Von Neumann was smart

It's still much better trolling than you can manage.

Just because he didn't devote himself to it doesn't mean he couldn't. It wasn't a driving interest in his life.

>Ex Machina
are there really people who only learned about Wittgenstein in the past year? he's super well-known among brainlets

people are allowed to change their minds on things

yeah i know, what a shocker!

pleb

Philosophy is such a cult of personality.

Wittgenstein was a contrarian who believed that people couldn't understand his ideas. He was an edgy hipster philosopher, which is why he's so popular. He was very smart though and very good at justifying his dumb ideas. That's all.

Socrates did with 0 pages. Get on his level, faggot.

You described Nietzsche, Wittgenstein was no contrarian.

Nietzsche was a contrarian edge lord as well. But Wittgenstein was so contrarian, his magnum opus was about not doing philosophy once you truly understand it.

And then, he discarded those ideas when he got older.

Contrarian of contrarians. Hipster of hipsters.

>implying potential can exist without interest

Your misconception of what brilliance arises from is laughable.

are you saying Von Neumann didn't have the "capability" to understand philosophy? like do you even know what Von Neumann did

if fucking regular college kids can understand a facet of philosophy, im sure V.N could as well

>it's a hero worship thread
sad that Veeky Forums posters still are falling for the genius meme

what?

This desu. Philosophers seem more obsessed with the thinkers themselves, than with their ideas and wether they are valid or not, or with making progress themselves.

Why shouldn't they approach this subject like is done in STEM, ie focusing on problems and theories, rather than the people behind them?

Wittgenstein was the guy who literally caused Bertrand Russell to quit logic, so yeah. He also created an entire school in the philosophy of language.

Smarter than von Neumann? At this level of intellect it's stupid to try a pissing match about relative intelligence. Both were fucking brilliant and contributed greatly

I mean, Wittgenstein did invent truth tables.

Young Wittgenstein was known to be "bright" but not a precocious genius. He was an obsessive in later life, a visionary, a manic-depressive, an anchorite of sorts. Von Neumann possessed raw power that Wittgenstein and Russell did not have. Newton, Gauss, Aristotle, and Goethe are three I am convinced had this raw processing power. Did Nietzsche or Heraclitus possess this "genius power"? sharp and original minds, perhaps, but not geniuses. The truly great geniuses are those that actually master their own powers, only a handful should be admitted to this group, disinterested dabblers like da Vinci and von Neumann cannot be admitted into the ranks of Newton and Goethe.

In music. Are Poulenc and Satie comparable to Lully and Ramaeu? the latter pair are simply superior. But all of them are inferior to Beethoven. He possesses something all of them do not. Mozart and Bach together possess a technical mastery of musical forms whereas Beethoven was limited (Beethoven could never even write a fugue properly). His counterpoint was often mediocre and he would often remain on one note (See: 7th Symphony Allegretto) for entire phrases. The power of Beethoven is beyond technical mastery (there are many great systematizes in both philosophy and music: Euclid, Plato, Kant; and in music, Bach, Haydn, Brahms). The second movement of the 7th reveals to you, not the mind of a systematizer, but the mind of a genius almost entirely incomparable in Western music.

For us, the "lesser minds", it should be ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing the ground a little, and removing some of the rubbish which lies in the way to knowledge. Did Locke possess this "genius power"? not by his own admission.

>are three
oops, I added Aristotle in at the last minute and forgot to change

>my opinions are fact: the post

This isnt your fucking blog.

okay.

Oh my god you are a fucking faggot

>master their POWER

go watch some dragonball z or whatever you loser

you asked for it:

Abelian von Neumann algebra
Affiliated operator
Amenable group
Arithmetic logic unit
Artificial viscosity (a numerical technique for simulating shock waves)
Axiom of regularity
Axiom of limitation of size
Backward induction
Blast wave (fluid dynamics)
Bounded set (topological vector space)
Carry-save adder
Cellular automata
Class (set theory)
Decoherence theory (Quantum mechanics)
Computer virus
Commutation theorem
Continuous geometry
Direct integral
Doubly stochastic matrix
Duality Theorem
Density matrix
Durbin–Watson statistic
Game theory
Hilbert's fifth problem
Hyperfinite type II factor
Ergodic theory
EDVAC
explosive lenses
Lattice theory
Lifting theory
Inner model
Inner model theory
Interior point method
Mutual assured destruction
Merge sort
Middle-square method
Minimax theorem
Monte Carlo method
Normal-form game
Pointless topology
Polarization identity
Pseudorandomness
PRNG
Quantum mutual information
Radiation implosion
Rank ring
Operator theory
Operation Greenhouse
Self-replication
Software whitening
Standard probability space
Stochastic computing
Subfactor
Von Neumann algebra
Von Neumann architecture
Von Neumann bicommutant theorem
Von Neumann cardinal assignment
Von Neumann cellular automaton
Von Neumann constant (two of them)
Von Neumann interpretation
Von Neumann measurement scheme
Von Neumann Ordinals
Von Neumann universal constructor
Von Neumann entropy
Von Neumann Equation
Von Neumann neighborhood
Von Neumann paradox
Von Neumann regular ring
Von Neumann–Bernays–Gödel set theory
Von Neumann spectral theory
Von Neumann universe
Von Neumann conjecture
Von Neumann's inequality
Stone–von Neumann theorem
Von Neumann's trace inequality
Von Neumann stability analysis
Quantum statistical mechanics
Von Neumann extractor
Von Neumann ergodic theorem
Ultrastrong topology
Von Neumann–Morgenstern utility theorem
ZND detonation model

Notable ideas
Picture theory of language
Truth functions
States of affairs
Logical necessity
Meaning is use
Language-games
Private language argument
Family resemblance
Rule following
Forms of life
Wittgensteinian fideism
Anti-realism
Wittgenstein's philosophy of mathematics
Ordinary language philosophy
Ideal language analysis
Meaning scepticism
Memory scepticism
Semantic externalism
Quietism
Critique of set theory

Wittgenstein literally invented most of these schools, a much harder achievement because philosophy moves slower than math.

