GENIUS FORUMS

I guess I should mind my "netiquette" instead of opening too many threads.

Here's my list:

0. God
1. Lao Tse
2. Buddha
3. Jesus
4. Leonardo da Vinci
5. Einstein
6. Wittgenstein
7. babies
8. Sidis
9. Socrates

How are you defining "genius"?

Dan Rowden wrote:How are you defining "genius"?

My definition is pretty much in concert with your ideas plus their influence on mankind.

After all I think the word genius is related to genius loci which has to do with spirit.

Fools, why are babies geniuses?

FoolsJourney, I think what is being asked is why your list isn't:

0. All matter and energy in the universe
1. Confucius
2. Zoroaster
3. Mohammed
4. Andy Warhol
5. Copernicus
6. John Locke
7. everyone for 5 minutes
8. Bobby Fischer
9. Epicurus

Because honestly, your selection criteria allow me to do that.

DaVinci and Mozart are my overall pick for the two greatest geniuses who ever lived. From a spiritual standpoint I would also add Jesus, Buddha & Krishna.

FoolsJourney wrote:I guess I should mind my "netiquette" instead of opening too many threads.

Here's my list:

0. God
1. Lao Tse
2. Buddha
3. Jesus
4. Leonardo da Vinci
5. Einstein
6. Wittgenstein
7. babies
8. Sidis
9. Socrates

It's interesting that God is not at the top of my personal list because I'm not certain what God actually is beyond my imaginative beliefs. God means something different to every different religion who believes in God. I find it ignorant to include God at the top of the list of "Top 10 Greatest Geniuses" when you don't even know who or what God actually is. If you do I offer my sincere apologies.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but for someone to actually be a "Genius" the minimum requirement is that there is proof the person actually existed. I have such proof regarding DaVinci or Mozart, but as for God and the religious supposed avatars...well...the best I can say is that IN MY OPINION Jesus, Buddha & Krishna are three of the greatest geniuses...of my imagination.

Do tell us? Who or what is God? Surely you must know this empirically or you would not have put God at the top of your list.

FoolsJourney wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:How are you defining "genius"?

My definition is pretty much in concert with your ideas plus their influence on mankind.

After all I think the word genius is related to genius loci which has to do with spirit.

Interesting indeed. This is the "Genius Forum" and only I am able to point out that God cannot possibly be a "genius" unless you have empirical proof that God actually exists and who exactly God is. And I'm the one who is purported to be the "wacky" and "loony" poster here. Come on folks, if you are less "wacky" and "loony" than I am you should have bee able to point this out before I did.

The bottom line definition of a "Genius" must be: a person who we can easily empirically prove actually existed or exists. Dan Rowden gave the most logical answer to the title post and even he doesn't seem to see this obvious fact. I guess that makes me closer to true geinus than the rest of you.

Look into the matter and you will find that true geniuses of history were considered rather "wacky" and "loony"

As a matter of fact the thread I created begins by sharing how one of the greatest architects who ushered in the Renaissane was initially thought to be a madman for his radically new ideas about how things should be done.

So, if your definition of "Genius" is: 'above all else not wacky or loony in any way' it would indeed be a defective definition showing that you wouldn't know a true genius even if he walked up to you and pulled your underwear up over your heads.

BTW: What is "spirit"?

Here's my list:

0. Alex
1. God
2. Buddha
3. Jesus
4. Leonardo da Vinci
5. Alex
6. Wittgenstein
7. babies
8. Alex
9. Socrates

The natural question, the really smart question, is why does Alex appear three times...

Simple.
Alexander the Great, Tsar Alexander I, and Alexandros of Wilusa. I'd complain that the last one is fictional, except real existence doesn't seem to be a requirement.

Renaissance wrote:

FoolsJourney wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:How are you defining "genius"?

My definition is pretty much in concert with your ideas plus their influence on mankind.

After all I think the word genius is related to genius loci which has to do with spirit.

Interesting indeed. This is the "Genius Forum" and only I am able to point out that God cannot possibly be a "genius" unless you have empirical proof that God actually exists and who exactly God is. And I'm the one who is purported to be the "wacky" and "loony" poster here. Come on folks, if you are less "wacky" and "loony" than I am you should have bee able to point this out before I did.

