Maybe somebody with a background in Roman history or the classics could help with this.
Some time ago I read about an ancient Roman architect and polymath who was one of history's first recorded 'Renaissance men.' I can't remember his name, and it's been bugging me for months. It wasn't somebody you would have learned about in high school history.
You should have asked me this a few days ago; I might have been able to give an answer.
(I was reading a book about the Freemasons, and it mentioned Roman culture as a possible origin of some stuff.)
Edit: I doubt it’s Vitruvius, since he’s fairly well known?
Maybe somebody with a background in Roman history or the classics could help with this.
Some time ago I read about an ancient Roman architect and polymath who was one of history's first recorded 'Renaissance men.' I can't remember his name, and it's been bugging me for months. It wasn't somebody you would have learned about in high school history.
You should have asked me this a few days ago; I might have been able to give an answer.
(I was reading a book about the Freemasons, and it mentioned Roman culture as a possible origin of some stuff.)
Edit: I doubt it’s Vitruvius, since he’s fairly well known?
It was Vitruvius, thank you.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I heard that Da Vinci slept like 15 minutes every four hours or something, I slapped it away as wild guesswork to backup a kind of legend at the time as I couldn't be bothered looking it up and it seemed silly. Anyone know if it's true?
Johannen on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited June 2007
A lot of the great men in history had weird sleeping patterns. Napoleon could fall asleep and wake up on command, and he slept in little 15 minute naps.
I guess I'm going to have to pimp Dostoevsky again. The man had a way with writing characters that was just incredible. Some of his characters personalities (Underground Man and Raskolnikov, to name two) seemed very realistic to me. I guess it's because myself as the reader have had some of the exact same thoughts and feelings that these two characters experienced.
Dostoevsky really got into the mind and hearts of his characters (and consequently, his readers).
Dublo7 on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited June 2007
No no no no no no no no no no no no no no
Dostoevsky is NOT the pinnacle of genius for writers. He was a madman, which gave him a unique insight into humanity, and indeed he is certainly a genius. However, Dostoevsky's characters are so forced and ridiculous. A Dostoevsky novel would never happen. At times they border on outright simple allegory.
I'd say a novel like The Brothers Karamazov seemed forced mainly because it was supposed to be that way. TBK was almost supposed to be like a story in the bible. It was meant to be far out, ostentatious and almost unbelievable at times.
However, I think Crime and Punishment and Notes from the Underground had a more credible sense to them.
I definitely do see where you're coming from though, Podly.
Dublo7 on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited June 2007
I dunno. Sonya is such a forced character. Oh, the good hearted prostitute. And Raskolnykov's rage is laughable at times, as is his fear. It's hyperbole. It comes off to great effect, and you leave the novel feeling entertained and having learned something, but I would not put him up as the best author of all time, let alone "best genius."
I mean...Shakespeare should be up there. I don't think that anyone has ever had a better understanding of human nature.
But in terms of authors traditional? I like Joyce, but I might put Thomas Mann or, perhaps in the future, DFW up there.
A lot of the great men in history had weird sleeping patterns. Napoleon could fall asleep and wake up on command, and he slept in little 15 minute naps.
The same is true of Churchill especially during WWII. The man could go to SLEEP for exactly 5 minutes and wake up refreshed enough to continue (Literally shut his brain to go into deep REM and wake himself up). For few people its natural but making yourself power nap at command is very difficult to train. A bunch of little power naps can sustain you just as much as sleeping 6-8 hours every day in one shot. Wish I could remember the article I read on it.
Why is it that all of the geniuses listed so far (or at least the vast majority of them) are male?
(my tentative vote goes to da vinci)
I think maybe societal roles and gender norms may have supressed early female geniuses, still there are a few documented cases, like Hypatia, a prominent philospher of ye olde times. Although I don't know if I would qualify them as geniuses, some very smart, top-of-their-game women like Margaret Thatcher, or Madeleine Albright come to mind.
Given his contributions to art and his awesomeness as an inventor, I have to give the man mad props. Also, he was the inspiration for one of the finest pieces of literature in modern times.
You are kidding, right? Sorry, I just want to make sure.
He wouldn't be a nominee for greatest genius of all time, but Bill Evans was fucking brilliant. Amazingly brilliant. Gets my vote for the greatest genius of all time in jazz.
Given his contributions to art and his awesomeness as an inventor, I have to give the man mad props. Also, he was the inspiration for one of the finest pieces of literature in modern times.
You are kidding, right? Sorry, I just want to make sure.
He wouldn't be a nominee for greatest genius of all time, but Bill Evans was fucking brilliant. Amazingly brilliant. Gets my vote for the greatest genius of all time in jazz.
Da Vinci painted amazing pieces of art and invented machines hundreds of years ahead of his time.
Then again, Bill Evans is a great jazz pianist.....
....
....
....
