Greatest Minds of the 20th Century

by **Mardla** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:55 pm

Who do you think were the greatest minds of the 20th Century? And why?

My picks are Werner Heisenberg, Martin Heidegger and Carl Schmitt. Reason being apart from being the best in their respective fields, they also seem to have stumbled upon a shared revolution in thought. Each posed a radical challenge to the materialist determinism which had come to prevail. Heisenberg, with the uncertainty principle, Heidegger with existentialism, Schmitt with decisionism. Each destroyed various determinist theories, and indeed each thinker's theory was almost a reapplication of the other two's, applied to a different field.

by **Neutraligon** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:01 pm

Mardla wrote:Who do you think were the greatest minds of the 20th Century? And why?

My picks are Werner Heisenberg, Martin Heidegger and Carl Schmitt. Reason being apart from being the best in their respective fields, they also seem to have stumbled upon a shared revolution in thought. Each posed a radical challenge to the materialist determinism which had come to prevail. Heisenberg, with the uncertainty principle, Heidegger with existentialism, Schmitt with decisionism. Each destroyed various determinist theories, and indeed each thinker's theory was almost a reapplication of the other two's, applied to a different field.

Umm...the Heisenberg uncertainty theorem simply states that it is impossible to measure position and velocity (or other similar paired observables like energy and time) of certain things at the same time. A simplified explanation of this is that with very small object to measure velocity one will affect the position of something, and to measure position, one will change the velocity of the thing you are trying to measure.

by **Internationalist Bastard** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:03 pm

I mean basic answer but Einstein

by **The Holy Therns** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:03 pm

My mom. She's brilliant. 'Cept for the racism.

by **Mardla** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:06 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
Mardla wrote:Who do you think were the greatest minds of the 20th Century? And why?

My picks are Werner Heisenberg, Martin Heidegger and Carl Schmitt. Reason being apart from being the best in their respective fields, they also seem to have stumbled upon a shared revolution in thought. Each posed a radical challenge to the materialist determinism which had come to prevail. Heisenberg, with the uncertainty principle, Heidegger with existentialism, Schmitt with decisionism. Each destroyed various determinist theories, and indeed each thinker's theory was almost a reapplication of the other two's, applied to a different field.

Umm...the Heisenberg uncertainty theorem simply states that it is impossible to measure position and velocity (or other similar paired observables like energy and time) of certain things at the same time. A simplified explanation of this is that with very small object to measure velocity one will affect the position of something, and to measure position, one will change the velocity of the thing you are trying to measure.

Yes, and Heidegger applies this to Dasein, and Schmitt applies this to the law.

by **Mardla** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:21 pm

Internationalist Bastard wrote:I mean basic answer but Einstein

His rejection of the big bang purely out of (anti) religious prejudice kinda hampers him for me.

by **Neutraligon** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:22 pm

Mardla wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:Umm...the Heisenberg uncertainty theorem simply states that it is impossible to measure position and velocity (or other similar paired observables like energy and time) of certain things at the same time. A simplified explanation of this is that with very small object to measure velocity one will affect the position of something, and to measure position, one will change the velocity of the thing you are trying to measure.

Yes, and Heidegger applies this to Dasein, and Schmitt applies this to the law.

Just because they applied it does not mean it was applied appropriately. It is like applying evolution to how humans should act the one has nothing to do with the other.

by **Senkaku** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:26 pm

No doubt that Heisenberg was a great mind of course, but your pick for the greatest physicist of the 20th century was the one who couldn't build the A-bomb?

by **Fartsniffage** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:27 pm

Tommy Cooper. Greatest comedic magician that wore a fez of all time.

by **Mardla** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:27 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
Mardla wrote:Yes, and Heidegger applies this to Dasein, and Schmitt applies this to the law.

Just because they applied it does not mean it was applied appropriately. It is like applying evolution to how humans should act the one has nothing to do with the other.

I don't mean they ripped it off, I mean they presented a similar point in their respective fields. And they did so within their own work and research

by **Neutraligon** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:31 pm

Mardla wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:Just because they applied it does not mean it was applied appropriately. It is like applying evolution to how humans should act the one has nothing to do with the other.

I don't mean they ripped it off, I mean they presented a similar point in their respective fields. And they did so within their own work and research

How is the inability to measure two properties of very small particles similar in any way to those other fields? I find it interesting that you have issues with Einstein due to his supposed anti-religious position, but not with with the three you mentioned, due to their connections to the Nazis.

by **Mardla** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:35 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
Mardla wrote:I don't mean they ripped it off, I mean they presented a similar point in their respective fields. And they did so within their own work and research

How is the inability to measure two properties of very small particles similar in any way to those other fields?

Heidegger made the crucial point that examining Dasein changes Dasein. Schmitt made the crucial point that when an authority, such as a judge, examines a law so we know what it is, the law is altered by that examination (e.g. the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution now guarantees same-sex marriage, tomorrow it might guarantee polygamy, whereas before it guaranteed neither).

by **Eglaecia** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:36 pm

I should preface this by saying that some of these are from a slightly biased lens, but I try to base this off of the positive impact they had on their fields regardless of whether I approve of them.

