Who is the smartest guy in the history ? I guess Leonardo Da Vinci ?

me

>>1627112
He is a liar. I am the smartest actually.

Richard Dawkins. He saw through the Religion bullshit.

Nah, he was smart, but he's a bit of a meme

Probably one of these guys:

Einstein
Plato
Newton
Leibniz
Aristotle
Kant
Goethe

>>1627122
Edgy

File: Stalin_1902.jpg (500KB, 897x1206px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 897x1206px

>>1627105
Koba. He was so fluent in ancient greek languange that when they translated the Illiad to Russian he made corrections in the translation and those were proven correct later.

File: H._B._Reese.jpg (62KB, 459x738px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 459x738px

>By 1928, H. B. and Blanche had sixteen children.[1] That same year, H. B. Reese invented Reese's Peanut Butter Cups.[1] H.B. Reese initially sold his many candies on consignment to retail stores, but by 1935 he was a success and was able to burn all his mortgages.

File: lewis.jpg (85KB, 487x604px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 487x604px

David Kellogg Lewis

>>1627122
Either this is bait or you are a complete moron.

Sir Isaac "developed calculus and the foundations of modern physics" Newton

Jesus Christ

>>1627105
Buddha

>>1628743
Was getting stabbed part of his plan ?

>>1627131
I'd say Plato or Einstein out of that list. Maybe Leibniz if you're a monads guy.

>>1627131
Remove Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Goethe, and you're right.

>>1630529
"I haven't read Plato, Aristotle, or Kant"

but desu it's Einstein, hands down

>>1627105
Robert Oppenheimer

>>1630487
OF COURSE!

Einstein or Newton

Philosophers and political theorists aren't necessarily "smart" they're "wise".

>>1627105
Most likely some unknown person.

>>1630774
Well, you got yourself stabbed. What's the next step in your master plan?

File: kingsolomon.jpg (388KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1600x1200px

King Solomon.

Son of King David and Bathsheba, brilliant thinker, poet, scholar, scientist, and king.

Fight me.

>>1632220
>someone who either didn't exist or was a tribal chieftain that was later way over hyped

File: Albert_Speer.jpg (174KB, 583x800px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 583x800px

What the fuck am I doing.

my pa

>>1632208
Crashing this Senate

I haven't seen Archimedes yet, y'all fuckers disappoint me. Best mathematician of antiquity. Invented a form of calculus in the third century BC.

Newton, Einstein, Gauss, Euler

Da vinci is a great choice though

File: Von_Neumann_5.jpg (61KB, 590x400px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 590x400px

Von Neumann

All this Einstein love is perplexing. He made wildly brilliant innovations in one area, but otherwise, meh.

>>1627105
If he was so smart how come he's dead?

>>1630518
Plato over Aristotle?
>Muh forms
Over
>Systematic organization of observational "truths"

>>1627105
ur mum, oh wait, i thought it was who is the DUBMEST lmoa am i right

>>1632328
>Gauss
This

File: 1464988316030.png (120KB, 301x315px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 301x315px

>>1627105

Uhhhh, omniscience ringing any bells?

Hitler.

File: gord.jpg (52KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x400px

>>1627122
*dibs bedora

>>1627131

> leaving out Gauss

Kill yourself my man.

>>1627105
probably someone we don't know about

>>1634210
>already knows everything
>doesnt even have to think
>smart
Wow, it's like that kid that copies the answers out of the back of the textbook for homework.

I fucking hate all this Einstein answers. Sure, he did his good share of discoveries, but he's no more special than any other great scientist or mathematician in history. He just was lucky pop sci picked him up as the archetype of genius; also the fact that relativity can be dulled down kinda easily (eg. "you can't go faster than light" "mass is energy") helped spreading his fame to the general public.

I don't mean to belittle his achievements at all, but I can't stand hearing his name popping out everytime.

This being said, my choice would be someone like Euler, Lagrange, Fourier, or Laplace, who were active in so many fields of mathematics and physics and basically founded the basis for today's science. We will never have a polimath like them again, now that every little branch of science is so developed that one needs a lifetime to master it.