Wittgenstein's critique of set theory was fucking retarded

a dark mark in an otherwise amazing legacy

False, his reasoning was analytical, but not conceptual enough to grasp abstract ideas.

Yet all these things were simply accentuations of the existing paradigms

>The power of Beethoven is beyond technical mastery (there are many great systematizes in both philosophy and music: Euclid, Plato, Kant; and in music, Bach, Haydn, Brahms). The second movement of the 7th reveals to you, not the mind of a systematizer, but the mind of a genius almost entirely incomparable in Western music.

Can you say more about this, please?

Also:

>(Beethoven could never even write a fugue properly).

He had to strive to master it, but he eventually wrote many great fugues, some of them ranked as some of the greatest, like the final movement of the Hammerklavier, the et vitam venturi sæculi fugue from the Missa Solemnis, the Great Fugue (opus 133), the opening fugue of the Opus 131.

>Goethe

I would have to say that, in the field of literature, Shakespeare is by far the greatest artist. He can stand even bad translations, and it’s influential in many countries across the world, while Goethe is mostly read and admired only in Germany. One of the main facts for this is that much of Shakespeare greatness derives from his use of metaphors and imagery, his sublime capacity for verbal invention. Goethe, read in the original, has the aid of the rhymes and the sonority, but, in other idioms, he loses these traits. His language, however, is much more simple and direct than that of Shakespeare: you don’t find the same jungle of metaphors, one image treading upon the hells of another in vast cascades. And so it is that the reading of Goethe is not that stimulating, and that he’s language doesn’t present again and again and again the gigantic level of invention that we find on Shakespeare in play after play.

There is also the fact that Shakespeare produced much more single masterpieces, that he created many more characters and that he presents more life-visions and life-philosophies in his work than any other writer (and all of that in that unequaled poetic diction).

I honestly don’t know if a great writer can equal great physicists and mathematicians in mental power. It seems to me that to be an Einstein, Newton, Gauss, Euler, is much harder and more mentally demanding. But if there is one name from the field of literature that deserves to be considered one of the most gifted minds of all time then this name is William Shakespeare.

>Can you say more about this, please?
Not him but just listen to the damn thing.

fucking kek, good one

he was the definition of neurotic hack

Goethe should be more influential. He's like a gem in the history of thought.

It's true though, he influenced people who mattered greatly (which means that if he doesn't influence you, it doesn't matter, because you don't).

he actually made a few fair points you faggots, if you disagree with him why not try refuting instead of acting like children?

oh right, that would mean actual discussion. nevermind

Who salted your cunt, fucko?

I have, lots of times. I love Beethoven with all my heart.

I was just interest in his views because today we see a trend to judge in classical music what seems more difficult to structure as better, and thus Bach is being usually named as superior to Beethoven, but to my taste Beethoven is greater. I just wanted to know more about his perceptions.

>He's like a gem in the history of thought.

Why?

He was extremely wise and thought-provoking, adapted his whole life, never repeated genres and literally invented new genres of writing. He also manages to defy virtually every stereotype people have about "le struggling artist", so forth.

Also he was literally the most popular man in Europe in his day. Napoleon refused to visit him because he was afraid of not being the most popular man in the room.

bump

this

this isn't reddit, you just can't bump shit

FYI Von Neumann was lucky, not smart

>20th century philosophy

There are often competing philosphies, philosophy is not like math where x is right and y is wrong. Philosophy is a lot more complicated than math because of this.

>Turned the field of philosophy upside down

He didn't. Nearly everybody who reads it observes that there are no serious arguments, which is probably why Wittgenstein abandoned it later in life.

Wittgenstein possibly contributed nothing to philosophy. He was not a good philosopher.

>Wittgenstein possibly contributed nothing to philosophy. He was not a good philosopher.
t. retard

By that logic, two schizophrenics bickering over gibberish is also more complex than mathematics. Philosophy is not complex at all, it's just esoteric poetry that fools take seriously. The fact that mathematics is fundamentally logical and understandable, yet we still struggle to understand it, is true complexity.

>By that logic, two schizophrenics bickering over gibberish is also more complex than mathematics. Philosophy is not complex at all, it's just esoteric poetry that fools take seriously. The fact that mathematics is fundamentally logical and understandable, yet we still struggl
as a philosophy fan, i somewhat agree

this

People keep saying Wittgenstein denounced his Tractatus. Can anyone give a source for this? I can't find anything online / I don't know what to google for it. I have looked.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations#Relation_to_the_Tractatus

>By that logic, two schizophrenics bickering over gibberish is also more complex than mathematics. Philosophy is not complex at all, it's just esoteric poetry that fools take seriously. The fact that mathematics is fundamentally logical and understandable, yet we still struggle to understand it, is true complexity.
*tips fedora*

hehe

>Yet all these things were simply accentuations of the existing paradigms
What are you talking about?

Von Neumann was smart, but can you guys stop forcing him already?

no

Philosophy is extremely complex. For example, mathematics is a branch of philosophy. Do you honestly think Euler's formula existed before Euler? Sitting out there in the void? Ridiculous. Mathematics is not discovered. We create mathematics just like we create any other idea or concept. The selection of axioms is the creation of a worldview just like any other philosophical concept. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.