I immediately assumed some kind of of ironical twist in

0. God

No-one starts a list of 10 with zero unless they intend something ironic, do they?

Alex Jacob wrote:Here's my list:

0. Alex
1. God
2. Buddha
3. Jesus
4. Leonardo da Vinci
5. Alex
6. Wittgenstein
7. babies
8. Alex
9. Socrates

The natural question, the really smart question, is why does Alex appear three times...

Figure it's Alex the Father, the Son, and the Holy Bullshitter.

"No-one starts a list of 10 with zero unless they intend something ironic, do they?"

--Dan

MY RESPONSE:

We're supposed to expect logic and intelligence from someone who is comfortable calling himself: "Fools Journey"?

"They" most certainly might indeed!

Renaissance wrote:"No-one starts a list of 10 with zero unless they intend something ironic, do they?"

--Dan

MY RESPONSE:

We're supposed to expect logic and intelligence from someone who is comfortable calling himself: "Fools Journey"?

As opposed to "SidArthur Prospero Baggins", you mean?

Oddly enough, his moniker is quite accurate for most all people.

Fools on a journey.

Together or seperate, it matters none. Still fools.

And what does your moniker allude to, prince?

Dan Rowden wrote:

Renaissance wrote:"No-one starts a list of 10 with zero unless they intend something ironic, do they?"

--Dan

MY RESPONSE:

We're supposed to expect logic and intelligence from someone who is comfortable calling himself: "Fools Journey"?

As opposed to "SidArthur Prospero Baggins", you mean?

If you think I ever called myself that you are wrong, Dan. That was someone else entirely.

Ah, I see. Nat or Philo I imagine.

Shahrazad wrote:And what does your moniker allude to, prince?

Quite a bit more than you will ever be.

I already am more than you will be, and that includes your dreams.

Mmkay, we'll see.

Your suffering oozes out of every ignorant pore.

Dan Rowden wrote:Ah, I see. Nat or Philo I imagine.

I can sense that you are doing well with your life. I have no such sense with Nat, Philo, or that demon man Danilchenko. Were you around when Nat's forum won Ezboard awards? Well, he's not winning any awards for his dead forum today. I'd say that all of them combined are not doing as well as you are, Dan. I sense that you are at more peace with yourself then I have ever known you to be.

Hey, it was in your old forum that I created this. I sure can't remember her name. Maybe you can refresh my memory. I think I still have a bigger version somewhere:

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e95/s ... ITATWO.jpg

Trevor writes:

"Alexander the Great, Tsar Alexander I, and Alexandros of Wilusa. I'd complain that the last one is fictional, except real existence doesn't seem to be a requirement."

You win! You got it right! You won a subscription to my complete Correspondence Course in 32,000 emailed lessons!

Real existence, as you know, is unreal in itself. If you could ever locate Dan, I mean if you could ever pinpoint him precisely, he'd tell you the same thing.

;-)

okay i am back.... i think two people mentioned krishna and i havent included him.... i gotta be honest, i havent delved much into hinduism.....but this will make me dig deeper...

again and again my id has been brought up....it's actually from the deck of tarot cards where the very first card is a fool. fool starts a journey and gradually gets enlightened.

of course, needless to mention, fools in ancient medieval times were the only ones being able to take jabs at the king...but i am getting too defensive here.

Renaissance wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Ah, I see. Nat or Philo I imagine.

I can sense that you are doing well with your life. I have no such sense with Nat, Philo, or that demon man Danilchenko.

I have to admit, that gave me a laugh; however, I think Vic is actually a pretty happy guy, by and large. He just has an insatiable ego.

Were you around when Nat's forum won Ezboard awards?

Those were the halcyon days of KIR.

Well, he's not winning any awards for his dead forum today. I'd say that all of them combined are not doing as well as you are, Dan. I sense that you are at more peace with yourself then I have ever known you to be.

Well, that may be, but it could be that I'm more indifferent than I ever was. Hard to say.

Hey, it was in your old forum that I created this. I sure can't remember her name. Maybe you can refresh my memory. I think I still have a bigger version somewhere:

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e95/s ... ITATWO.jpg

Oh, Marsha Faizi. She'd probably get a kick out of seeing that again.