the fact is that empirism needs its ridiculously bloated ego, if you will, in order to demand a position of primacy which it does not deserve. It's the same as the worst parts of Augustinian metaphysics, just the other way around: Just as he said that science doesn't matter because it was all part of a higher and incomprehensible plan anyway - that God was the "why", so the "what" was unimportant - so now they try to blot out the other disciplines by suggesting that since science is the only way to explain the "what", the "why" simply does not matter.

Because their ideal world is just as fascist as any theocracy, and cannot tolerate dissent.


philosophy has no value to them so i can see why they ignore it. after all, even if plato didn't exist, leonardo and einstein would still come up w/ their stuff. engineering, or any other math/science isn't dependent on philosophy as a basis.

Rubbish. Thought sets the stage. Unless you think it first, unless the paradigms shift, nothing can happen. Leonardo? Are you serious? He is a direct consequence of Humanism, a parallel to Pico della Mirandola - without Dante, he simply would not have happened: You cannot do something you haven't thought of before. Without Plato, the West would either not exist, or be a very different place. Things do not stagnate until somebody invents something; they stagnate until paradigms shift, through thought. The fact that people think that things just happen appears to be the root of the problem here.

It all comes back to epistemes, a concept still grasped by only pathetically few; nothing happens in a vacuum. And in the beginning, there is always thought.

[}{arlequin]

Thought sets the stage.
but why does it have to be attributed to plato? why not simply circumstances or cause and effect?

do you give unconscious thought the same weight as plato's thought?

it's raining. i'm thinking i need a roof over my head. then i build it. i see no philosophical basis in this, and science resolved all my problems.

in the same manner i don't think leonardo was thinking of philosophy when he dissected human remains. he thought, 'how does this work?' yes, i understand that plato thought, 'how do we (mankind) work?' but in no way are these two thoughts the same, or even related.

the need to explore has been there since before speech was invented. i don't think we should attribute cromagnon's desire (thought process) to find a better cave or more food to metaphysics.

[Archangel]

You don't get it.

Before Humanism, nobody would ever even have thought of dissecting anyone, because, well, why? We were told that God made and controlled all things, and everything He did was good, so curiosity was stifled. But at some point, some people challenged that notion. They wanted to define humanity through itself, not as a mimesis of God.

If that had not happened, people in the West simply would not have thought about trying to find out about the human anatomy: Leonardo, and the entire Renaissance, is the product of three or four books in which people dared to challenge the status quo, and thus set the table for others. The same goes for modernity, which was pretty much born on the day Kant challenged Leibniz.

You see, what you do is think that the table being set is a given, and that all that counts are the courses served. But without the framework, there is nothing. You cannot ladle soup onto a naked piece of wood - it is simply wasted.

[}{arlequin]

the fact is that empirism needs its ridiculously bloated ego, if you will, in order to demand a position of primacy which it does not deserve.
i fail to grasp what you're trying to say here. they only demand a primacy when a philosopher strolls over to them and asks them 'why'. if they were left to their own devices, they would simply continue to hammer away at their equations fully intent on finding a solution. they were confronted, maybe even attacked, so they fight back. if you leave them alone, they will just focus on their discipline. that's all that matters to them. the rest is just interruptions.

as for the deserving part, if it weren't for them you wouldn't have a luxury of being alive to be able to think about the things that you do. so of course they see their contributions just as important, if not more so, than any other discipline.

what i'm saying is, that intrinsically, they're very dogged in their approach, and only when provoked, needlessly, do they fire back at the opposition.

[Archangel]

Nah, when somebody calls the aggregate history of Western thought a waste of time, or advocates getting rid of metaphysics altogether, I'm pretty sure there's a huge inferiority complex behind it.

If what you said were true, Dawkins would stick the fuck to biology.

