napoleon is right up there with the greatest geniuses of all time. unfortunately he was an emotional fuckup, which doomed him.

i also second archimedes. with leonardo as the best well-rounded monster, from science to art, incredible. it's easy to be an inventor these days, when there are huge teams of people working on things, and weapons money, and endless tools. but back then, it was all in the head.

Archimedes, daVinci, Newton, Kepler, and Einstein are my top 5 in no order

Quick facts about Archimedes . . . BornAbout 287 BC in Syracuse, Sicily. At the time Syracuse was an independent Greek city-state with a 500-year history. Died212 or 211 BC in Syracuse when it was being sacked by a Roman army. He was killed by a Roman soldier who did not know who he was. EducationProbably studied in Alexandria, Egypt, under the followers of Euclid. FamilyHis father was an astronomer named Phidias and he was probably related to Hieron II, the king of Syracuse. It is not known whether he was married or had any children. InventionsMany war machines used in the defense of Syracuse, compound pulley systems, planetarium, water screw (possibly), water organ (possibly), burning mirrors (very unlikely). Fields of
Science
InitiatedHydrostatics, static mechanics, pycnometry (the measurement of the volume or density of an object). He is called the "father of integral calculus" and also the "father of mathematical physics". Major
WritingsOn plane equilibriums, Quadrature of the parabola, On the sphere and cylinder, On spirals, On conoids and spheroids, On floating bodies, Measurement of a circle, The Sandreckoner, On the method of mechanical problems. Place in
HistoryGenerally regarded as the greatest mathematician and scientist of antiquity and one of the three greatest mathematicians of all time (together with Isaac Newton (English 1643-1727) and Carl Friedrich Gauss (German 1777-1855)).

funny thing about newton, he had a brilliant moment, then he became a cranky religious bastard.

can you add galileo to your list? not so much for his planetary observations, but for hiw work in physics, which dispelled many stupidities of the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Saint Luke is in contention.

???

I'm sure you'd dislike him for pretty much the same reasons I love him.

You are right !@#$%

Galileo and Coppericus are fucking dope motherfuckers.

i suppose i do...

cool hand luke >> st. luke

actually i don't think i hate him. john of patmos & st. paul are my most hated. luke is kinda neutral, i guess? i have forgotten this, i used to read the bible as a kid.

but wouldn't his boss, jesus, be the genius here? damn i am trying not to come across as a smartass, just thinking one is the doer the other the recorder, well....

Jesus would be the only choice, but as He was the son of God, He was both human and divine. And perfect, so He had a bit of a head start. I was restricting my choice to people without that advantage.

And it's more than just recording. Luke recorded events in a different way to the other Gospel writers. He achieved something special.

i was reading something about him here. apparently, he was a protocommunist.


c'est vrai, ça?

Thurston Moore? He's smarter than one would suspect. Either that or insane.

I wouldn't say Luke was a socialist; he believed in everyone having the same opprtunity, not the same lack of opportunity!

(I'm a bit jaded when it comes to socialism)

By coincidence, I wrote this on another forum yesterday stating my favourite New Testament book: I voted for the Gospel of Luke, because it's such a nice document. Whoever first called it the 'loveliest book in the world' was right.

Luke was unique among the gospel writers in that he was a normal person - a doctor in fact - rather than a big figure in the early church. Incidentally, he was also a gentile and not a Jew (the only New TEstament author who wasn't a Jew, in fact).

The gospel was written to a man named Theophilus, who seems to have been quite an important chap, and who seems to have asked Luke to tell him about Jesus. Luke does so with an honesty and sense of love that is rarely equalled. But apart from that, the idea one gets from reading Luke is that as a doctor, ie as someone used to dealing with knowledge, Luke has gone to great length to be historically accurate - to present the facts as they shold be presented.

Luke's gospel scores for other reasons too. He demonstrates the importance of prayer by showing JEsus praying at the great moments of His life. Also, he overturns the old conventions by allowing an true acknowledgement of the role of women in the story; it is Luke who tells of the birth from MAry's point of view, Luke who who tells of Elizabeth and of Anna. It is Luke also who portrays with the greatest of skill MArtha and MAry, and also Mary Magdalene.

Luke's gospel is also the gospel of universality, by which I mean that he shows that Jesus is for all people, without barrier or distincion (Luke, for instance, is the only gospel author who relates the tale of the good Samaritan - a tale that no-one should let slip from their mind).

I think I admire Luke because he saw Jesus take away the power of the scribes and pharisees, take away division ('There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus'), but it was Luke who was the apostle who saw that and made it clear. He helped give the faith to the world rather than to those who passed innumerable tests and satisfied man-made rules.

i zee. thanks for the share. i remain staunchly agnostic, but i do appreciate your enthusiasm and will manage to rise (for once) above the level of petty argument, nitpicking, and sarcasm. must be the benign influence of the virgen the guadalupe or the fact that you're such a damn nice person it feels truly wrong to act like a bitter jackass towards you. (not that i'm a bitter jackass at heart-- it's the hardboiled mask i wear in public). but anyway. the weekend calls with its temptations of debauchery and i must answer! have a good night.

And the same to you. Take care.

Steffan Freund

I bet SAINT Luke couldn't eat 50 eggs, though....

Despite his genius, I doubt he'd be able to see the point of eating 50 eggs. It doesn't sound like a very wise thing to attempt anyway.

edit: http://www.open2.net/sciencetechnolo...lhandluke.html