World's Greatest Draft (1 Viewer)

[Arsenal of Doom]

Quick question - is the distinction between philosopher and intellectual most analogous to the difference between scientist and inventor? As in, a philosopher stays in the ivory tower coming up with ideas whereas the intellectual tries to apply those ideas to human society?

This is my interpretation. The philosopher is dealing in general philosophy and reflecting on broad questions of existence, while the intellectual is more focused on specific topic (politics/law/psychology/etc.).

 

[larry_boy_44]

Hmmm, picking 19th (and 22nd) is looking pretty good now. I'm certain I can get two absolute heavyweights no matter. It's just a question of which two.My favorite pick so far was Alexander the Great. Had I the #1 overall, I would have seriously considered him there.

if MK had picked Jesus, there are a few people I would have looked at... Newton, Alexander, Beethoven, and Shakespeare are in that group for sure...I know "villain" is a required category... I just don't think I could bring myself to pick Hitler, though...

 

[BobbyLayne]

Quick question - is the distinction between philosopher and intellectual most analogous to the difference between scientist and inventor? As in, a philosopher stays in the ivory tower coming up with ideas whereas the intellectual tries to apply those ideas to human society?

I don't know if the Philosopher/Intellectual line is that bright. From the research I'm doing, it seems that in way-back times, just about anyone known for any kind of smarts eventually got around to making philisophical pronouncements as some point. Kinda makes sense ... perhaps "knowledge" wasn't as compartmentalized a concept then as it is now. The "smart guy" -- in any field -- was the "sage" and presumably was reckoned to have more of a grip on "meaning of life" questions than the average schmoe.Further from what I can tell -- Intellectuals qua Intellectuals are somewhat dependant on at least a nascent mass media. A smaller body of influential (if not philosophical) ideas from one person can disseminate far and wide much more easily today than in antiquity.

I am awaiting further responses to OC's question.

Right, our modern context is the public intellectual, for example, someone with a prestigious academic background writing op-ed pieces.I'll join the chorus of drafters who does not understand the importance of the distinction.

 

[Ozymandias]

my thinking with scientist/inventor is this:the Inventor is known for "making" a specific THING, the scientist is more known for a specific IDEA...to use previous draftees/discussions... Newton and Einstein are scientists because they came up with theories, not items... The unnamed creator of the wheel would be an inventor, because he is known for the THING he created... There is, however, quite a bit of overlap as all inventors ARE scientists, even if all scientists aren't inventors...as far as intellectual/philosopher, I think they're essentially the same exact thing... it would probably make things more clear if we just combined them and said you need 2 of each as I don't see the difference...

I really think we have to take into account the role of the committee in inventing the wheel. The first guy came up with the triangle shape; it wasn't until the dodecahedron was developed that our unnamed inventor came up with the circle.

 

[Abrantes]

Quick question - is the distinction between philosopher and intellectual most analogous to the difference between scientist and inventor? As in, a philosopher stays in the ivory tower coming up with ideas whereas the intellectual tries to apply those ideas to human society?

This is my interpretation. The philosopher is dealing in general philosophy and reflecting on broad questions of existence, while the intellectual is more focused on specific topic (politics/law/psychology/etc.).

As a general rule, it sounds simple enough. However, plenty of history's great thinkers addressed overlapping issues and fit into both categories.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Quick question - is the distinction between philosopher and intellectual most analogous to the difference between scientist and inventor? As in, a philosopher stays in the ivory tower coming up with ideas whereas the intellectual tries to apply those ideas to human society?

This is my interpretation. The philosopher is dealing in general philosophy and reflecting on broad questions of existence, while the intellectual is more focused on specific topic (politics/law/psychology/etc.).

As a general rule, it sounds simple enough. However, plenty of history's great thinkers addressed overlapping issues and fit into both categories.

Yep, but it will be up to the drafter to determine where they fit best for ranking purposes. Just like Michaelangelo could go in the painters or non-painter Artist categories, or like Alexander could go under Leaders or Military. A lot of the categories are going to overlap with certain people.

 

[Orange Crush]

Quick question - is the distinction between philosopher and intellectual most analogous to the difference between scientist and inventor? As in, a philosopher stays in the ivory tower coming up with ideas whereas the intellectual tries to apply those ideas to human society?

This is my interpretation. The philosopher is dealing in general philosophy and reflecting on broad questions of existence, while the intellectual is more focused on specific topic (politics/law/psychology/etc.).

Broad questions of existence? If that's the case, then what's the difference between philosopher and religious figure?

 

[larry_boy_44]

also... doesn't intellectual overlap with scientist a lot, too?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Quick question - is the distinction between philosopher and intellectual most analogous to the difference between scientist and inventor? As in, a philosopher stays in the ivory tower coming up with ideas whereas the intellectual tries to apply those ideas to human society?

This is my interpretation. The philosopher is dealing in general philosophy and reflecting on broad questions of existence, while the intellectual is more focused on specific topic (politics/law/psychology/etc.).

Broad questions of existence? If that's the case, then what's the difference between philosopher and religious figure?

Probably whether they founded a religion or not (or their writing/teaching is specifically focused on one).

 

[BobbyLayne]

Quick question - is the distinction between philosopher and intellectual most analogous to the difference between scientist and inventor? As in, a philosopher stays in the ivory tower coming up with ideas whereas the intellectual tries to apply those ideas to human society?

This is my interpretation. The philosopher is dealing in general philosophy and reflecting on broad questions of existence, while the intellectual is more focused on specific topic (politics/law/psychology/etc.).

As a general rule, it sounds simple enough. However, plenty of history's great thinkers addressed overlapping issues and fit into both categories.

Yep, but it will be up to the drafter to determine where they fit best for ranking purposes. Just like Michaelangelo could go in the painters or non-painter Artist categories, or like Alexander could go under Leaders or Military. A lot of the categories are going to overlap with certain people.