[}{arlequin]

Before Humanism, nobody would ever even have thought of dissecting anyone, because, well, why? We were told that God made and controlled all things, and everything He did was good, so curiosity was stifled.
i don't know why you're starting human existence from point 'D' when humans existed, thought, and acted on those thoughts at point 'A'. before god was even a concept. or a notion. prior to religion.

someone thought of a better arrow made out of stone. where does that fit into what you propose?

is every thought gonna get claimed and scooped up by your field? before that field even existed?

[}{arlequin]

Nah, when somebody calls the aggregate history of Western thought a waste of time, or advocates getting rid of metaphysics altogether, I'm pretty sure there's a huge inferiority complex behind it.

If what you said were true, Dawkins would stick the fuck to biology.
then this simply goes back to what morfin said. few bad apples do not ruin the entire field. i'm sure that 95% of all scientists do not think western thought is a waste of time. as a whole they behave as i described. you are focusing on a splinter group.

if you pick a fight w/ the radicals, they'll answer w/ extremism. i think that result is actually easily predictable by philosophers.

[Morfin]

Nah, when somebody calls the aggregate history of Western thought a waste of time, or advocates getting rid of metaphysics altogether, I'm pretty sure there's a huge inferiority complex behind it.

You seem to be mixing two issues up in this thread.

First, there is your poll question (On which all of 4 people have voted, so far). That question is Plato v Einstein, who is smarter, i.e., bigger impact.

Second, you keep mixing into this discussion your rant about the goofballs on Dawkins' forum who you say argued that all of philosophical thought was worthless and a "fiction."

The discussion of science vs philosophical thought, or the "how" vs. the "why" is a good discussion thread. But to keep throwing in this digression about your anger at "how can someone advocate that philosophical thought is worthless," confuses the discussion.

Neither }{ nor I, nor anyone else HERE is taking the Dawkins' poster's position. I think we all agree HERE that such a position is absurd and not worthy of discussion. But, we need to remove it from the main discussion.

[Archangel]

I didn't. You picked Leonardo as an example of science existing independently of philosophical paradigms, and I showed that especially that example was blatantly false.

I'm not "scooping up" anything, and I won't bother talking about primordial man - even though he certainly developed religion pretty early. Again, unless somebody gives you the idea that technology can achieve/solve certain things, you don't think of using technology to do just that.

Let's use human aging as a metaphor for the development of mankind. Thought is basically the genes and hormones turning you from a baby to a child, from a child to an adolescent, from an adolescent to an adult; empirism is what the person does at those ages. You cannot build a house at four years old, just as you couldn't have thought up atomic power before Enlightenment. Obviously, certain scientific discoveries are so momentuous that they create new ways of thinking themselves - for the past 500 years, the relationship has largely been mutual. But as I said, before 1280 or so, somebody like Columbus never would have happened, because nobody wondered what was behind the horizon.

[NoGravitas]

I find you underestimate the creativty involved in science. For example:


and only hundreds of linked computers can de-code the human genome.


The human genome project was far more complex in this. You cant just throw DNA at a computer (which have to be programmed by humans) and expect results. The HGP required and produced many amazing new technologies all of which required the kinds of creative thought that animals simply cannot replicate.

As for the main question both Plato and Eintein were great thinkers of their day. Impossible to say who was "smarter".

[freegood]

those people are very result-oriented, and i can understand that. after all, thinking about a roof over your head ain't gonna get your house built, no matter how much thought you put into it. i don't see how giving metaphysics value will make their world collapse though. if you choose, the disciplines can coexist, and if you do not, it will still be the same status quo.

philosophy has no value to them so i can see why they ignore it. after all, even if plato didn't exist, leonardo and einstein would still come up w/ their stuff. engineering, or any other math/science isn't dependent on philosophy as a basis.

Isn't the last statement result-oriented thinking as well? The processes and groundwork in science share deep roots in philosophy and even religion. Before the 1600s, scientists as we know it did not exist.

