Smartest philosopher of all time in terms of raw intellect

JS Mill was reading Ancient Greek at 3

>but passive
and ... what the fuck does one's activity or passivity have to do with one's intellect?

yes, but continentals don't put a limitation unlike analytics....therefore they might be able to come up with more "complex" and "out there" ideas, but it doesn't mean their good ideas or even right ideas?

Kripke is a genius...but i think he might be more limited to his field...I would put Quine or Putnam maybe above him in the analytic tradition

>Kripke was labelled a prodigy, having taught himself Ancient Hebrew by the age of six, read the complete works of Shakespeare by nine, and mastered the works of Descartes and complex mathematical problems before finishing elementary school.[4][5] He wrote his first completeness theorem in modal logic at the age of 17, and had it published a year later. After graduating from high school in 1958, Kripke attended Harvard University and graduated summa cum laude obtaining a bachelor's degree in mathematics. During his sophomore year at Harvard, Kripke taught a graduate-level logic course at nearby MIT.

>Kripke was the recipient of the 2001 Schock Prize ( IN TERMS OF PRESTIGE, EQUIVALENT TO THE NOBEL PRIZE, FIELDS MEDAL, AND TURING AWARD ) in Logic and Philosophy. A 2009 academic poll ranked Kripke among the top ten most important philosophers of the past 200 years.

STEP UP YOUR GAME LITTLE MILLY

Plato.

you have to remember that this board tends to sway more towards continental philosophy more so than analytical philosophy

>and "out there" ideas, but it doesn't mean their good ideas or even right ideas?
If you consider that my example for analytic is Nozick who starts off Anarchy State and Utopia with some spiel about how it doesn't matter if everything he says is wrong, it only really aims to be "illuminating", it might give you a clue that I don't hold much truck with this "analytics are more grounded" or whatever. The best have a level if self awareness that they know philosophy isn't going to give Truth.

thas one example.....analytics are generally more grounded

>modal logic
>not a fucking cloud castle

do you even understand what modal logic is...before you criticize it

Not who you're responding to but what does "generally more grounded" even mean? Analytics come up with some wild ideas: modal realism, private language argument, Quine-Putnam's indispensability argument, Mary's Room, a-posteriori necessary truths, etc. Just because they're not wanking over the human condition 24/7 doesn't mean they're sitting around solving math problems all day

If we decide a smartest philosopher ever will that also decide the smartest person ever?

It's funny to see continentals talk shit about analytics when they honestly have no idea what analytical philosophy is or formal logic..

i never really see analytics make fun of continentals more so than the reverse

i wonder if it has to do with analytics dominating at universities, envy much?

>having taught himself Ancient Hebrew by the age of six
I can't find anything on what he's read or done in this area. Presumably it means the son of a Rabbi can read the Bible?

The only thing that keeps coming up is that Kripke read Shakespeare at 9, and that's not a feat. Mill was reading Plato and Demosthenes with ease at that age, and it's being put forward that Kripke was a prodigy for reading modern English.

so your saying Kripke wasn't that smart?

Kant probably, the man was an autistic machine.

>logic
>intelligence
kek top
>good and right idea
Whatsoever things are true...

Kripke revolutionized logic, of course he is intelligent

what kind of shit post is this

there is no such thing as intellect

>he believes in "raw intellect"

>revolutionizing an irrelevant field is a sign of intellect
>intellect, a notoriously vague thing, is good
Back to your tower.

It affects how they interact with the community at large. I think Wittgenstein really took too much to the role of outsider philsopher with the English lot. He was a vastly superior thinker to Russel in many ways, but I get the sense of Witt being low in the pecking order and sometimes sidelined.

There's also that he was told to go work in a hospital during the war and just goes "okay", and while he writes that he would have liked to have done more philosophy just doesn't

You're*

Compared to JS Mill very few are all that smart, it's no big deal. We are talking about the most intelligent philosophers ever here and not everyone can be at the top.

logic is an irrelevant field?.....

WTF

Hegel achieved Absolute Knowledge

>logic is just SELF EVIDENTLY AMAZING LOOK AT MY RIGOR EVERYBODY

just because you don't have the intelligence to understand logic, doesn't mean its useless

and whats wrong with rigor, its better than just saying "because I say so, therefore its real" and not having to back it up with anything

user, I have bad news for you...

More of your outstanding rigor, I see.
>its better than just saying "because I say so, therefore its real" and not having to back it up with anything
Why?

Tautologies are very in this season.

Each man has a wisdom proper to his own individuality...

But I say Vico.

Yet, the tibetan monk understands things western philosophers can only ignore (and vice-versa); poets see connections scientists can only vaguely appreciate but ultimately dismiss;...

Reason is the ratio among all you know, and it shall not be the same once you know more.

Can you really compare? I swear I have great difficulty comparing minds that way. I can tell perhaps who is more experienced; but that alone is not a good measure to predict anything. Probably just mind your own intellectual business

hmmm maybe because I could literally say "There are invisible pink unicorns don't you see them"....

and then when someone says "where is your rigor"

"shut up you rigor nazi"

That's not a reason.

That is equivalent to: "Reason is good because it is reasonable."

I'm gonna go with Aristotle.

It was required given how you failed to comprehend the first response.

People just don't understand rhetoric anymore.

rigor is good because without it you could possibly be making extra assumptions that blind you to the possibility of new avenues

it also gives us certainty

"Anything possible to be believed is an image of truth"

"Nothing can be told so as to be understood, & not believed."

Still no reasons.

You may as well be saying "It makes me erect in times of impotency" or "it provides a rush equivalent to the high of a good opium tea extended over several weeks."

how is that not a reason...it helps eliminate the need for extra assumptions that could ruin your entire argument

your literally just saying "no no no" when people give you reasons

> smart as fuck and all he could contribute was an autistic logic system and philosophy about names

hmm

Or simply that reason is in a 1:1 ratio with good.

Wittgenstein is the only true answer

>Walter Benjamin over Adorno

Benjamin came up with some interesting quotes, but Adorno was absolutely brilliant, agree with him or not.

>its good because i like it and others like it
Would you happen to be illiterate.
But why.
None of that is a sign of intelligence, just autism.

I wouldn't call Ulillillia intelligent.

Shawn T Cook

youtube.com/watch?v=4-edlVNY1vU

Everyone else is mental midget compared to him.

Nietzsche was easily the smartest. Even other philosophers misunderstand him.

Stop begging, don't get yourself to used to paper logic.

Please try again!

>in your opinion
>NO YOU'RE WRONG
Also, Nietzsche is a LOT more self aware than other philosophers.

I didn't write you were wrong, only asked you to try again. Obviously implying indeed you are wrong, but the rudeness is your hallucination!

More than ALL other philosophers? Because if that's what you mean, I can identify to the extent I've been immersed in specific works by specific philosophers or writers to the point of dismissing everything that does not share his patterns of thought, problematics and ideas as dumb, irrelevant, unaware, etc.

But it's a dumb posture and the point is to keep walking. I think

In my philosophical readings of 7+ years, I've found Nietzsche's level of intuition to be the greatest so far, and each book of his contains more insights than many philosophers' entire bibliographies.

Not even close tbqhfam

Hume. He could rek your rationalist shit, and do so with eloquence. The most beautiful writer in the history of thought.

Hume is good?