Obviously true; but we still haven't defined what the differences are between those two categories, or established what is the justification for the two categories.In the G.A.D. we had some awkward categories - Artist included architect/painter/photographers/sculpter - and we made some improvements there. But the main problem with the Intellectual/Philosopher category was not that we lumped them together, but that it was the primary spot for clergy or theologians. We had a 400 person draft of historical Americans and only one religious figure? That's laughable.

Anyway, just hope we sort this out quickly, and identify any other possible concerns here in the first round with the clock off, rather than in the middle or at the end.

 

[FUBAR]

Quick question - is the distinction between philosopher and intellectual most analogous to the difference between scientist and inventor? As in, a philosopher stays in the ivory tower coming up with ideas whereas the intellectual tries to apply those ideas to human society?

This is my interpretation. The philosopher is dealing in general philosophy and reflecting on broad questions of existence, while the intellectual is more focused on specific topic (politics/law/psychology/etc.).

As a general rule, it sounds simple enough. However, plenty of history's great thinkers addressed overlapping issues and fit into both categories.

Yep, but it will be up to the drafter to determine where they fit best for ranking purposes. Just like Michaelangelo could go in the painters or non-painter Artist categories, or like Alexander could go under Leaders or Military. A lot of the categories are going to overlap with certain people.

On my military list, almost all of them could be filed under leader as well. Most highly successful Generals become leaders of their country. Most conquerors made their way to run their country. For philosopher / intellectual, many will overlap but I think there will be enough "smart guys" who made their way in a specific field and not just thinking about the meaning of life. Problem is, scientist can be filed under intellectual as well. Many greats will be able to fit in 3 or more categories. Sun Tzu for example could be military, intellectual, or philosopher.

 

[thecatch]

My favorite pick so far was Alexander the Great. Had I the #1 overall, I would have seriously considered him there.

 

[Orange Crush]

There's a real danger of picking someone who fits into multiple categories, but not cleanly into one. In the GAD some (many?) judges decided to rank solely on the contributions of the person to the category topic, ignoring everything else that made that person great. There was supposed to be an end of draft adjustment by Tim, but it never happened.

The only real way to get around this is to get a pledge from all judges to take a person's entire body of work into account in their rankings, even though it will include a good amount of comparing apples to oranges.

 

[BobbyLayne]

There's a real danger of picking someone who fits into multiple categories, but not cleanly into one. In the GAD some (many?) judges decided to rank solely on the contributions of the person to the category topic, ignoring everything else that made that person great. There was supposed to be an end of draft adjustment by Tim, but it never happened.The only real way to get around this is to get a pledge from all judges to take a person's entire body of work into account in their rankings, even though it will include a good amount of comparing apples to oranges.

I think the 'whole body of work' was the consensus of the drafter, but timschochet never communicated that to the judges (actually he just gave them free reign and said 'use whatever methdology you want'). As far as the end of the draft adjustment, it's hard to say where to end once you start doing that.

 

[timschochet]

Hi everyone. Just got back in; let me comment on the intellectual/philosopher question. Yes there's going to be some overlap. There's also going to be some overlap in the philosopher/religious figure categories as well. Both Jesus and Muhammad could be called philosophers, and important ones at that.

The reason I added the intellectual category was because there are thinkers out there whose primary work is devoted to the interaction of mankind rather than the subject of existence- for instance, politcal thinkers who write primarily about the best form of government- or people who write about men-woman relationships, psychology, etc. I didn't want these sorts of thinkers to be lost in a category dealing solely with the great philosophers of the ages.

So again, I know there will be some overlap, but I hope this is clear.

 

[timschochet]

As regards the other question- I was willing to adjust scores in the other draft because we came up with the idea of category judges about halfway through. In the end, I decided not to do it. In this draft, it's not even a question because we start with category judges.

I would like the category judges to judge the entire aspect of a person, but also to judge them for the category they are in. I know this seems unclear, but let me explain- suppose you put Da Vinci in the role of scientist? Da Vinci is a great thinker, and was certainly a scientist, but he's going to fall short of the other pure scientists, and be ranked below them. Whereas if he's in another category he'll probably be ranked much higher. So what category you decide to put someone in must be important.

This is why I leave it up to each judge to choose their own methodology. I didn't agree with everything the category judges in the American draft did, but the one thing you can't take away from them is that they all tried to be very thoughtful and careful about reaching their conclusions. That's really all we can ask for and expect.

 

[Ozymandias]

There's a real danger of picking someone who fits into multiple categories, but not cleanly into one. In the GAD some (many?) judges decided to rank solely on the contributions of the person to the category topic, ignoring everything else that made that person great. There was supposed to be an end of draft adjustment by Tim, but it never happened.The only real way to get around this is to get a pledge from all judges to take a person's entire body of work into account in their rankings, even though it will include a good amount of comparing apples to oranges.

I think the 'whole body of work' was the consensus of the drafter, but timschochet never communicated that to the judges (actually he just gave them free reign and said 'use whatever methdology you want'). As far as the end of the draft adjustment, it's hard to say where to end once you start doing that.

I wish Tim would give me free reign. That would mean I was KING, and my decisions would be irrevocable. On the other hand, if he gives me free rein, he's apt to pull on the bridle from time to time.

 

[higgins]

Timmy, can we just jettison the intellectuals slot, and replace it "best racks of the world"? I'm dead serious...

 

[FUBAR]

As regards the other question- I was willing to adjust scores in the other draft because we came up with the idea of category judges about halfway through. In the end, I decided not to do it. In this draft, it's not even a question because we start with category judges.I would like the category judges to judge the entire aspect of a person, but also to judge them for the category they are in. I know this seems unclear, but let me explain- suppose you put Da Vinci in the role of scientist? Da Vinci is a great thinker, and was certainly a scientist, but he's going to fall short of the other pure scientists, and be ranked below them. Whereas if he's in another category he'll probably be ranked much higher. So what category you decide to put someone in must be important.This is why I leave it up to each judge to choose their own methodology. I didn't agree with everything the category judges in the American draft did, but the one thing you can't take away from them is that they all tried to be very thoughtful and careful about reaching their conclusions. That's really all we can ask for and expect.