Without philosophy, there wouldn't be a scientific method. Inductive thinking wouldn't be formalized. Without critical thought, a middling scientist could still fumble around to a discovery, but just compare the progress Europe made to much older civs and that would be the difference.

It's not like scientists then and now were deeply trained philosophers. The difference more innate and cultural. It's as subtle as the air we breathe.

Giants like Einstein or Newton can amaze us with the gifts their insights provide or even as a standard to reach, but philosophers have the ability to influence how the average person thinks. And the measure of success upon the greatest thinkers lies in how common and unrecognized their ideas become.

[}{arlequin]

I'm not "scooping up" anything, and I won't bother talking about primordial man - even though he certainly developed religion pretty early. Again, unless somebody gives you the idea that technology can achieve/solve certain things, you don't think of using technology to do just that.
leo was a bad example. i simply picked a scientist that delved into both disciplines.

maybe i'm missing something but it appears that you claim that if there is a thought, any thought, then automatically it must be attributed to metaphysics.

as for the primordial, i think they developed arrows before they developed religion. if we discuss 'thought' then i think we should include every type of thought, and not eliminate those that predate religion and the concept of 'why'

[}{arlequin]

Isn't the last statement result-oriented thinking as well? The processes and groundwork in science share deep roots in philosophy and even religion. Before the 1600s, scientists as we know it did not exist.
i agree.

but... if we are going to have a 'thought' vs. 'science' discussion, we should include every type of thought and every type of science.

thus, under my approach, getting a long stick to reach something on a tree is science. creating a tool, no matter how basic, and generally improving your life through technology, is using science.

[freegood]

Therefore all tool users==scientists.

After that revelation, I don't regret wasting 5 years of my life knowing that I can do what monkeys can do.

[Phil Theehor]

Without philosophy, there wouldn't be a scientific method. Inductive thinking wouldn't be formalized. Without critical thought, a middling scientist could still fumble around to a discovery, but just compare the progress Europe made to much older civs and that would be the difference.

Freegood nails it on the head here, so I'll skip my long answer and go straight to my conclusion.

I don't see philo and science as apples and oranges, but rather yin and yang. They drive each other, challenge each other and ultimately come together to form the framework by which we measure ourselves.

So, Archie, the answer to poll question?

Aristotle.

[}{arlequin]

Therefore all tool users==scientists.

After that revelation, I don't regret wasting 5 years of my life knowing that I can do what monkeys can do.
that's bullshit.

why after a topic is posited do people have a problem staying w/in the rules of the game?

we're focusing on humans here.

are you now gonna try to limit scientists only to geeky guys in labcoats as well? you know damn well we're working w/ a broad definition of the concept here.

[hatepoppy]

It's also that certain not very smart people need easy to understand yardsticks in order to judge intelligence - those yardsticks usually being of the "cui bono?" variety. If a thought didn't help raise some company's stock, they want no parts of it...

I'd almost understand science's haughty attitide if it weren't rather incompatible with its prostitution to economics.
arch, for such a smart guy you're having a tough time staying on topic. i thought you were discussing the social dynamic between thinkers and meters. here you're talking about the socioeconomically selective furtherance of science.

while i recognize the fact that the bemoaned empiricist attitude plays a role in deciding where and when money is spent, it is outside the scope of this discussion.

[freegood]

I don't mind including social scientists in this discussion. They follow an established groundwork that defines them to their field economists, sociologists, anthropologists...

What I don't agree with is considering myself a criminologist after a few books, watching Law and Order, and pulling a citizens arrest on my paper stealing neighbor.

you know damn well we're working w/ a broad definition of the concept here.

Just saying that we wouldn't accomplish half as much if any scientist defined themselves as broad as using a stick to reach something.

The scientific method has been around for a short period in human history. If we were to consider science under your broad definition, the people who invented the wheel were scientists. Astrologists and alchemists were scientists too. Some were lucky guesses that happened to work. They could have a process to make it a teachable trade or craft, but improvement is left to geniuses or the fortunate.