>>1627105
Newton, Euler, Einstein, Euclides

>>1627131
>Plato
>Goethe
>Kant

Kys

>>1636671
>Kys

Kys

>>1627131
>>1636671
>>1630529
Plato and Aristotle literally shaped the world more than anyone else in history.

Newton
Einstein
Tesla
Turing
Marx

>>1636693
>>>/int/
>>>/b/

>>1636705
>Turing
>Marx

kys.

>>1636683
I hope you're joking that doesn't mean they were smart

>>1636720
>that doesn't mean they were smart

I hope you're joking

>>1636726
They were Not smart, nothing they said proves they had a high IQ, they just spent their time writing the shit they had in mind and had a lot of free time

>>1636693

not that guy but they were clearly massively influential on western society. But what the other guy has missed is that the OP's' prompt is "who was smartest", not "who was most important in history".

a number of greek writings have survived, so even if we didn't fetishize plato/aristotle, or even if their stuff hadn't survived, someone similar likley would have taken their place during the axial age.

>>1636735
>they were not smart
>nothing they said proves they had a high IQ

Excuse me but are you a retard or just baiting?

How could one produce the first formal system of logic without being smart?

How could one create the oeuvre of philosophical investigation that Plato did without being smart?

Have you read either? Do you think they just made little aphorisms or something?

Please, have a read. I'm not arguing they are amongst the smartest ever (although I do believe so), but it is idiotic and ignorant to claim "They were Not smart, nothing they said proves they had a high IQ"

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/categories.1.1.html

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.1.i.html

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/parmenides.html

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laws.html

>>1632328
Gauss is really underrated

>>1636793
>Excuse me but are you a retard or just baiting?

I'm thinking the same about you, what a coincidence!

>How could one produce the first formal system of logic without being smart?

Simple Logic doesn't require being smart, or at least, not particularly so, surely it doesn't put you among the world's smartest men

>How could one create the oeuvre of philosophical investigation that Plato did without being smart?

This just shows you how ignorant you really are.

Philosophical investigation was born with the Miletus' philosophers: Tales, Anaximander and Anaxagoras, your philosophical knowledge is embarrassing to say the least.

>Have you read either?

Multiple times and I actually understood their thought, unlike you who assumes they were unmistakable Gods on earth and not just men who happened to be born at the right time in the right place.

>Do you think they just made little aphorisms or something?

Writing a lot doesn't mean you're smart, this is especially valid for Plato and his view of the world.

>Please, have a read.

Again, it's you who should learn about the history of philosophy and stop assuming that because they are famous that means they were gods on earth.

>I'm not arguing they are amongst the smartest ever

It seems you are, since you named them among the smartest men who have ever lived.

>but it is idiotic and ignorant to claim "They were Not smart, nothing they said proves they had a high IQ"

It's not idiotic, Aristotle might have been somewhat smart, but nothing that he said makes me believe he was extraordinary smart, Plato is just a big mess, he's a borderline mystique, not to mention that he owes much of his philosophy to Socrates, he just realaborates his philosophy and does so horribly.

>>1636834
>I'm thinking the same about you, what a coincidence!

Cheeky ;)

>Simple Logic doesn't require being smart, or at least, not particularly so, surely it doesn't put you among the world's smartest men

Creating a formalised system of logic does.

>surely it doesn't put you among the world's smartest men

Irrelevant.

>Philosophical investigation was born with the Miletus' philosophers: Tales, Anaximander and Anaxagoras, your philosophical knowledge is embarrassing to say the least.

What's your point? I didn't say he invented philosophical investigation. Can you read?

>Multiple times and I actually understood their thought, unlike you who assumes they were unmistakable Gods on earth and not just men who happened to be born at the right time in the right place.

>unlike you who assumes they were unmistakable Gods on eath.

An assumption of an assumption.

>not just men who happened to be born at the right time in the right place.