I'll say for leaders, I'm judging their time as leaders, what they did to get them there (this will be different than any other category could use) and lasting impact on the world.

 

[timschochet]

Timmy, can we just jettison the intellectuals slot, and replace it "best racks of the world"? I'm dead serious...

Fraid not. But I'll be highly partial as a wildcard judge to whoever you want to include for this reason- so long as pictures are included.

 

[FUBAR]

Timmy, can we just jettison the intellectuals slot, and replace it "best racks of the world"? I'm dead serious...

Awesome Rack

 

[timschochet]

One more thing- we still need a painter judge and an "artist-non painter judge." I don't feel qualified to judge these because this is not my area of expertise. We need someone who knows their ####. Anybody interested (and qualified)?

 

[mad sweeney]

Good morning.

It is extremely important that everyone refrain from spotlighting. It's easy to forget. Ozymandius spotlighted a few posts ago, and some other people have done so as well. Simply put, do not mention prominent names who have not been selected. TIA.

Ozymandius makes the argument that Jesus and Muhammad are more influential than Newton because of their uniqueness; if Newton had not been around, someone else would have come up with his discoveries.

I could just as easily argue that (a) monotheism represents an inevitable progression in the development of human faith and (b) therefore, if Jesus and Muhammad had never existed, someone else would have taken their places. But I don't want to make this argument, because I have always rejected the notion that individuals are to be discounted in favor of the collective wisdom of the age in which they lived.

Newton did live. He did make his accomplishments, which changed the world more profoundly, IMO, than any other single human being. Whether or not others would have done so is irrelevant to this conversation- HE did it.

other people have done what Jesus and Muhammad did... and none of them have been nearly as successful...other scientists have been as world-changing as Newton was...

You really don't get it about Newton if you think other scientists have been as world-changing.He accomplished so much you could take Newton's accomplishments, split them up into about 5 equal parts and divvy them out to 5 different people and you'd have created 5 greats in the history of science.

His greatness isn't based on his accomplishments being so unique that no one else would have later come up with what he did. Some would have, but it would have been a half dozen or a dozen different individuals to come up with what 1 Newton came up with. It's based on the fact that he accomplished an amazing amount including many advances that are still cornerstones of science and mathematics centuries later.

no, I get it...but, as can be seen by the fact that Newton wasn't the #1 scientist drafted, it isn't as open and shut as it is for Jesus vs. everyone or Muhammad vs. everyone but Jesus...

He seems to be a consensus #1 overall scientist though regardless of where he was drafted.Going by that "logic", I guess Jesus is second to Sun Tzu.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

One more thing- we still need a painter judge and an "artist-non painter judge." I don't feel qualified to judge these because this is not my area of expertise. We need someone who knows their ####. Anybody interested (and qualified)?

I can do this. I studied Art History extensively in school and outside.

 

[BobbyLayne]

One more thing- we still need a painter judge and an "artist-non painter judge." I don't feel qualified to judge these because this is not my area of expertise. We need someone who knows their ####. Anybody interested (and qualified)?

I can do this. I studied Art History extensively in school and outside.

You want both are just one?timschochet - can we change the categories to visual arts and plastic arts? painter/non-painter is kind of awkward.

visual - drawing, painting, photography, printmaking

plastic - 3 dimensional art, including sculpture and architecture

 

[GregR_2]

Good morning.It is extremely important that everyone refrain from spotlighting. It's easy to forget. Ozymandius spotlighted a few posts ago, and some other people have done so as well. Simply put, do not mention prominent names who have not been selected. TIA.Ozymandius makes the argument that Jesus and Muhammad are more influential than Newton because of their uniqueness; if Newton had not been around, someone else would have come up with his discoveries.I could just as easily argue that (a) monotheism represents an inevitable progression in the development of human faith and (b) therefore, if Jesus and Muhammad had never existed, someone else would have taken their places. But I don't want to make this argument, because I have always rejected the notion that individuals are to be discounted in favor of the collective wisdom of the age in which they lived.Newton did live. He did make his accomplishments, which changed the world more profoundly, IMO, than any other single human being. Whether or not others would have done so is irrelevant to this conversation- HE did it.

other people have done what Jesus and Muhammad did... and none of them have been nearly as successful...other scientists have been as world-changing as Newton was...

You really don't get it about Newton if you think other scientists have been as world-changing.He accomplished so much you could take Newton's accomplishments, split them up into about 5 equal parts and divvy them out to 5 different people and you'd have created 5 greats in the history of science.His greatness isn't based on his accomplishments being so unique that no one else would have later come up with what he did. Some would have, but it would have been a half dozen or a dozen different individuals to come up with what 1 Newton came up with. It's based on the fact that he accomplished an amazing amount including many advances that are still cornerstones of science and mathematics centuries later.

no, I get it...but, as can be seen by the fact that Newton wasn't the #1 scientist drafted, it isn't as open and shut as it is for Jesus vs. everyone or Muhammad vs. everyone but Jesus...

