Who was the smartest Classic Greek?

It was more accurate. Also, we do not know exactly how Archimedes (or Plato, for he too had a figure for the circumference of earth) did his calculation or attended data, whereas we know exactly what Eratosthenes's method was. His error was less than 1% IIRC while Archimedes got ~15%.

Diogenes.

Attached: diogenes shitposting philosopher.jpg (500x453, 96K)

Story about Alexander the great almost definitely didn't happen though

We know who you are.

Attached: Plato on laws ancap.jpg (467x303, 52K)

Plato.

Alexander

>"Good people don't need laws to tell them to act responsibly and bad people will find a way around the laws".
How is this relented to Anarcho-Capitalism?

Plato

Attached: 1519464696045.jpg (1424x1284, 1.09M)

Was Diogenes the first user?
or was Epicurus?

The original Flat Earth debunker

Attached: Eratosthenes.jpg (906x1200, 113K)

It is not, dumb user likes to think that any form of anarchy is anarcho-capitalism.

>No meme answers like Aristotle
It unironically is Aristotle.

Attached: aristotle.jpg (1700x2275, 2.14M)

>Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. - Daddy Chomsky

Attached: Daddy_Chomsky.jpg (2880x3600, 3.15M)

Archimedes or Eratosthenes.

We'll never know for sure since whose writings happened to survive was pretty much blind chance.

Aristotle got most everything wrong because he did nothing but wooly theorizing, yet he was revered for centuries and accepted as the Final Authority on everything.
(He wrote that women had fewer teeth than men. Despite being married several times, he never asked any of his wives to open wide so he could count.)

>Every philosopher: a child should get characteristics from its two parents, it's only logical.
>Aristotle: The child should be like the father, and if by some error happens in its creation it will look like the mother.

Aristotle was a damn sophist.

>Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of academic freedom, but today, in those of our universities where leftists have become dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else’s academic freedom. (This is “political correctness.”) The same will happen with leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever get it under their own control.

The answer is obvious: Diophantus.

Archimedes was intelligent, but he wasn’t a Diophantus.

The Sand Reckoner is unironically a good read tho

SMARTOSTLE

Aristotle was extremely intelligent, but has some r/iamverysmart tier theories because natural philosophy was horribly underdeveloped in his time.

Why didn't you listen to me?

Attached: Aristarchus_of_Samos.jpg (811x1283, 255K)

Is this less true of right-wing philosophies? It seems to me to be the rather straightforward observation that whoever currently has power is going to wield it to their own benefit, and whoever is out of power is going to deploy arguments of justice/ethics in order to deter exercising power against them.

Alexander seems like he was pretty smart cutting the Gordian knot in half.

>An oracle had declared that any man who could unravel its elaborate knots was destined to become ruler of all of Asia. Alexander wanted to untie the knot but struggled to do so without success. He then reasoned that it would make no difference how the knot was loosed, so he drew his sword and sliced it in half with a single stroke.

Attached: TRINITY___GORDIAN.png (668x509, 253K)

...

>Various thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the existence of any supernatural being. But, for the leftist, leftism plays a psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The leftist NEEDS to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone. (However, many of the people we are referring to as “leftists” do not think of themselves as leftists and would not describe their system of beliefs as leftism. We use the term “leftism” because we don’t know of any better words to designate the spectrum of related creeds that includes the feminist, gay rights, political correctness, etc., movements, and because these movements have a strong affinity with the old left.

>Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism; everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a totalitarian force because of the leftists’ drive for power. The leftist seeks to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the goals of the movement (see paragraph 83). But no matter how far the movement has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his activism is a surrogate activity (see paragraph 41). That is, the leftist’s real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a social goal. [35] Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educated him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on. It’s not enough that the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of cigarettes.

I am pretty sure the nazis were not for free speech etc before they got into power. What right wing group has been talking about those things before getting into power?

The obvious answers are Euclid or Archimedes. Notable mentions might be Apollonius of Perga and Heron.

95% of what is attributed to 95% of historical figures before a few hundred years ago is false. When we study/ compare contrast them, we speak more of the archetypes they've come to embody over time.

This