Who's the greater genius - Shakespeare or Einstein?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jawgap

Tim Shearer wrote: »

How exactly was he ahead of his time?

He developed an FTL drive

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If Shakespeare wasn't a mandated read at school I certainly wouldn't have read any of it

murpho999

housetypeb wrote: »

One could argue that Einstein,while a genius and way ahead of his time,discovered truths about the universe that were there to be uncovered anyway.
If not by him,other scientists would have figured it out step by step over time,maybe not in the great leap forward that Einstein gave us-but it would eventually be understood,that's the nature of science.

Shakespeare showed us what was in his imagination and brought it to life.
One is more unique than the other.

We are the music makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams,
Wandering by lone sea-breakers,
And sitting by desolate streams;—
World-losers and world-forsakers,
On whom the pale moon gleams:
Yet we are the movers and shakers
Of the world for ever, it seems.

EInstein discovered and created theories that are very complex and beyond the reaches of understanding of may people.

Shakespeare was talented and creative but that is not as complex or as intellectually demanding as what Einstein achieved.

Wibbs

murpho999 wrote: »

Shakespeare was talented and creative but that is not as complex or as intellectually demanding as what Einstein achieved.

Depends on how one defines complex and demanding mind you. The greatest artists hold up a mirror to and for humanity. That's demanding as hell and one of the most complex subjects imaginable. There is also a uniqueness to the greatest artists. Put it another way: if Einstein hadn't been born, sooner or later somebody else would have come up with the theory of general relativity(quite a number were working on it). Ditto for a scientific giant like Darwin(he beat a few others to the podium. Just). If Shakespeare had never been born we'd have never had Hamlet and so on and so forth for other artistic giants.

Leonardo DaVinci strode both worlds of art and science like a boss. An idea common enough in his era(and others), but pretty much gone today. Though Leonardo, while the genius in many ways had remarkably little direct influence, either as a scientist, or artist, or engineer, or poet, or...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ScumLord

murpho999 wrote: »

What exactly did Einstein invent?

He invented whatever E=MC2 means and I'm pretty sure we need that stuff.

Einstein may not have influenced the general public directly with his work, but he would have influenced the really smart people who create our modern technological world.

Was never got into shakespeare.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Alf Veedersane

If you were to ask me to name three geniuses, I probably wouldn't say Einstein, Newton......you know. I'd go Milligan, Cleese, Everett.

Sessions

murpho999

ScumLord wrote: »

He invented whatever E=MC2 means and I'm pretty sure we need that stuff.

Einstein may not have influenced the general public directly with his work, but he would have influenced the really smart people who create our modern technological world.

Was never got into shakespeare.

He didn't invent it as it's not a product or service.

He researched and discovered a theory.

ScumLord

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You don't say, I bought 4 boxes of E=MC2 this morning. So it's not bubble wrap then?

murpho999

Wibbs wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To degrade Einstein's work is wrong. So you're saying somebody would have done it anyway.

So it's like saying whoever discovers the cure for cancer in the future does not deserve much credit as it would have been discovered anyway.

Einstein release theories in a relatively short space of time (see what I did there ) at a young age that turned science on its head and advanced it.

Shakespeare's work, whilst difficult and complex, is subject to people's tastes, critical reception, popularity and fashions. It's not based on scientific fact and physics.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because I don't have as much appreciation for the arts and literature as I do for raw intelligence and scientific thought. And I think Special Relativity is harder to come up with than Macbeth.

Impact on society? That's subjective but I'd go with Einstein.

osarusan

Fairly pointless really, as their work was so different.

I'd say it's hard to even come up with legitimate and unbiased criteria for comparison.

Alf Veedersane

osarusan wrote: »

Fairly pointless really, as their work was so different.

I'd say it's hard to even come up with legitimate and unbiased criteria for comparison.

If only Einstein had a theory on the relativity of apples and oranges.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sky King

TSMGUY wrote: »

So a great writer can never compare to a great scientist?

Shakespeare compared some hoe bag to a summers day.

Maximus Alexander

Wibbs wrote: »

Depends on how one defines complex and demanding mind you. The greatest artists hold up a mirror to and for humanity. That's demanding as hell and one of the most complex subjects imaginable. There is also a uniqueness to the greatest artists. Put it another way: if Einstein hadn't been born, sooner or later somebody else would have come up with the theory of general relativity(quite a number were working on it). Ditto for a scientific giant like Darwin(he beat a few others to the podium. Just). If Shakespeare had never been born we'd have never had Hamlet and so on and so forth for other artistic giants.

Leonardo DaVinci strode both worlds of art and science like a boss. An idea common enough in his era(and others), but pretty much gone today. Though Leonardo, while the genius in many ways had remarkably little direct influence, either as a scientist, or artist, or engineer, or poet, or...

I'm calling BS on the idea of uniqueness having inherent value. If Dale M Courtney had never been born we'd never have had Moon People, but I don't think the world would have been any worse for it.

You could just as easily argue that without Shakespeare, some other artist would have taken his place in the annals of history. An artist whose work was instead overlooked and lost in the sands of time.