I hope you can understand my skepticism that an examination of how they were taken in a fantasy famous person draft is a better measure of whether they were the most world changing than examining their actual accomplishments and impacts.If we were to be trying to put Einstein on par with Newton and could do so by going back and changing history so Einstein was responsible for things others got credit for, I think to put him on par he'd have to be a bigger player in the ongoing development of Quantum Mechanics. In many ways Einstein gave birth to the line of thought behind Quantum Mechanics when he theorized that the energy in light was quantized in localized points of space, and I think you could argue the importance of that change of perspective about energy alongside his achievements in Relativity.However, you could argue that Quantum Mechanics took off from there as much in spite of Einstein as because of him. He was a detractor of the larger theory that evolved from his original thought, a theory that has been proven over time.I'm not saying this to try to knock Einstein. The guy was amazing. I'm highlighting the difference between he and Newton. Newton had a more sweeping set of advances which laid the ground work for physics for the next few centuries. The strength in Einstein's accomplishments are moreso from the fact of how extraordinary it was that he was able to reach them because so many of them run counter-intuitive to common sense. Take for example how he arrived at the principles behind relativity. As someone with a BS in Physics, I've heard the thought experiments he did involving envisioning people falling in elevators, and even with my hindsight of knowing and accepting that relativity is right, I still can't see how he made the intuitive leap from those thought experiments to the conclusion that space-time is curved.I think to reach an equivalent level of world changing as Newton, that Einstein would have had to do more in the advancement of QM than just the original change in thought paradigm that led to QM. If he'd done so, that would have him as world-changing as Newton was in the world of Physics. If you were to throw all of Einstein's and Newton's achievements together and then rank them individually in how hard they were to come up with, Einstein probably takes the top few spots. But Newton's overall body of work had a larger impact.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

One more thing- we still need a painter judge and an "artist-non painter judge." I don't feel qualified to judge these because this is not my area of expertise. We need someone who knows their ####. Anybody interested (and qualified)?

I can do this. I studied Art History extensively in school and outside.

You want both are just one?timschochet - can we change the categories to visual arts and plastic arts? painter/non-painter is kind of awkward.

visual - drawing, painting, photography, printmaking

plastic - 3 dimensional art, including sculpture and architecture

I actually think all non-painters will fare better if they stay lumped in a separate category.ETA: I'll do both but if some else volunteers I take just the Painters category.

 

[Uncle Humuna]

Good morning.It is extremely important that everyone refrain from spotlighting. It's easy to forget. Ozymandius spotlighted a few posts ago, and some other people have done so as well. Simply put, do not mention prominent names who have not been selected. TIA.Ozymandius makes the argument that Jesus and Muhammad are more influential than Newton because of their uniqueness; if Newton had not been around, someone else would have come up with his discoveries.I could just as easily argue that (a) monotheism represents an inevitable progression in the development of human faith and (b) therefore, if Jesus and Muhammad had never existed, someone else would have taken their places. But I don't want to make this argument, because I have always rejected the notion that individuals are to be discounted in favor of the collective wisdom of the age in which they lived.Newton did live. He did make his accomplishments, which changed the world more profoundly, IMO, than any other single human being. Whether or not others would have done so is irrelevant to this conversation- HE did it.

other people have done what Jesus and Muhammad did... and none of them have been nearly as successful...other scientists have been as world-changing as Newton was...

You really don't get it about Newton if you think other scientists have been as world-changing.He accomplished so much you could take Newton's accomplishments, split them up into about 5 equal parts and divvy them out to 5 different people and you'd have created 5 greats in the history of science.His greatness isn't based on his accomplishments being so unique that no one else would have later come up with what he did. Some would have, but it would have been a half dozen or a dozen different individuals to come up with what 1 Newton came up with. It's based on the fact that he accomplished an amazing amount including many advances that are still cornerstones of science and mathematics centuries later.

no, I get it...but, as can be seen by the fact that Newton wasn't the #1 scientist drafted, it isn't as open and shut as it is for Jesus vs. everyone or Muhammad vs. everyone but Jesus...

I hope you can understand my skepticism that an examination of how they were taken in a fantasy famous person draft is a better measure of whether they were the most world changing than examining their actual accomplishments and impacts.If we were to be trying to put Einstein on par with Newton and could do so by going back and changing history so Einstein was responsible for things others got credit for, I think to put him on par he'd have to be a bigger player in the ongoing development of Quantum Mechanics. In many ways Einstein gave birth to the line of thought behind Quantum Mechanics when he theorized that the energy in light was quantized in localized points of space, and I think you could argue the importance of that change of perspective about energy alongside his achievements in Relativity.However, you could argue that Quantum Mechanics took off from there as much in spite of Einstein as because of him. He was a detractor of the larger theory that evolved from his original thought, a theory that has been proven over time.I'm not saying this to try to knock Einstein. The guy was amazing. I'm highlighting the difference between he and Newton. Newton had a more sweeping set of advances which laid the ground work for physics for the next few centuries. The strength in Einstein's accomplishments are moreso from the fact of how extraordinary it was that he was able to reach them because so many of them run counter-intuitive to common sense. Take for example how he arrived at the principles behind relativity. As someone with a BS in Physics, I've heard the thought experiments he did involving envisioning people falling in elevators, and even with my hindsight of knowing and accepting that relativity is right, I still can't see how he made the intuitive leap from those thought experiments to the conclusion that space-time is curved.I think to reach an equivalent level of world changing as Newton, that Einstein would have had to do more in the advancement of QM than just the original change in thought paradigm that led to QM. If he'd done so, that would have him as world-changing as Newton was in the world of Physics. If you were to throw all of Einstein's and Newton's achievements together and then rank them individually in how hard they were to come up with, Einstein probably takes the top few spots. But Newton's overall body of work had a larger impact.

plus Al doesn't have a cookie named after him

 

[Mjolnirs]

Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome are always seperated from Europe in any scholarly discussion Larry. They influenced Europe they were not of it.

I've never thought about Ancient Greece and Rome as not being Europe. But, I have a book titled EUROPE A History and Chapter 2 is Ancient Greece, Chapter 3 is Ancient Rome and Chapter 4 is The Birth of Europe.

 

[FUBAR]

One more thing- we still need a painter judge and an "artist-non painter judge." I don't feel qualified to judge these because this is not my area of expertise. We need someone who knows their ####. Anybody interested (and qualified)?

