Name on continental philosopher that is as intelligent as this man

name one continental philosopher on Von Neumann's intellectual level

LOL people become continental philosophers because they don't have the logical or mathematical intelligence to be someone like Von Neumann

there isn't any

Well, I am sure that even with great effort he would not be capable of writing greater works than Shakespeare. He would never be capable of sculpting the language in the same sublime intensity.

you obviously know nothing about Von Neumann, pretty much all his colleagues said he was a superhuman compared to everyone else

I know, I read about it. Still, it was mostly based on math. He could force his brain all he wanted but he would not beat Shakespeare's verbal genius. I dont even think that such a logical mind would feel confortable with a demanding level of metaphorical thinking. Also, Einstein is reported to have been more creative and deep in his thoughts than Von Neumann. As for Shakespeare, thousands of other writers have worked with poetry, but nobody comes close to his level. Is like Nabokov said: his verbal poetic texture is the greatest the world has ever seen. Von Newmann would never be capable of the same artistic beauty with language.


Cervantes > Shakespeare

Only for delusional spaniards. Shakespeare is on a category of his own. And Tolstoy is a greater novelist than Cervantes.

Can the nigga paint tho? What about sculpt? Or compose? Or tell a story?

and Shakespeare was a black man as well.. he was known as a "moor"

the greatest genius in the english language was a black man

>implying an english writer deserves a category of his own
>implying english writers are comparable to literally every other language writers
Shakespeare is a meme for delusional anglofaggots who can't accept that they aren't relevant on literature.

I am not even anglo. But anyone who is sensible to language and loves poetry knows that Shakespeare was simply the greatest. Thousands of characters, of scenes, of points of view, and all modeled with that metaphorical texture that presents more inovations in a single play that some famous poets offer in their entire work. And be honest, you are a spaniard, are you not?

That's nice. Not true, but that's nice.

Intelligence isn't a monolith. It's possible to be extremely intelligent and still never do math or physics your entire life.

but don't you know that the only thing that has ever been worth studying or spending time on is math and physics?

That's not true but ok.

Then stop listening to your favorite songs or watching your favorite movies or reading fiction, since it is all worthless. Just está, drink, sleep and study math.

B-but music is math.

Why? It does nothing for us.

Physics is useless nonsense.

Who do I need to understand before reading Husserl?

C,mon m8; he is wrong, but you are better than that - you know math and physics are not only important for us to know the truth about the universe, but also offer a lot of new techs as by -products. I admire great scientists as much as great artists.

"To know the truth about the universe"
That wouldn't do much for us.
>By-products aka Consumerism

Scientists explain things that are there. Artists create something new.

Isn't the truth extremely interesting for its own sake?

>anyone who is sensible to language and loves poetry knows that Shakespeare was simply the greatest
So what about Tolstoy?

Neumann was a mathematical genius. It's stupid to compare his genius to Lacan etc. This is stupid ass question and pretty shitty bait.

>not Hegelian

>music is math

Favorite Boards of Canada track

If you do not follow it to its fullest extent, then what is it worth?
The laws of nature are indifferent to you, and not human.

Does nobody here think Derrida is ingenious anymore? Claude Lévi-Strauss? Ferdinand de Saussure?

Oh, that's right. I forgot that no one on Veeky Forums reads anymore. Well, I suppose that's not true. They read threads, snippets of John Green, and summaries of important books while "between reads". Where did you go, Veeky Forums?

>user got the reference
I love you, but the best is the entirely of Geogaddi

>he thought the best example of a genius continental was lacan

What do you mean by follow?
And why would the infdifference of the laws of nature change the fact that they are interesting?


>During a Senate committee hearing he described his political ideology as "violently anti-communist, and much more militaristic than the norm". He was quoted in 1950 remarking, "If you say why not bomb [the Soviets] tomorrow, I say, why not today? If you say today at five o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?"

He was truly red pilled as fuck.
Also, shouldn't Von Neumann be the poster boy of genius instead of Einstein?

The problem with Tolstoy and Shakespeare is the huge difference between these two writers. Shakespeare excelled in language, and did not mind sacrificing the verisimilitude and reality in favor of the verbal beauty. If an idea grabbed his mind in the middle of a speech and scene, he was determinate to use that idea, to exhibit that metaphor, even if it was not relevant to the plot or faithful to the character that was speaking, and only for the pleasure and pride of modeling beauty in verses. No one ever spoke like Shakespeare's characters: the human race that he modeled is artificial in this respect: they are as human beings who had took steroids for the mind, who had the brain areas related to language and verbal thinking augmented by some divine touch. Shakespeare makes all humans (even mediocre ones) speak as Gods, as D. H. Lawrence said:

“When I read Shakespeare I am struck with wonder
That such trivial people should muse and thunder
In such lovely language.”

It even seems that some kind of strange metaphorical-parasite have invaded Shakespeare’s brain, laid a multitude of eggs on his crumbs and usurped the synapses of his neurons, in a way that he only could think thorough images, trough metaphor and similes: every fiber and streamer of thought at birth is already mounted by an image, that rides it. In his plays one metaphor tread on the heels of another who has just broke out of its shell, one simile breaths on the neck of another simile that has just been born.

Moreover, Shakespeare accepted any plots, no matter how fantastical and bizarre, provided they were interesting. He did not care to kill important characters without any scruple, and sure he did not bother to set his stories anywhere in the world and at any time in history, without even analyzing the customs of other peoples or epochs: the important thing was to captivate the attention of public (and finding nice opportunities to forge brilliant metaphors and similes)
Tolstoy, however, was a fanatic for realism. He fought hard to make his characters speak realistically, not with an bookish breath and rhetorical exhalation. He also studied deeply the history of the periods and places depicted in his works; in reality, most of the things he portrayed were taken from his own life-experience. It is common to see Tolstoy, when he praises the art of someone, using the words: "very true, very real" - to be close to truth was one of the greatest virtues of an artist in his view.
Also, Shakespeare did not have any particular philosophy or religion: he changed his views and beliefs according to the play he was writing. Tolstoy, however, as he grew older, started to increasingly assert his doctrines, even in his art.
And finally, we cannot forget the literary envy. Tolstoy was a very proud and egocentric men (when he was a teenage student and got bad grades he was so furious with the boldness of the teachers in affronting him, a count, that he look inside his room and cried of rage for some days; he was always calling any man who said something against him for a duel when he was young; he said in his diary that he liked more to read bad books because they made he feel better with himself because good books made him angry and desperate. I am sure that for him to hear praises to Shakespeare all the time by everyone’s mouth was something deeply irritating.

>Also, shouldn't Von Neumann be the poster boy of genius instead of Einstein?

“I have known a great many intelligent people in my life. I knew Max Planck (Nobel Prize 1918), von Laue (Nobel Prize 1914) and Heisenberg (Nobel Prize 1932). Paul Dirac (Nobel Prize 1933) 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 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 von Neumann’s brilliance, he never produced anything as original.
–Eugene Wigner (Nobel Prize Physics 1963)

And for this:

>>During a Senate committee hearing he described his political ideology as "violently anti-communist, and much more militaristic than the norm". He was quoted in 1950 remarking, "If you say why not bomb [the Soviets] tomorrow, I say, why not today? If you say today at five o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?"

It makes Einstein even more superior. He was not only more creative, but also much more wise and humane.


Descartes mostly


The first quote is interesting, it says alot about the different kinds of genius.

However what Einstein get's in wisdom for not wanting to incinerate tens of millions of people in the blink of an eye, he loses for being opposed to Segragation in the US and in favor or NAACP.