So we all agree that this guy is the smartest man

This.

seek help

wait so Leibniz actually respected Newton?

Bait/10

what did Gauss do?

>Goethe
>Wittgenstein
Nigga wut?

yeah i was kind of scratching my head there

The Anglo always lies.

I think there was supposed to be a separation there. Goethe respected Shakespeare. Wittgenstein said his shit later.

What i don't get is.

Was Wittgenstein really that smart, people act like he just walked in pretty much told all the philosophers at the time "to sit the fuck down and let me work"

and produced greatness? is this accurate?

He was a major influence on analytic philosophy.

yeah

he's probably the most impactful philosopher of the 20th century (the only other you can really argue is Heidegger)

Be the greatest mathematician since antiquity.

I'm not going to pretend to understand Tracitus Logicus on any meaningful level but I do think that writing it as a final bookend to philosophy was pretty arrogant and leads me to think that some of the reverence paid to him was self-perpetuated, fuelled by his enigma.

Also probably the top contender for the philosopher who was most likely literally Autistic.

would most mathematicians rate Gauss ahead of Euler?

well, he would agree with you seeing as he essentially dismissed the Tracitus later in his life

Into the trash then.

did he dismiss it completely or see it as inferior to his later works?

Euler is obviously fierce competition.

agreed its much better to do continental philosophy

you know believing that science is the product of hegemonic white male patriarchy

and that there is no biological differences between men and women

yeah continental philosophy is great

Mathematician here, Euler was off the walls with the things he did. He had a bunch of constants and common operations on those constants memorized, as well as primes up to a million or close, and would just do math all the time and whenever he saw weird decimals, he would consult his library of knowledge to figure out what the number was, such as pi^2/6. Unfortunately, a lot of his math involved some handwaving. Gauss on the other hand made huge leaps in vector calculus, and by association fluid mechanics and electricity and magnetism, and has multiple anecdotes about his intelligence as a child. If you want to know who mathematicians think is smarter, you'd have to ask if they were pure or applied mathematicians first, as applied mathematicians might be more inclined to say Gauss

No mention of John Von Neumann?

he was smart but didn't really accomplish anything great

I notice the answers tend to be scientific or mathematical base

which is ok

but what about Judith Butler in terms of her influence on gender studies?

hey, just like me!

Why do people say Wittgenstein had autism, i see it all the time here?

Da Vinci was smarter

aren't you a little too old to believe in boogeymen? Adults shouldn't feel the need to check under their bed.

if you don't like the analogy feel free to quote any prominent figure in all of continental philosophy using the phrase "hegemonic white male patriarchy" or saying there's no biological differences between men and women. You've chosen these two things to classify the field, and I've allowed you to draw from the whole of it, so my request should be very easy.

that feel when nobody on earth understands Freud besides me and probably a few obscure old jews

>muh favorite christ apologist is the smartest man
You're ridiculous. C.S. Lewis's arguments aren't even particularly good.

He looks quite smart if you haven't read philosophers before him. And since he hadn't read much at the time, he and Bertie thought the ideas of Tractatus were original.
He realized that philosophy both had a history, and that his ideas were mere repetitions of simple presocratic and sophist ideas, so then he wrote Phil. Investigarions that were a tad brighter and somewhat original.
So, Wittgenstein only seems clever if you are ignorant of any other philosopher that came before him.

Leibniz was hella respectful and nice all around

C. S. Lewis has far better arguments than pretty much any other apologist. People like to say Aquinas and others, but that's because they are faggots impressed by how an idea is stated rather than the substance. In Mere Christianity alone Lewis blows every other apologist so far (that I personally know of) the fuck out.

And I can say that as an Atheist. Did he convince me? No, but he did the best defense you possibly could. It's like a defense attorney trying to defend some guy caught red handed. Mere Christianity is a book I'd recommend to anyone atheist or otherwise. He was truly a man who could plainly talk and still get in depth ideas across. He cuts out all the flowery shit and gets to the meat of the argument.

No. he was definitely impactful but he's really just a positivist meme that is becoming too dank to stick around. Postivism was just very popular but has since imploded severely. In 100 years he probably won't be even in the top 10 of 20th century philosophers.

I must disagree. Aquinas' arguments, while also lacking, at the very least tend to have flaws that are more subtle or enter the realm of the unfalsifiable. Debunking or pointing out the flaws in one of Aquinas's arguments after I haven't seen them for a while actually requires me to think about the argument for some time.

While I'll admit I haven't read Mere Christianity and as such I may be attacking a strawman (in which case I'd blame Christians for not understanding the very arguments that supposedly support their beliefs), Lewis's arguments, as I've seen them stated, are riddled with flaws and mere child's play to debunk.

>best
>possible
>world

That is not Goethe

Not even the best christian author

That's not Carl Friedrich Gauss
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_Gauss

>liar, lunatic, or lord
>good argument

gauss?

DA VINCI

This better be bait. Da Vinci is such an overrated hack.

Josiah Willard Gibbs, Ramanujan, Gauss, Laplace, probably Newton, were all probably better than him.

You should read it. His arguments are better. If for no other reason but that Christian apologetics had several hundred years worth of new refutations since Aquinas and Augustine. So there were new defences as well. Not saying he's brilliant at it, but better than the others by far. While the others are more subtle and wrapped up in word games, the actual arguments aren't much better than the shit tier apologetics of today.

1. Never said he was convincing to me.
2. If Jesus existed then those are indeed the options available. But that assumes he existed at all. But if he did then that leaves those options. Either he was a liar and was bullshitting, he was a nut and believed he was the son of god and the messiah, or the shit is true and he was the son of god.

It's not like there are a varied bunch of nuanced possibilities, because as Lewis said, he didn't leave any other options.

leibniz didn't do anything

>look up a smart european that revolutionised their field
>they're always jewish
are europoors destined to be enslaved by the master race?

Plenty of people understand Freud.

He was right about a select few things when put into a specific context but not much else.

>If Jesus existed then those are indeed the options available.
But that's not true. Never heard of euhemerism?

He could have been a pretty dope guy whose message reached a bunch of people and then they started adding all sort of stuff to his legend.

We have a precedent from the very same time period: people were already deifying Augustus before he even died.

And while this is anecdotal evidence, I've seen Christians believe random supernatural ("god given") abilities ("talents" like being able to see the purity of your soul and whatnot) about a religious leader. With my very own eyes. While he's still alive. In this fucking day and age. And said leader didn't even make that stuff up himself, it formed spontaneously around his quasi-cult of personality in the form of rumors that he may or may not condone.

People are weird, and will believe all sort of stuff once you've convinced them of the starting premise. Since Jesus existing is generally more within the consensus than the alternative, I'm almost convinced that this is what happened with him.

But in any case, it is indeed a shitty argument, and this wasn't even the ones I was talking about.

Isaac Newton was pure white