The science we know of today places more emphasis on quantity of work than the quality of genius. Most scientists go unnoticed. The Einsteins, Pasteurs, and Darwins of old are replaced with the indistinguishable research lab.

That's how one branch of philosophy made something mundane as the chemicals in fireworks into something like dynamite. Or having the art of making intricate clocks and vases into repeatable and definable process.

[Le Goat]

I don't think you can compare the two directly. Its like comparing one apple to another with regards to taste alone. It all tastes like an apple to me damn it. I truly think without Plato a lot of our society today would not be as free and forthright as it is. He has had a tremendous impact on many events, indirectly of course. Einstein, however, couldn't have a direct impact. A lot of his views were never meant for society, but rather humanities future. So, smarter? EinsteinAhead of his time? Plato (with Einstein close behind)

[hatepoppy]

*humanity's

[hatepoppy]

it really is a bullshit question, arch. you should totally change the name of the thread to 'empiricists suck! any thoughts on why?

[}{arlequin]

Just saying that we wouldn't accomplish half as much if any scientist defined themselves as broad as using a stick to reach something.

i was under the impression that arch was including every type of thought under the sun and giving them philosophical implications.

if that's the case, then i think we should include every type of invention and discovery on the opposite side as well.


yes, the wheel guy is a scientist and it also took some thinking to get there. whether his invention should be attributed to philosophy vs. science, i'm not so sure.

[Vagrant]

Plato was a Socrates nutrider. Einstein by a landslide.

[Archangel]

it really is a bullshit question, arch. you should totally change the name of the thread to 'empiricists suck! any thoughts on why?

It's a mere reaction to the people on the Dawkins boards going, "all that shit is fairy-tales for gullible kids; what the REAL smart people did is making billions for power companies". And these are educated, even eloquent people we're talking about here.

As I said, I am giving science her due - I'm trying to understand why they can't do the same for philosophy. If you cannot argue your point without ridiculing the other side as worthless, then I tend to get the idea that your arguments can't really be that great.

[NoGravitas]

As I said, I am giving science her due - I'm trying to understand why they can't do the same for philosophy.

Science builds on philosphy and validates it. Some ascpects of philosphy are still relevant and unquantifiable by science - "what is the meaning of life?" etc. But nowadays with the technology at our disposal we can call bullshit on questions like how we were created and how the universe began. Instead of people spouting out any old rubbish about magic beardos and frost giants science and empirical evidence point the way to what is by far most likely to be the truth. Science and empirical thought doesnt make non-empirical endeavours like philosophy, music and art wastes of time but when it comes to important questions it is the catalyst to discovering the truth.

[Archangel]

Science builds on philosphy and validates it. Some ascpects of philosphy are still relevant and unquantifiable by science - "what is the meaning of life?" etc. But nowadays with the technology at our disposal we can call bullshit on questions like how we were created and how the universe began. Instead of people spouting out any old rubbish about magic beardos and frost giants science and empirical evidence point the way to what is by far most likely to be the truth. Science and empirical thought doesnt make non-empirical endeavours like philosophy, music and art wastes of time but when it comes to important questions it is the catalyst to discovering the truth.
See? This is exactly what I'm talking about.

[NoGravitas]

So what are you talking about? Im agreeing with you that they both have their place though my advancement is that due to technological advances science has for certain matters superceded philisophy because empircal evidence points in the other direction.

[hatepoppy]

arch, for cereal. dawkins <> science.

[Archangel]

So what are you talking about? Im agreeing with you that they both have their place though my advancement is that due to technological advances science has for certain matters superceded philisophy because empircal evidence points in the other direction.

I agree with that.

My point is that you cannot make that point without talking about "bullshit" and "magical beardos".

See what I mean?

[Bizz]

"Plato was a bore." - Friedrich Nietzsche

[hatepoppy]

so basically youre saying that science hurts your feelings. youre agreeing w what is said, but getting butthurt about how.

do you shave your vagina or go au natch?