O_o
Given his contributions to art and his awesomeness as an inventor, I have to give the man mad props. Also, he was the inspiration for one of the finest pieces of literature in modern times.
You are kidding, right? Sorry, I just want to make sure.
He wouldn't be a nominee for greatest genius of all time, but Bill Evans was fucking brilliant. Amazingly brilliant. Gets my vote for the greatest genius of all time in jazz.
Da Vinci painted amazing pieces of art and invented machines hundreds of years ahead of his time.
Then again, Bill Evans is a great jazz pianist.....
....
....
....
O_o
If I didn't make it clear, when I said "he wouldn't be a nominee for greatest genius of all time," I was referring to Bill Evans. Who is much more than a great jazz pianist. And when I was asking if ElJeffe was kidding, I was asking about calling The da Vinci Code one of the finest pieces of literature in modern times.
Maybe somebody with a background in Roman history or the classics could help with this.
Some time ago I read about an ancient Roman architect and polymath who was one of history's first recorded 'Renaissance men.' I can't remember his name, and it's been bugging me for months. It wasn't somebody you would have learned about in high school history.
Vitruvius wasn't all that orginal, but he's got the only complete work of architecture left from that time. His most interesting stuff is all the elements he brought together that you might never associate with architecture but that he thought were important to know. Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man was based off the proportions Vitruvius described in De architectura.
Given his contributions to art and his awesomeness as an inventor, I have to give the man mad props. Also, he was the inspiration for one of the finest pieces of literature in modern times.
You are kidding, right? Sorry, I just want to make sure.
He wouldn't be a nominee for greatest genius of all time, but Bill Evans was fucking brilliant. Amazingly brilliant. Gets my vote for the greatest genius of all time in jazz.
Da Vinci painted amazing pieces of art and invented machines hundreds of years ahead of his time.
Then again, Bill Evans is a great jazz pianist.....
....
....
....
O_o
If I didn't make it clear, when I said "he wouldn't be a nominee for greatest genius of all time," I was referring to Bill Evans. Who is much more than a great jazz pianist. And when I was asking if ElJeffe was kidding, I was asking about calling The da Vinci Code one of the finest pieces of literature in modern times.
Ah, I see. Then I apologise for my misinterpretation.
Say, didn't Archimedes tackle ideas of mathematically taking portions from infinity? One documentary I saw made the claim that we still don't know the answers to problems Archimedes possibly solved in his own lifetime. A good chunk of his written works and scribblings were lost to time.
I wouldn't call him the greatest of all time, but Eugene Dubois was either a genius or one of the luckiest men to ever live.
The man set out to find the oldest fossil hominid to date with no real money and no real evidence of where to look other than his own hunches (not to mention a scarce precedent of fossil hominid studies), but he fucking found it.
I know that he wasn't necessarily a genius, but I say that among any single figure to ever live, Jesus is by far the most important. He and his followers essentially defined the world and the way the people in it thought for the next 2000 years. Not really genius, just groundbreaking.
DaVinci was also good, but from what I understand, he was an isolated genius, and his works didn't influence the world a great deal compared to others.
He and his followers essentially defined the world and the way the people in it thought for the next 2000 years.
Except for, you know, the east.
Degree of impact also =/= degree of genius. In terms of ideas, Jesus was hardly original (if he existed at all. I'm agnostic on that one).
Obviously he didn't have an immediate impact anywhere outside of Europe and the Middle East. But what matters is that he shaped how Europeans thought, and Europeans then forcibly conquered and imposed their way of thought literally everywhere on the globe in the Modern Era. Because of that, anyone who wasn't Western can never have the same amount of influence on the world.
And Jesus had to exist. Obviously his divinity is hard to argue for, but I don't see how there couldn't have been at least a guy going around faking miracles or talking shit about himself. I never said he was a genius, just the most influential single person in history.
And Jesus had to exist. Obviously his divinity is hard to argue for, but I don't see how there couldn't have been at least a guy going around faking miracles or talking shit about himself. I never said he was a genius, just the most influential single person in history.
There have been plenty of religions built around people who never existed.
I'm not really compelled either way, but I fail to see how he "had" to exist.
Back on topic:
The collective genius of Radiohead for modern music.
Hannibal for military genius maybe. Alexander the Great was supposedly pretty decent too, but he may have just been one of the early folks to prove that killing lots of folks is easy, if you put your mind to it, and work at it really hard.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
edited June 2007
For some reason Spartacus comes to mind.
He wasn't the most intelligent, or the fastest thinker.
But he did with criminals and slaves what nations couldn't do with normal citizens.
He wasn't just a wonderful tactician on the battlefeild like most other military geniuses, but he could run everything else perfectly aswell. All his soldiers were well fed, effectively trained and usually very obedient.
Posts
(I was reading a book about the Freemasons, and it mentioned Roman culture as a possible origin of some stuff.)