Jawgap

murpho999 wrote: »

To degrade Einstein's work is wrong. So you're saying somebody would have done it anyway.

So it's like saying whoever discovers the cure for cancer in the future does not deserve much credit as it would have been discovered anyway.

.....

That's the nature of scientific discovery - incremental advances make many discoveries inevitably within a certain timeframe. That's why certain discoveries are made independently but the person who first comes to public attention (not necessarily who makes the discovery first) gets the plaudits.

Cancer will likely be 'cured' within a generation - there are many teams working towards that goal one will get their first for reasons that have often little to do with uncanny scientific insight and more to do with funding, organisation and the fickle hand of fortune......

....the classic example is Penicillin - Fleming made the discovery (as every school kid is taught), but it took Chain, Florey and Heatley to determine it's therapeutic value and formulate a way to produce useful quantities, Hodgkin to determine it's structure and Rousseau and Rettew to develop the industrial processes that allowed it to be produced in sufficient quantities.....

.....but only 3 people can get the Nobel and that was Fleming, Florey and Chain.

take everything

Dave0301 wrote: »

You're comparing apples and oranges.

For what it is worth though, it is Einstein.

The man was hundreds of years ahead of his colleagues and his work on Special and General Relativity advanced our understanding of the universe, not to mention allow us to have GPS.

Einstein was a very special genius but is it true that he was as far ahead as you say. There were a few guys around that time who were not too far behind when it came to the nature of spacetime (iirc).
Poincare, in the 19th century was thinking along the same lines IIRC

Maximus Alexander

Jawgap wrote: »

That's the nature of scientific discovery - incremental advances make many discoveries inevitably within a certain timeframe. That's why certain discoveries are made independently but the person who first comes to public attention (not necessarily who makes the discovery first) gets the plaudits.

This is not true though, scientific and technological progress is not guaranteed and pre-ordained. You've only to look at history to see this. Take the Chinese, for example, who despite being fairly technologically advanced never quite got to grips with glass. This turned out to be a pretty big scientific bottleneck, preventing them from developing lenses, microscopes, telescopes and some types of chemistry.

If someone in China had figured out how to create transparent glass centuries before they started getting it from Europe, some might have been tempted to say "It was inevitable, if he hadn't discovered it someone else would have..."

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

TSMGUY wrote: »

definitive 1st comment, care to expand on that? I agree but there's definitely a case for Shakespeare.

No there isn't.

No comparison.

take everything

John Von Neumann.

Steve Jobs (AH answer)

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well since we're being pedantic, it wasn't quite. Einstein's most famous formula was only an approximate.

Jawgap

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

This is not true though, scientific and technological progress is not guaranteed and pre-ordained. You've only to look at history to see this. Take the Chinese, for example, who despite being fairly technologically advanced never quite got to grips with glass. This turned out to be a pretty big scientific bottleneck, preventing them from developing lenses, microscopes, telescopes and some types of chemistry.

If someone in China had figured out how to create transparent glass centuries before they started getting it from Europe, some might have been tempted to say "It was inevitable, if he hadn't discovered it someone else would have..."

that's difference between a discovery and and invention, though.

Fleming discovered the anti-microbial effect of the penicillium mold, but others 'operationalised' it. Just like Einstein elaborated relativity but someone else figured out a practical use for it.

In the case of the Chinese, it sounds like they had the scientists but not the engineers and their efforts were overtaken by imports (whose to say a generation later wouldn't have seen the Chinese take a different direction) - plus that kind of proves the point, Europeans and Chinese 'teams' were exploring glass and it's uses and one got to a particular end use before the other - where was the paradigm shift in the case of the European efforts?

Dave0301

take everything wrote: »

Einstein was a very special genius but is it true that he was as far ahead as you say. There were a few guys around that time who were not too far behind when it came to the nature of spacetime (iirc).
Poincare, in the 19th century was thinking along the same lines IIRC

For Special Relativity, there was a lot of groundwork covered already (Poincaré & Lorentz), but General Relativity is where he comes into his own. He predicted the existence of gravitational waves 100 years ago for example.

Burial.

Nikola Tesla trumps them all.

stuar

Burial. wrote: »

Nikola Tesla trumps them all.

I agree, I was going to put his name on the thread earlier but got distracted.

Some people believe Shakespeare was illiterate and he never actually wrote anything, he was a minor actor.

Einstein plagiarized most of his work, so neither can be thought of as geniuses.

Nikola Tesla on the other hand was a pure genius, Edison robbed him and took credit.

Billy86

Burial. wrote: »

Nikola Tesla trumps them all.

Things Tesla did... http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

It's a comedy/cartoon website, but still a fascinating quick read.

pickarooney

TSMGUY wrote: »

And Shakespeare's plays were "inspired" by various different predecessors. And his style of writing is becoming less prevalent. I don't think it's fair to judge a man by the state of affairs long after he's died, especially in a field as fast-moving as physics.

Is it really moving fast or is that just your personal observation?

gormdubhgorm

Both would finish distant seconds to Diarmuid Connolly let's be honest...