I can do this. I studied Art History extensively in school and outside.

You want both are just one?timschochet - can we change the categories to visual arts and plastic arts? painter/non-painter is kind of awkward.

visual - drawing, painting, photography, printmaking

plastic - 3 dimensional art, including sculpture and architecture

Sculptures aren't visual?How about 2D vs. 3D vs. 36DD?

ETA: is carpentry an artform? Jesus might win that category.

 

[FUBAR]

Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome are always seperated from Europe in any scholarly discussion Larry. They influenced Europe they were not of it.

I've never thought about Ancient Greece and Rome as not being Europe. But, I have a book titled EUROPE A History and Chapter 2 is Ancient Greece, Chapter 3 is Ancient Rome and Chapter 4 is The Birth of Europe.

In my Ottoman empire books, this is always a bone of contention as well. Nobody seems to agree on the definitions of that area.

 

[thatguy]

Johannes Gutenberg - Inventor

This man is the reason we have books, newspapers, all that good stuff. Before him, all written works were in fact hand written. His is perhaps the most important invention in history, as it markedly increased the efficiency of spreading ideas, both within and across cultures, and helped to spark both the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. Gutenberg remains a towering figure in the popular image; in 1999, the A&E Network ranked Gutenberg #1 on their "People of the Millennium" countdown, and in 1997, Time–Life magazine picked Gutenberg's invention as the most important of the second millennium.

Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg (c. 1398 – February 3, 1468) was a German goldsmith and printer who is credited with being the first European to use movable type printing, in around 1439, and the global inventor of the mechanical printing press. His major work, the Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible), has been acclaimed for its high aesthetic and technical quality.

Among the specific contributions to printing that are attributed to Gutenberg are the invention of a process for mass-producing movable type, the use of oil-based ink, and the use of a wooden printing press similar to the screw olive and wine presses of the period. His truly epochal invention was the combination of these elements into a practical system. Gutenberg may have been familiar with printing; it is claimed that he had worked on copper engravings with an artist known as the Master of the Playing Cards. Gutenberg's method for making type is traditionally considered to have included a type metal alloy and a hand mould for casting type. It should be noted that new research may indicate that standardised moveable type was a more complex evolutionary process spread over multiple locations.

The use of movable type was a marked improvement on the handwritten manuscript, which was the existing method of book production in Europe, and upon woodblock printing, and revolutionized European book-making. Gutenberg's printing technology spread rapidly throughout Europe and is considered a key factor in the European Renaissance. Gutenberg remains a towering figure in the popular image; in 1999, the A&E Network ranked Gutenberg #1 on their "People of the Millennium" countdown, and in 1997, Time–Life magazine picked Gutenberg's invention as the most important of the second millennium.



Legacy

Although Gutenberg was financially unsuccessful in his lifetime, the printing technologies spread quickly, and news and books began to travel across Europe much faster than before. It fed the growing Renaissance, and since it greatly facilitated scientific publishing, it was a major catalyst for the later scientific revolution.

The capital of printing in Europe shifted to Venice, where visionary printers like Aldus Manutius ensured widespread availability of the major Greek and Latin texts. The claims of an Italian origin for movable type have also focused on this rapid rise of Italy in movable-type printing. This may perhaps be explained by the prior eminence of Italy in the paper and printing trade. Additionally, Italy's economy was growing rapidly at the time, facilitating the spread of literacy. Christopher Columbus had a geographical book (printed by movable types) bought by his father, and fortunately he got stimulated by it. That book is in a Spanish museum. Finally, the city of Mainz was sacked in 1462, driving many (including a number of printers and punch cutters) into exile.

Handwritten notes by Christopher Columbus on the latin edition of Marco Polo's Le livre des merveilles.

Printing was also a factor in the Reformation: Martin Luther found that the 95 Theses, which he posted on the door of his church, were printed and circulated widely; subsequently he also issued broadsheets outlining his anti-indulgences position (ironically, indulgences were one of the first items Gutenberg had printed). The broadsheet evolved into newspapers and defined the mass media we know today.

Johannes Gutenberg on a German stamp

In the decades after Gutenberg, many conservative patrons looked down on cheap printed books; books produced by hand were considered more desirable. At one point the papal court debated a policy of requiring printing presses to obtain a license, but this could not be decreed.

Today there is a large antique market for the earliest printed objects. Books printed prior to 1500 are known as incunabula.

There are many statues of Gutenberg in Germany, including the famous one by Bertel Thorvaldsen (1837) in Mainz, home to the Gutenberg Museum and the eponymous Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz.

Project Gutenberg commemorates Gutenberg's name.

Matthew Skelton's book Endymion Spring explores a controversial theory about Johann Gutenberg and his partner Fust.

In 1961 the Canadian philosopher and scholar Marshall McLuhan entitled his pioneering study in the fields of print culture, cultural studies, and media ecology, The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man

Johann Gutenberg has been ranked #8 in Michael H. Hart's controversial book, The 100: A Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History.

In 2006, Gutenberg! The Musical!, a musical about two people who wrote a musical about Johann Gutenberg inventing the printing press, began its Off-Broadway run in New York City.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I will post Andy D's pick in 5 minutes.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Johennes Gutenberg - Inventor

Excellent choice.

 

[Abrantes]

Johannes Gutenberg - Inventor

This man is the reason we have books, newspapers, all that good stuff. Before him, all written works were in fact hand written. His is perhaps the most important invention in history, as it markedly increased the efficiency of spreading ideas, both within and across cultures, and helped to spark both the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. Gutenberg remains a towering figure in the popular image; in 1999, the A&E Network ranked Gutenberg #1 on their "People of the Millennium" countdown, and in 1997, Time–Life magazine picked Gutenberg's invention as the most important of the second millennium.

Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg (c. 1398 – February 3, 1468) was a German goldsmith and printer who is credited with being the first European to use movable type printing, in around 1439, and the global inventor of the mechanical printing press. His major work, the Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible), has been acclaimed for its high aesthetic and technical quality.

Among the specific contributions to printing that are attributed to Gutenberg are the invention of a process for mass-producing movable type, the use of oil-based ink, and the use of a wooden printing press similar to the screw olive and wine presses of the period. His truly epochal invention was the combination of these elements into a practical system. Gutenberg may have been familiar with printing; it is claimed that he had worked on copper engravings with an artist known as the Master of the Playing Cards. Gutenberg's method for making type is traditionally considered to have included a type metal alloy and a hand mould for casting type. It should be noted that new research may indicate that standardised moveable type was a more complex evolutionary process spread over multiple locations.

The use of movable type was a marked improvement on the handwritten manuscript, which was the existing method of book production in Europe, and upon woodblock printing, and revolutionized European book-making. Gutenberg's printing technology spread rapidly throughout Europe and is considered a key factor in the European Renaissance. Gutenberg remains a towering figure in the popular image; in 1999, the A&E Network ranked Gutenberg #1 on their "People of the Millennium" countdown, and in 1997, Time–Life magazine picked Gutenberg's invention as the most important of the second millennium.



Legacy

Although Gutenberg was financially unsuccessful in his lifetime, the printing technologies spread quickly, and news and books began to travel across Europe much faster than before. It fed the growing Renaissance, and since it greatly facilitated scientific publishing, it was a major catalyst for the later scientific revolution.

The capital of printing in Europe shifted to Venice, where visionary printers like Aldus Manutius ensured widespread availability of the major Greek and Latin texts. The claims of an Italian origin for movable type have also focused on this rapid rise of Italy in movable-type printing. This may perhaps be explained by the prior eminence of Italy in the paper and printing trade. Additionally, Italy's economy was growing rapidly at the time, facilitating the spread of literacy. Christopher Columbus had a geographical book (printed by movable types) bought by his father, and fortunately he got stimulated by it. That book is in a Spanish museum. Finally, the city of Mainz was sacked in 1462, driving many (including a number of printers and punch cutters) into exile.

Handwritten notes by Christopher Columbus on the latin edition of Marco Polo's Le livre des merveilles.

Printing was also a factor in the Reformation: Martin Luther found that the 95 Theses, which he posted on the door of his church, were printed and circulated widely; subsequently he also issued broadsheets outlining his anti-indulgences position (ironically, indulgences were one of the first items Gutenberg had printed). The broadsheet evolved into newspapers and defined the mass media we know today.

Johannes Gutenberg on a German stamp

In the decades after Gutenberg, many conservative patrons looked down on cheap printed books; books produced by hand were considered more desirable. At one point the papal court debated a policy of requiring printing presses to obtain a license, but this could not be decreed.

Today there is a large antique market for the earliest printed objects. Books printed prior to 1500 are known as incunabula.

There are many statues of Gutenberg in Germany, including the famous one by Bertel Thorvaldsen (1837) in Mainz, home to the Gutenberg Museum and the eponymous Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz.

Project Gutenberg commemorates Gutenberg's name.

Matthew Skelton's book Endymion Spring explores a controversial theory about Johann Gutenberg and his partner Fust.

In 1961 the Canadian philosopher and scholar Marshall McLuhan entitled his pioneering study in the fields of print culture, cultural studies, and media ecology, The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man

Johann Gutenberg has been ranked #8 in Michael H. Hart's controversial book, The 100: A Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History.

In 2006, Gutenberg! The Musical!, a musical about two people who wrote a musical about Johann Gutenberg inventing the printing press, began its Off-Broadway run in New York City.

My #1 inventor.

 

[Thorn]

FWIW, I like the artist (painter)/artist (non-painter) distinction. Pretty straightforward.

 

[krista4]

Johannes Gutenberg - Inventor

This was the person I was referring to when I said there was a clear #1 in his category guy left. With no Gutenberg, no European Renaissance. With no Gutenberg, no accelerated spread of Christianity leading Larry to choose Jesus. There is one other very good pick in this category, but Gutenberg has no peer in terms of the importance of his invention.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Johennes Gutenberg - Inventor

Excellent choice.

Agreed. Much better first round choice then his last one.

 

[krista4]

For Andy Dufresne:

1.16: Plato - Philosopher

Plato was a Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the western world.

Along with his mentor and his student, Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy.

Which in my humble yet accurate opinion is the superior worldwide philosophy.

Is ideas on the state and the idea of democracy laid the foundation for governance in the (mostly) free western world and without him the world would be a much different, darker place.

 

[thatguy]

Johennes Gutenberg - Inventor

Excellent choice.

Agreed. Much better first round choice then his last one.

Elvis did get me 100 points pal. How many points did Adams get you? 95.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

someone tell herbert the hippo that he is about to be up........... Andy's pick is coming next..........

 

[thatguy]

For Andy Dufresne:1.16: Plato - PhilosopherPlato was a Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the western world. Along with his mentor and his student, Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy.Which in my humble yet accurate opinion is the superior worldwide philosophy. Is ideas on the state and the idea of democracy laid the foundation for governance in the (mostly) free western world and without him the world would be a much different, darker place.

It is impossible to talk too much about Plato without spotlighting two other giants of philosophy. Of course, we all know who those two are, so really, I think it matters little. A great pick and was on my short list.

 

[mad sweeney]

Johannes Gutenberg - Inventor

This man is the reason we have books, newspapers, all that good stuff. Before him, all written works were in fact hand written. His is perhaps the most important invention in history, as it markedly increased the efficiency of spreading ideas, both within and across cultures, and helped to spark both the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. Gutenberg remains a towering figure in the popular image; in 1999, the A&E Network ranked Gutenberg #1 on their "People of the Millennium" countdown, and in 1997, Time–Life magazine picked Gutenberg's invention as the most important of the second millennium.

Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg (c. 1398 – February 3, 1468) was a German goldsmith and printer who is credited with being the first European to use movable type printing, in around 1439, and the global inventor of the mechanical printing press. His major work, the Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible), has been acclaimed for its high aesthetic and technical quality.

Among the specific contributions to printing that are attributed to Gutenberg are the invention of a process for mass-producing movable type, the use of oil-based ink, and the use of a wooden printing press similar to the screw olive and wine presses of the period. His truly epochal invention was the combination of these elements into a practical system. Gutenberg may have been familiar with printing; it is claimed that he had worked on copper engravings with an artist known as the Master of the Playing Cards. Gutenberg's method for making type is traditionally considered to have included a type metal alloy and a hand mould for casting type. It should be noted that new research may indicate that standardised moveable type was a more complex evolutionary process spread over multiple locations.

The use of movable type was a marked improvement on the handwritten manuscript, which was the existing method of book production in Europe, and upon woodblock printing, and revolutionized European book-making. Gutenberg's printing technology spread rapidly throughout Europe and is considered a key factor in the European Renaissance. Gutenberg remains a towering figure in the popular image; in 1999, the A&E Network ranked Gutenberg #1 on their "People of the Millennium" countdown, and in 1997, Time–Life magazine picked Gutenberg's invention as the most important of the second millennium.



Legacy

Although Gutenberg was financially unsuccessful in his lifetime, the printing technologies spread quickly, and news and books began to travel across Europe much faster than before. It fed the growing Renaissance, and since it greatly facilitated scientific publishing, it was a major catalyst for the later scientific revolution.

The capital of printing in Europe shifted to Venice, where visionary printers like Aldus Manutius ensured widespread availability of the major Greek and Latin texts. The claims of an Italian origin for movable type have also focused on this rapid rise of Italy in movable-type printing. This may perhaps be explained by the prior eminence of Italy in the paper and printing trade. Additionally, Italy's economy was growing rapidly at the time, facilitating the spread of literacy. Christopher Columbus had a geographical book (printed by movable types) bought by his father, and fortunately he got stimulated by it. That book is in a Spanish museum. Finally, the city of Mainz was sacked in 1462, driving many (including a number of printers and punch cutters) into exile.

Handwritten notes by Christopher Columbus on the latin edition of Marco Polo's Le livre des merveilles.

Printing was also a factor in the Reformation: Martin Luther found that the 95 Theses, which he posted on the door of his church, were printed and circulated widely; subsequently he also issued broadsheets outlining his anti-indulgences position (ironically, indulgences were one of the first items Gutenberg had printed). The broadsheet evolved into newspapers and defined the mass media we know today.

Johannes Gutenberg on a German stamp

In the decades after Gutenberg, many conservative patrons looked down on cheap printed books; books produced by hand were considered more desirable. At one point the papal court debated a policy of requiring printing presses to obtain a license, but this could not be decreed.

Today there is a large antique market for the earliest printed objects. Books printed prior to 1500 are known as incunabula.

There are many statues of Gutenberg in Germany, including the famous one by Bertel Thorvaldsen (1837) in Mainz, home to the Gutenberg Museum and the eponymous Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz.

Project Gutenberg commemorates Gutenberg's name.

Matthew Skelton's book Endymion Spring explores a controversial theory about Johann Gutenberg and his partner Fust.

In 1961 the Canadian philosopher and scholar Marshall McLuhan entitled his pioneering study in the fields of print culture, cultural studies, and media ecology, The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man

Johann Gutenberg has been ranked #8 in Michael H. Hart's controversial book, The 100: A Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History.

In 2006, Gutenberg! The Musical!, a musical about two people who wrote a musical about Johann Gutenberg inventing the printing press, began its Off-Broadway run in New York City.

My #1 inventor.

tthhhhppppbbbbttttttSomeone else would've done it if he didn't.

J/K, a great pick and one I thought about briefly.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

Johannes Gutenberg - Inventor

This was the person I was referring to when I said there was a clear #1 in his category guy left. With no Gutenberg, no European Renaissance. With no Gutenberg, no accelerated spread of Christianity leading Larry to choose Jesus. There is one other very good pick in this category, but Gutenberg has no peer in terms of the importance of his invention.

there was a clear #1 in his category guy left.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

For Andy Dufresne:1.16: Plato - PhilosopherPlato was a Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the western world. Along with his mentor and his student, Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy.Which in my humble yet accurate opinion is the superior worldwide philosophy. Is ideas on the state and the idea of democracy laid the foundation for governance in the (mostly) free western world and without him the world would be a much different, darker place.

It is impossible to talk too much about Plato without spotlighting two other giants of philosophy. Of course, we all know who those two are, so really, I think it matters little. A great pick and was on my short list.

Exactly, can't really separate the three......

 

[Yankee23Fan]

For Andy Dufresne:

1.16: Plato - Philosopher

Plato was a Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the western world.

Along with his mentor and his student, Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy.

Which in my humble yet accurate opinion is the superior worldwide philosophy.

Is ideas on the state and the idea of democracy laid the foundation for governance in the (mostly) free western world and without him the world would be a much different, darker place.

Ok, so I'm not posting Andy's pick. And I had a whole write up of The Republic to add here that was cool. To me anyway. I'll erase that crap now. Thanks.Great pick by Andy here. Obviously there will be a question as to who should have been taken before him, but when one provides the most influential written work of philosophy and political thought together as one tome, he goes in the first round here.

 

[Ozymandias]

Johannes Gutenberg - Inventor

This man is the reason we have books, newspapers, all that good stuff. Before him, all written works were in fact hand written. His is perhaps the most important invention in history, as it markedly increased the efficiency of spreading ideas, both within and across cultures, and helped to spark both the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. Gutenberg remains a towering figure in the popular image; in 1999, the A&E Network ranked Gutenberg #1 on their "People of the Millennium" countdown, and in 1997, Time–Life magazine picked Gutenberg's invention as the most important of the second millennium.

Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg (c. 1398 – February 3, 1468) was a German goldsmith and printer who is credited with being the first European to use movable type printing, in around 1439, and the global inventor of the mechanical printing press. His major work, the Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible), has been acclaimed for its high aesthetic and technical quality.

Among the specific contributions to printing that are attributed to Gutenberg are the invention of a process for mass-producing movable type, the use of oil-based ink, and the use of a wooden printing press similar to the screw olive and wine presses of the period. His truly epochal invention was the combination of these elements into a practical system. Gutenberg may have been familiar with printing; it is claimed that he had worked on copper engravings with an artist known as the Master of the Playing Cards. Gutenberg's method for making type is traditionally considered to have included a type metal alloy and a hand mould for casting type. It should be noted that new research may indicate that standardised moveable type was a more complex evolutionary process spread over multiple locations.

The use of movable type was a marked improvement on the handwritten manuscript, which was the existing method of book production in Europe, and upon woodblock printing, and revolutionized European book-making. Gutenberg's printing technology spread rapidly throughout Europe and is considered a key factor in the European Renaissance. Gutenberg remains a towering figure in the popular image; in 1999, the A&E Network ranked Gutenberg #1 on their "People of the Millennium" countdown, and in 1997, Time–Life magazine picked Gutenberg's invention as the most important of the second millennium.



Legacy

Although Gutenberg was financially unsuccessful in his lifetime, the printing technologies spread quickly, and news and books began to travel across Europe much faster than before. It fed the growing Renaissance, and since it greatly facilitated scientific publishing, it was a major catalyst for the later scientific revolution.

The capital of printing in Europe shifted to Venice, where visionary printers like Aldus Manutius ensured widespread availability of the major Greek and Latin texts. The claims of an Italian origin for movable type have also focused on this rapid rise of Italy in movable-type printing. This may perhaps be explained by the prior eminence of Italy in the paper and printing trade. Additionally, Italy's economy was growing rapidly at the time, facilitating the spread of literacy. Christopher Columbus had a geographical book (printed by movable types) bought by his father, and fortunately he got stimulated by it. That book is in a Spanish museum. Finally, the city of Mainz was sacked in 1462, driving many (including a number of printers and punch cutters) into exile.

Handwritten notes by Christopher Columbus on the latin edition of Marco Polo's Le livre des merveilles.

Printing was also a factor in the Reformation: Martin Luther found that the 95 Theses, which he posted on the door of his church, were printed and circulated widely; subsequently he also issued broadsheets outlining his anti-indulgences position (ironically, indulgences were one of the first items Gutenberg had printed). The broadsheet evolved into newspapers and defined the mass media we know today.

Johannes Gutenberg on a German stamp

In the decades after Gutenberg, many conservative patrons looked down on cheap printed books; books produced by hand were considered more desirable. At one point the papal court debated a policy of requiring printing presses to obtain a license, but this could not be decreed.

Today there is a large antique market for the earliest printed objects. Books printed prior to 1500 are known as incunabula.

There are many statues of Gutenberg in Germany, including the famous one by Bertel Thorvaldsen (1837) in Mainz, home to the Gutenberg Museum and the eponymous Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz.

Project Gutenberg commemorates Gutenberg's name.

Matthew Skelton's book Endymion Spring explores a controversial theory about Johann Gutenberg and his partner Fust.

In 1961 the Canadian philosopher and scholar Marshall McLuhan entitled his pioneering study in the fields of print culture, cultural studies, and media ecology, The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man

Johann Gutenberg has been ranked #8 in Michael H. Hart's controversial book, The 100: A Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History.

In 2006, Gutenberg! The Musical!, a musical about two people who wrote a musical about Johann Gutenberg inventing the printing press, began its Off-Broadway run in New York City.

My #1 inventor.

Arguably the greatest invention ever. Great choice.

 

[mad sweeney]

Johannes Gutenberg - Inventor

This was the person I was referring to when I said there was a clear #1 in his category guy left. With no Gutenberg, no European Renaissance. With no Gutenberg, no accelerated spread of Christianity leading Larry to choose Jesus. There is one other very good pick in this category, but Gutenberg has no peer in terms of the importance of his invention.

I think there's still a clear #1 left.

 

[krista4]

For Andy Dufresne:

1.16: Plato - Philosopher

Plato was a Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the western world.

Along with his mentor and his student, Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy.

Which in my humble yet accurate opinion is the superior worldwide philosophy.

Is ideas on the state and the idea of democracy laid the foundation for governance in the (mostly) free western world and without him the world would be a much different, darker place.

Ok, so I'm not posting Andy's pick. And I had a whole write up of The Republic to add here that was cool. To me anyway. I'll erase that crap now. Thanks.Great pick by Andy here. Obviously there will be a question as to who should have been taken before him, but when one provides the most influential written work of philosophy and political thought together as one tome, he goes in the first round here.

Why wouldn't you add it?

 

[mad sweeney]

For Andy Dufresne:

1.16: Plato - Philosopher

Plato was a Classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the western world.

Along with his mentor and his student, Plato helped to lay the foundations of Western philosophy.

Which in my humble yet accurate opinion is the superior worldwide philosophy.

Is ideas on the state and the idea of democracy laid the foundation for governance in the (mostly) free western world and without him the world would be a much different, darker place.

Ok, so I'm not posting Andy's pick. And I had a whole write up of The Republic to add here that was cool. To me anyway. I'll erase that crap now. Thanks.Great pick by Andy here. Obviously there will be a question as to who should have been taken before him, but when one provides the most influential written work of philosophy and political thought together as one tome, he goes in the first round here.

Post it anyway, your writeups (among a few others) have been the highlights of other drafts.