So even people without intelligence can create whole systems of philosophy and physics by merely being born at the right time in the right place?

>Writing a lot doesn't mean you're smart, this is especially valid for Plato and his view of the world.

But being able to write the same amount as him, with an equal amount of substance, does. Whether you agree with "his" ideas or not, intelligence is required to produce such works.

>Again, it's you who should learn about the history of philosophy and stop assuming that because they are famous that means they were gods on earth.

Another assumption. I'm arguing that they were smart, and what they said shows their intelligence. Unless you have an uncommon definition of smart, I fail to see how you could claim they were not.

>It seems you are, since you named them among the smartest men who have ever lived.

In these posts I am arguing "that they were smart, and what they said shows their intelligence".

1/2

>>1627105
Prophet Muhammad.

>>1636834
>>1636852
>It's not idiotic, Aristotle might have been somewhat smart, but nothing that he said makes me believe he was extraordinary smart, Plato is just a big mess, he's a borderline mystique, not to mention that he owes much of his philosophy to Socrates, he just realaborates his philosophy and does so horribly

>Aristotle might have been somewhat smart

But you said "they were not smart".

>but nothing that he said makes me believe he was extraordinary smart

That doesn't matter. We're talking about whether they were smart or not. Not if they were super-duper smart.

>not to mention that he owes much of his philosophy to Socrates, he just realaborates his philosophy and does so horribly

And how did you reach that conclusion? I mean obviously, the first part would make sense as he was a pupil of Socrates, but to say he did so horribly? Where have you found the original works of Socrates to show Plato's re-elaboration was horribly done? Plato's has influences outside of Socrates anyway. It's clear from his works that he was well versed in the philosophy of the pre-socratics (especially Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Pythargoras) as well as being well versed in mathematics -- things that do require being "smart". You can disagree with his philosophy, sure. You can even believe it is a "mess". But I still don't see how one could reach the conclusion he was not smart.

>>1636852

>Creating a formalised system of logic does.

It doesn't, he just happens to have been the first person to do what (as far as we know)

Philosophically investigating doesn't require for one to be especially smart, the way he does it isn't particularly smart either, his dualistic world view of ideas separated from the imperfect material world is detrimental if anything and underlies a poor understanding of the world

>An assumption of an assumption.

It's not an assumption, you idolize them because they are famous, it's clear from the way you talk about them

>But being able to write the same amount as him, with an equal amount of substance, does

No it doesn't, he regurgitates the same concept over and over in his works, if he presented multiple geometrical theoremes then he would have been a genius, spouting the same concepts and making allegories over and over again doesn't make you smart.

>>1636867
>Where have you found the original works of Socrates to show Plato's re-elaboration was horribly done?

The original works of Socrates don't exist since he didn't write anything down, we can just see Plato talking about Socrates' whereabouts.

>as well as being well versed in mathematics

To the level any normal person who took interest in the subject would be.

>>1636880
>It doesn't, he just happens to have been the first person to do what (as far as we know)

It does. No non-smart person could. Such thought requires a certain amount of being-smart.

>Philosophically investigating doesn't require for one to be especially smart, the way he does it isn't particularly smart either, his dualistic world view of ideas separated from the imperfect material world is detrimental if anything and underlies a poor understanding of the world

Especially smart isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about simply being smart. Such thought requires a certain amount of being-smart.

>It's not an assumption, you idolize (sic) them because they are famous, it's clear from the way you talk about them

I don't idolise them. I just think they were very smart. But this chain of the debate is pointless.

>No it doesn't, he regurgitates the same concept over and over in his works, if he presented multiple geometrical theoremes then he would have been a genius, spouting the same concepts and making allegories over and over again doesn't make you smart.

He uses and shows a range of different theories in his works. I assume you refer to the theory of forms. But even that theory has a different "forms" (lol), it's presentation in Cratylus is different to it's presentation in Timaeus for example.

>>1636886
>The original works of Socrates don't exist since he didn't write anything down, we can just see Plato talking about Socrates' whereabouts.