[Archangel]

so basically youre saying that science hurts your feelings. youre agreeing w what is said, but getting butthurt about how.

do you shave your vagina or go au natch?

I'd just like to know where this ridiculous arrogance comes from.

[hatepoppy]

I'd just like to know where this ridiculous arrogance comes from.
its like i said.

'oh yeah? prove it!'

[NoGravitas]

My point is that you cannot make that point without talking about "bullshit" and "magical beardos".

My point is that what some people say is bullshit and should be cast aside as such. Now there is obviously some debate as to what is clearly bullshit and what requires further discussion. If i were to philosophise, for example, that the purpose of human existence is to be delicious because i believe we are made of choclate (sorry first thing that came to mind) then people should rightly call bullshit because empirical eveidence has proved otherwise. If it was the existence of an all powerful being then of course further debate would be required because there is no concrete evidence one way or the other. If i came up with the thought that the sun if a nuclear fusion reactor of hyrdogen and helium and not the eye of the great sun god then empirical evidence proves it to be true and should be taken as such. So hopefully you see my point that science and empirical evidence is useful for discovering what is the truth, what is not and sooner or later dividing debatable ideas into one or the other.

[moe_blunts]

Aristotle vs Einstein imo

[Bizz]

Aristotle vs Einstein imo

Einstein vs Tech N9ne imo

-qYji0HQ5CY

[wonderllama]

One thing that always gets me about a lot of this stuff is the order in which things happen...sure, there is a natural progression, one thing leading to another, but where is the most value placed?

A lot of the stuff discovered by one person is then improved on by another, then that work improved on by another, and perhaps they then discover something amazing down the track...

Is the amazing thing discovered down the track a result of a smarter brain than that which did the initial discovering way back when?

I think this is my convoluted way of agreeing with the Apples & Oranges argument.

[Morfin]

I believe it was Newton who spoke of being able to achieve only because he was standing on the "shoulders of giants."

[Archangel]

I believe it was Newton who spoke of being able to achieve only because he was standing on the "shoulders of giants."

A humility sorely lacking today. Basically, people who can barely read are taking the invention of written language, the printing press, the promulgation of literacy, and the advent of computers and word processors for granted just because they had a semi-original thought.

[Archetype]

Einstein? But, weren't they both pretty extreme abstract logicians? They might have used different languages, but I don't think they're that far off from each other. Like, Shakespeare and Einstein, Darwin and Plato, Spinoza and Paul, I could see these, but Einstein and Plato just seems weird.

Or wait, is this like in a street fight?

[}{arlequin]

no, it's an internet forum fight.

[jessecoon]

Plato all the way. Einstein may have thought for humanity at times, but Plato was self-centered and only concerned with his well-being. He would be ruthless and self-serving to the core. Such men only exist like this in the political rhelm these days which is why Plato should be placed on a pedestool higher than that of a German who ran from Hitler. Plato would've bitched slapped his biased ass and then lectured him on why a monoarchy ruled by philosophers was superb to a democracy.

[NoGravitas]

Plato all the way. Einstein may have thought for humanity at times, but Plato was self-centered and only concerned with his well-being. He would be ruthless and self-serving to the core. Such men only exist like this in the political rhelm these days which is why Plato should be placed on a pedestool higher than that of a German who ran from Hitler. Plato would've bitched slapped his biased ass and then lectured him on why a monoarchy ruled by philosophers was superb to a democracy.

Dont know who edited this but lmao! Love the spelling.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Define smart.

[NoGravitas]

Define smart.

Think thats why smarter is in quotation marks. Its up to you to decide.

[Hannibal Lecter]

Think thats why smarter is in quotation marks. Its up to you to decide.
So, I figured it out then?

[NoGravitas]

So, I figured it out then?

What?

[scraty55]

chicken before the egg argument. Plato came before Einstein, therefore it's logical that einstein may have based some of his intelligence off of plato's