Philosophy: Strauss, Wittgenstein, and Camus
Politics: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Deng Xiaoping, and Konrad Adenauer
Economics: Beveridge, Keynes, and Walters
Science: Alexander Fleming, Marie Curie, and Niels Bohr
Inventors: Steve Jobs & Steve Wozniak, Karl Benz, and Tim Berners-Lee

by **Mardla** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:37 pm

Eglaecia wrote:I should preface this by saying that some of these are from a slightly biased lens, but I try to base this off of the positive impact they had on their fields regardless of whether I approve of them.

Philosophy: Strauss, Wittgenstein, and Camus
Politics: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Deng Xiaoping, and Konrad Adenauer
Economics: Beveridge, Keynes, and Walters
Science: Alexander Fleming, Marie Curie, and Niels Bohr
Inventors: Steve Jobs & Steve Wozniak, Karl Benz, and Tim Berners-Lee

I would put Strauss in politics. Also listing Camus for phil is like listing Tyson for science

by **Neutraligon** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:37 pm

Mardla wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:How is the inability to measure two properties of very small particles similar in any way to those other fields?

Heidegger made the crucial point that examining Dasein changes Dasein. Schmitt made the crucial point that when an authority, such as a judge, examines a law so we know what it is, the law is altered by that examination (e.g. the 14th Amendment now guarantees same-sex marriage, tomorrow it might guarantee polygamy, where before it guaranteed neither).

Which has nothing to do with the inability to measure certain physical properties of small particles at the same time.

by **Senkaku** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:40 pm

Mardla wrote:Also listing Camus for phil is like listing Tyson for science

Maybe you just have something against popular Africans.

by **Eglaecia** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:40 pm

Mardla wrote:
Eglaecia wrote:I should preface this by saying that some of these are from a slightly biased lens, but I try to base this off of the positive impact they had on their fields regardless of whether I approve of them.

Philosophy: Strauss, Wittgenstein, and Camus
Politics: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Deng Xiaoping, and Konrad Adenauer
Economics: Beveridge, Keynes, and Walters
Science: Alexander Fleming, Marie Curie, and Niels Bohr
Inventors: Steve Jobs & Steve Wozniak, Karl Benz, and Tim Berners-Lee

I would put Strauss in politics. Also listing Camus for phil is like listing Tyson for science

Strauss was a political philosopher who could go in either. Camus is arguably one of the most influential philosophers in modern history, and while I can't say I'm the biggest fan, he has had a lasting impact.

by **Mardla** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:41 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
Mardla wrote:Heidegger made the crucial point that examining Dasein changes Dasein.
No he did not. He made no claim about human existence when it comes to his uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle ONLY applies to small objects, hence why we can measure the position and velocity of a car.
Schmitt made the crucial point that when an authority, such as a judge, examines a law so we know what it is, the law is altered by that examination (e.g. the 14th Amendment now guarantees same-sex marriage, tomorrow it might guarantee polygamy, where before it guaranteed neither).
Which has nothing to do with the inability to measure certain physical properties of small particles at the same time.

Heidegger claims in Being and Time that trying to examine Dasein up close is impossible because Dasein changes when examined as Dasein's being is different when it examines. This is why he says Dasein is ontically closest to us but ontologically furthest from us.

by **Mardla** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:43 pm

Eglaecia wrote:
Mardla wrote:I would put Strauss in politics. Also listing Camus for phil is like listing Tyson for science

Strauss was a political philosopher who could go in either. Camus is arguably one of the most influential philosophers in modern history, and while I can't say I'm the biggest fan, he has had a lasting impact.

Camus has had zero impact on academic philosophy, he is a pop philosopher, like Sartre.

by **Neutraligon** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:43 pm

Mardla wrote:
Neutraligon wrote: No he did not. He made no claim about human existence when it comes to his uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle ONLY applies to small objects, hence why we can measure the position and velocity of a car.
Which has nothing to do with the inability to measure certain physical properties of small particles at the same time.

Heidegger claims in Being and Time that trying to examine Dasein up close is impossible because Dasein changes when examined as Dasein's being is different when it examines. This is why he says Dasein is ontically closest to us but ontologically furthest from us.

I misread the first part, hence my correction. I will say this again this has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle the inability to measure certain physical aspects of small particles.

by **Mardla** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:55 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
Mardla wrote:Heidegger claims in Being and Time that trying to examine Dasein up close is impossible because Dasein changes when examined as Dasein's being is different when it examines. This is why he says Dasein is ontically closest to us but ontologically furthest from us.

I misread the first part, hence my correction. I will say this again this has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle the inability to measure certain physical aspects of small particles.

It has to do with details being distorted by their measurement.

by **Torrocca** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:57 pm

Einstein for the scientific look, and Kropotkin for the Anarchism. :^)

by **Mardla** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:14 pm

Torrocca wrote:Einstein for the scientific look, and Kropotkin for the Anarchism. :^)

Wasn't Kropotkin just an ideologue?

by **Torrocca** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:15 pm

Mardla wrote:
Torrocca wrote:Einstein for the scientific look, and Kropotkin for the Anarchism. :^)

Wasn't Kropotkin just an ideologue?

Nope.

by **Bienenhalde** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:16 pm

I think Rene Guenon is deserving of mention on the list.

Greatest Minds of the 20th Century

Greatest Minds of the 20th Century

Who is online