I know that. My point was that it's silly to say his representation of Socrates views wasn't good as we do not have Socrates by Socrates available to make the judgement, unless you think Socrates represented by Aristophanes or Xenophon is a better representation of what you believe to be the true Socrates.

1/2

>>1636886
>To the level any normal person who took interest in the subject would be.

To reach a good level of mathematical understanding. One must be smart.

Anyway, what's Plato's number if you're such a cheeky lad

Now for divine begettings there is a period comprehended by a perfect number, and for mortal by the first in which augmentations dominating and dominated when they have attained to three distances and four limits of the assimilating and the dissimilating, the waxing and the waning, render all things conversable and commensurable [546c] with one another, whereof a basal four-thirds wedded to the pempad yields two harmonies at the third augmentation, the one the product of equal factors taken one hundred times, the other of equal length one way but oblong,-one dimension of a hundred numbers determined by the rational diameters of the pempad lacking one in each case, or of the irrational lacking two; the other dimension of a hundred cubes of the triad. And this entire geometrical number is determinative of this thing, of better and inferior births.

Anyway, I'm off. I need a wee wee. Been fun. Seeya later mate.

Successful smarties from history?
>Einstein, Von Neumann, Newton, Turing, Hawking

But SMARTEST people of all time?

Obviously some millionaire autist programmer

>>1636953
There's Michael Langan who's very high IQ

But he has the problem of being high IQ but dumb in other aspects

For example his "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe" is shite.

>>1627105
"Look at this thing I designed! It doesn't work at all, but just look at it!"

Da Vinci

>>1634210
Nah

>>1636972
*Christopher Langan my bad

>>1637094
No it was my bad

File: Austerlitz.png (134KB, 872x668px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 872x668px

Napoleon. Near the end he went a bit crazy and fucked up, but up until the Berlin Declarations he was a pure genius.

File: 7ff2996f5d9d032eda4cb4d8cd60559b.jpg (60KB, 800x584px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x584px

It's objectively Christopher Langan. He has the highest recorded I.Q. He believes that when a good man dies he can hope to be reunited with "the divine". He is in this respect similar to Plato.

>>1637511
>IQ was reported to be between 195 and 210,[1] although IQ tests are unreliable at such high levels.[2][3][4

Not saying it's not an impressive score, but let's not get memey here.

Also his philosophy a poo

>>1637511
And he proved this belief of his?

I doubt he did, you can be as smart as you want a belief stays a belief.

>>1637545
>Also his philosophy a poo

In case anyone wants expansion on this.

http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2011/02/11/another-crank-comes-to-visit-the-cognitive-theoretic-model-of-the-universe/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

>Under the handle Asmodeus, Langan and his partner have been caught repeatedly trying to postively skew the Wikipedia article covering him and the CTMU. Exhibiting his typical highly aggressive style of combative dialectic he attempted to brow-beat everyone who edited the page; this eventually led to him being topic banned.[11]

>>1637560
>>Under the handle Asmodeus, Langan and his partner have been caught repeatedly trying to postively skew the Wikipedia article covering him and the CTMU. Exhibiting his typical highly aggressive style of combative dialectic he attempted to brow-beat everyone who edited the page; this eventually led to him being topic banned.[11]

This is so cringe inducing, and yet all too typical of Christfag behavior

>>1637511
>studied the test and took it repeatedly until he got the score he wanted

The score he got the first time he took it is probably a more accurate measurement of his intelligence.

File: julius.jpg (5KB, 136x185px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 136x185px

>>1632255
WITH NO PLEBEIANS!

>>1637570
It's also likely that his IQ score isn't accurate, especially as scores above 165 are unreliable.

If you look at the talk section on his wikipedia page, there's a whole lot of talk about it.