Edit: I doubt it’s Vitruvius, since he’s fairly well known?
It was Vitruvius, thank you.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I guess I'm going to have to pimp Dostoevsky again. The man had a way with writing characters that was just incredible. Some of his characters personalities (Underground Man and Raskolnikov, to name two) seemed very realistic to me. I guess it's because myself as the reader have had some of the exact same thoughts and feelings that these two characters experienced.
Dostoevsky really got into the mind and hearts of his characters (and consequently, his readers).
Dostoevsky is NOT the pinnacle of genius for writers. He was a madman, which gave him a unique insight into humanity, and indeed he is certainly a genius. However, Dostoevsky's characters are so forced and ridiculous. A Dostoevsky novel would never happen. At times they border on outright simple allegory.
However, I think Crime and Punishment and Notes from the Underground had a more credible sense to them.
I definitely do see where you're coming from though, Podly.
I mean...Shakespeare should be up there. I don't think that anyone has ever had a better understanding of human nature.
But in terms of authors traditional? I like Joyce, but I might put Thomas Mann or, perhaps in the future, DFW up there.
For Christ's sake, he got a retard elected. Twice.
...or maybe Terence McKenna?
Ha, no.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The same is true of Churchill especially during WWII. The man could go to SLEEP for exactly 5 minutes and wake up refreshed enough to continue (Literally shut his brain to go into deep REM and wake himself up). For few people its natural but making yourself power nap at command is very difficult to train. A bunch of little power naps can sustain you just as much as sleeping 6-8 hours every day in one shot. Wish I could remember the article I read on it.
Where I live it's very easy to believe we evolved following around gazelles eating shit mushrooms.
(my tentative vote goes to da vinci)
Patriarchy.
As for my nominations: I vote for Alexander Calder in the artistic/humanist category, and Elizabeth I of England in the political category.
I think maybe societal roles and gender norms may have supressed early female geniuses, still there are a few documented cases, like Hypatia, a prominent philospher of ye olde times. Although I don't know if I would qualify them as geniuses, some very smart, top-of-their-game women like Margaret Thatcher, or Madeleine Albright come to mind.
Because "real women of genius" doesn't sound as good for a beer ad?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
He wouldn't be a nominee for greatest genius of all time, but Bill Evans was fucking brilliant. Amazingly brilliant. Gets my vote for the greatest genius of all time in jazz.
Da Vinci painted amazing pieces of art and invented machines hundreds of years ahead of his time.
Then again, Bill Evans is a great jazz pianist.....
....
....
....
O_o
Vitruvius wasn't all that orginal, but he's got the only complete work of architecture left from that time. His most interesting stuff is all the elements he brought together that you might never associate with architecture but that he thought were important to know. Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man was based off the proportions Vitruvius described in De architectura.
Ah, I see. Then I apologise for my misinterpretation.
YES.
Also, if we're talking about philosophers: Hume, Kierkagaard, Hegel.
<- this girl
people with resources ~ Alexander.
Thinkers - Billy Shakespeare.
thats my take
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
Pics.
fixed?
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
\m/
ffs i thought a post meant pics. i;m going to bed this sucks. einstein was smart i guess.
edit:
rock on.
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
The man set out to find the oldest fossil hominid to date with no real money and no real evidence of where to look other than his own hunches (not to mention a scarce precedent of fossil hominid studies), but he fucking found it.
Rock on, Eugene.
DaVinci was also good, but from what I understand, he was an isolated genius, and his works didn't influence the world a great deal compared to others.
Except for, you know, the east.
Degree of impact also =/= degree of genius. In terms of ideas, Jesus was hardly original (if he existed at all. I'm agnostic on that one).
Obviously he didn't have an immediate impact anywhere outside of Europe and the Middle East. But what matters is that he shaped how Europeans thought, and Europeans then forcibly conquered and imposed their way of thought literally everywhere on the globe in the Modern Era. Because of that, anyone who wasn't Western can never have the same amount of influence on the world.
And Jesus had to exist. Obviously his divinity is hard to argue for, but I don't see how there couldn't have been at least a guy going around faking miracles or talking shit about himself. I never said he was a genius, just the most influential single person in history.
There have been plenty of religions built around people who never existed.
I'm not really compelled either way, but I fail to see how he "had" to exist.
Back on topic:
The collective genius of Radiohead for modern music.
Hannibal for military genius maybe. Alexander the Great was supposedly pretty decent too, but he may have just been one of the early folks to prove that killing lots of folks is easy, if you put your mind to it, and work at it really hard.
He wasn't the most intelligent, or the fastest thinker.
But he did with criminals and slaves what nations couldn't do with normal citizens.
He wasn't just a wonderful tactician on the battlefeild like most other military geniuses, but he could run everything else perfectly aswell. All his soldiers were well fed, effectively trained and usually very obedient.