>According to http://www.prb.org/Articles/2002/HowManyPeopleHaveEverLivedonEarth.aspx, there has been 107 billion people that have ever lived, including probably more that 80 billion who lived before 1AD. That aside, an IQ of more that 201 means that your IQ is higher than 120billion people, more people that have ever even existed on Earth. Even more absurd is an IQ of 210, which means that your IQ is higher that 8.9 trillion other humans (that have supposedly taken the test)

>>1636865
pbuh

File: image.jpg (32KB, 184x274px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 184x274px

Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī

>>1627105
Probably a tie between the first human who discovered fire, the first human who discovered toolmaking, and the first human who discovered agriculture.

>>1637622
You do realise you are crowning niggers the smartest race?

>>1637704
At that point, everyone was a nigger. Plus, how does declaring a single individual to be the smartest insinuate that their whole race is therefore smartest?

>>1637622
Several different people (or groups of people) discovered those things all at the same time, so they weren't single individuals that slowly spread those ideas across primitive humanity.

In fact, it wasn't even humanity (I.e. Homo sapiens) that discovered tools and fire (and maybe agriculture), but rather other homos, like homo erected and homo habilis.

>>1637787
Shit, I meant erectus, not erected

File: Camillo_Golgi.jpg (152KB, 800x1094px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 800x1094px

>>1627105

Camillo Golgi

Even though Camillo Golgi's "reticular theory" was wrong compared to his rival Ramón y Cajal's "neuron doctrine", Golgi's distributionist view that the "collective work of vast distributed neuronal circuits is more important than the activity of individual neurons in isolated regions" was ahead of its time. In this sense, he was better than Santiago Ramón y Cajal, for he predicted the importance rhythms of brain activity would have in the future. Golgi was a better visionary than Cajal.

Here's a quote from Charles Sherrington that I I believe Golgi would have agreed with wholeheartedly:

“The great topmost sheet of the mass, that where hardly a light had twinkled or moved, becomes now a sparkling field of rhythmic flashing points with trains of traveling sparks hurrying hither and thither. The brain is waking and with it the mind is returning. It is as if the Milky Way entered upon some cosmic dance. Swiftly the head mass becomes an enchanted loom where millions of flashing shuttles weave a dissolving pattern, always a meaningful pattern though never an abiding one; a shifting harmony of subpatterns.”

File: 121121083650-moustache-transplants-izzat-large-169.jpg (29KB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 460x259px

>>1632246
based

>>1628787
It's sad this anon was the first one with the correct answer.

>>1637787
>homo erected
I kek'ed

>>1638035
>Not Aristotle "developed formal logic and the foundations of physics/biology and the scientific method" of Athens

File: 1469210253439.gif (1MB, 264x264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 264x264px

>>1627131
>Goethe

>>1638652
>Goethe

He was pretty damn smart mate

>>1638802
>555-come-on-now.jpg

>>1627105

I think is quite difficult to say. I guess that if you use some standard like IQ measuring then you would probably get mathematicians and physicists at the top of the scale. People like Newton, Euler and Gauss would be the answer.

Then again, there are other outstanding mental accomplishments that neither Newton, nor Einstein, nor Gauss, nor Von Neumann would be able to achieve, even if they tried they’re best. They would not be able to write as magnificent poetry as the one we find in Shakespeare1s plays, they would not be capable of painting the Sistine chapel ceiling and sculpting the David, they would not be able to compose sublime music like Beethoven, Bach and Mozart.

So you see, if IQ is the measurement, then let say that Gauss was the top achiever. Yet Shakespeare’s plays and Tolstoy’s novels are wonders of the world, and Gauss would never be able to produce them. They are as difficult to reproduce as some of the feats of great mathematicians.

I also doubt we really had great polymaths. Da Vinci was one of the greatest draftsman in history and was one of the pioneers of great anatomical drawings; he was also a great painter. However, he was not very good at math, and only had some minor ability in the field of geometry. His inventions were all impractical, impossible to create and, even if they were made, they would not work. There is also the tendency to call him a “botanist” because he draw plants, a “geologist” because he was interested in rocks and in how to best portray them, an “architect” and “urbanist” because he sketched buildings and city plans in a more ludic way. So there is a tendency to try to give him credit for several activities were he merely scratched the surface.

>>1638925


Same with Goethe. His color theory was wrong, and he didn’t make any scientific contribution. His literature is not as influential as the one of Shakespeare and Tolstoy, and to be fair, his poetry is not that impressive (having few readers outside Germany).

Like some Anon once said in a thread like this: probably the most gifted individual in history was born in a poor peasant family in China and never had any chance to explore his mental gifts.

>>1627149
This guy was an idiot

>>1638925
>I also doubt we really had great polymaths

Aristotle.

But he was living in the age where it was possible to be a great polymath.

As fields move forward it becomes harder and harder to become one.

Gauß I gueß

>>1628759
Either this is bait or you are a complete moron.

>>1627105

Jesus

>>1627105
>all those people posting famous mem
it was probably some depressed idiot we don't know about

>>1638927
>success is a measure of IQ
your underage is showing

>>1627131
You Kant be serious.

File: somememe.jpg (57KB, 289x288px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 289x288px

>>1627122
this is a bait obviously but jokes aside is he really just poser or honest with his arguments?

>>1639113
Goethe reddit

>>1639087

Did you read what I wrote? I was saying that, if OP was taking IQ as his measure for brightness, then he might follow a line that would lead to “A”. But I am not saying that IQ is, in my own opinion, the great standard for success.

There are so many things that together compose a person, so many special traits necessary for extreme achievement (like willingness to work, great ambition, obsessive personality, creativity – whatever creativity is) that I can’t really put IQ as the actual measure for success.

I am sorry if I expressed myself in a confuse way, but you did not understand what I was trying to say.

>>1636693
bait or i don't want to know otherwise what is this come from

>>1636720
>here is a pleb doesn't understand thought history my son

>>1637897
muh nig

>>1636643
He came from nowhere to make his discoveries. Unlike other scientists of his time who were all university professors he worked in a patent office. His contributions completely revolutionised physics. He began quantum mechanics, nuclear physics and relativity. He might not be the smartest person of all time but he certainly isn't over-hyped

>>1637787
>implying modern human species are not hybrid

>>1627122
>>>/sci/

>>1636852
>Can you read?
No, he can't.

hegel desu

Von Neumann.

His intelligence was scary even for Nobel laureates.

>>1639559

I have known a great many intelligent people in my life. I knew Planck, von Laue and Heisenberg. Paul Dirac was my brother in law; Leo Szilard and Edward Teller have been among my closest friends; and Albert Einstein was a good friend, too. But none of them had a mind as quick and acute as Jansci [John] von Neumann. I have often remarked this in the presence of those men and no one ever disputed me.

... But Einstein's understanding was deeper even than von Neumann's. His mind was both more penetrating and more original than von Neumann's. And that is a very remarkable statement. Einstein took an extraordinary pleasure in invention. Two of his greatest inventions are the Special and General Theories of Relativity; and for all of Jansci's brilliance, he never produced anything as original.

Eugene Wigner

Also: could Von Neumann compose like Beethoven or write like Shakespeare even if he made all the effort in the world?

Newton maybe?
I also admire Faraday. He lacked real, formal education yet he made enormous progress.

>>1639624
Definitely not. I don't believe intelligence is something one can measure with good accuracy, let alone define. Nor do I believe that an intelligent person necessarily has ability in different fields.

Neitzsche could produce some great philosophy, but his compositions were shit.

>>1636643
Einstein isn't overhyped at all
He created the foundation of modern physics
It would be like saying Newton is overrated for being the foundation of physics for 200+ years

General and special relativity are fucking brilliant. I used to think Einstein was overrated but once I studied the theories in a more in depth manner I came to think that he isn't.

>>1637989
wew

>>1632429
>Aristotle
>The man who wrote that flies have four legs
>smarter than anyone

>>1639720
>but his compositions were shit
To be fair, he was pretty young and indulging a hobby.

>>1641812
>Newton
>that guy who thought he could turn base metals into gold
>smarter than anyone

Lmao