I suppose if I had to pick I would go for Einstein because he had the theory on relativity, but Connolly knows how to actually make use of time and space.

There is even a doubt as to who Shakespeare was so because of that doubt he does not make the grade.

Butters1979

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So Justin Bieber then?

Rothko

I don't see how you can compare the two

TSMGUY

pickarooney wrote: »

Is it really moving fast or is that just your personal observation?

Is physics fast-moving?!!!! Of course it is, the stuff that's been developed in the last 2 decades alone has changed the goalposts of physics - M-theory, Quantum loop theory and CERN......

Tigerbaby

Tigerbaby wrote: »

............


Why would you despise Shakespeare out of interest? Despise is a very subjective and strong word.

Probably because upon reading it I found it uninteresting and than was mandated to learn off sections of it and write essays about it.

I also studied Einsteinish stuff as part of a degree and can also remark how it was also uninteresting due to me not understanding much of it. I'd probably despise his stuff as much but I wasn't actually mandated to learn off any of it

I like how things work, financial matters and boobs, plays written in the 16th century aren't my thing. Plenty of stuff isn't my thing admittedly but I spent quite a bit of my teenage years reading and studying Shakespeare and honestly have nothing positive to say about it. More of a reflection on me than his work of course but it simply doesn't appeal to the common man. I'd go as far to say as he was quite likely an insufferable knob too.

vixdname

TSMGUY wrote: »

So a great writer can never compare to a great scientist?

Not when Einstein is in the equation...........I'll get my coat

Arcade_Tryer

The Specialist wrote: »

Einstein, no question about it. They are not even in the same league when it comes to the scale of their contributions.

Perhaps.

But perhaps also someone would have discovered Einstein's theory(s) at some stage.

But has anyone managed to even emulate the works of Shakespeare?

Winterlong

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Perhaps.

But perhaps also someone would have discovered Einstein's theory(s) at some stage.

But has anyone managed to even emulate the works of Shakespeare?

I dunno. If Shakespeare was around today would he be a success? I dont think he would.
IMO he is famous because he was so far ahead of his time. But there are not many people who would read his stuff for pleasure nowadays.
So Einstein for me.

764dak

TSMGUY wrote: »

pickarooney wrote: »

Is it really moving fast or is that just your personal observation?

Is physics fast-moving?!!!! Of course it is, the stuff that's been developed in the last 2 decades alone has changed the goalposts of physics - M-theory, Quantum loop theory and CERN......

Physics is so fast moving yet physicists don't want to admit that heavier objects do fall quicker due to mutual gravitational attraction.

TSMGUY

Augeo wrote: »

Probably because upon reading it I found it uninteresting and than was mandated to learn off sections of it and write essays about it.

I also studied Einsteinish stuff as part of a degree and can also remark how it was also uninteresting due to me not understanding much of it. I'd probably despise his stuff as much but I wasn't actually mandated to learn off any of it

I like how things work, financial matters and boobs, plays written in the 16th century aren't my thing. Plenty of stuff isn't my thing admittedly but I spent quite a bit of my teenage years reading and studying Shakespeare and honestly have nothing positive to say about it. More of a reflection on me than his work of course but it simply doesn't appeal to the common man. I'd go as far to say as he was quite likely an insufferable knob too.

By all accounts he was humble and kind but let's not let facts get in the way.

764dak

764dak wrote: »

TSMGUY wrote: »

pickarooney wrote: »

Is it really moving fast or is that just your personal observation?

Is physics fast-moving?!!!! Of course it is, the stuff that's been developed in the last 2 decades alone has changed the goalposts of physics - M-theory, Quantum loop theory and CERN......

Physics is so fast moving yet physicists don't want to admit that heavier objects do fall quicker due to mutual gravitational attraction.

I should say "most physicists". Edit wasn't working on mobile.

stuar

Maybe we've been lied to all along.

Einstein knew fuck all, Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare and wrote fuck all, the illiterate prick.

Jimoslimos

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's a very anglo-centric view of the world.

Mark Tapley

Augeo wrote: »

Probably because upon reading it I found it uninteresting and than was mandated to learn off sections of it and write essays about it.

I also studied Einsteinish stuff as part of a degree and can also remark how it was also uninteresting due to me not understanding much of it. I'd probably despise his stuff as much but I wasn't actually mandated to learn off any of it

I like how things work, financial matters and boobs, plays written in the 16th century aren't my thing. Plenty of stuff isn't my thing admittedly but I spent quite a bit of my teenage years reading and studying Shakespeare and honestly have nothing positive to say about it. More of a reflection on me than his work of course but it simply doesn't appeal to the common man. I'd go as far to say as he was quite likely an insufferable knob too.

Schools often spoil good books with disinterested teachers and learning by rote. If you revisit these things later you might find you have a different outlook.
It's worth a try anyway I think. Though saying that I have often looked at works of art and wondered what all the fuss is about .

A Little Pony

Aristotle.

LordSutch

But why would you compare William Shakespeare to Albert Einstein?

Two totally different spheres, separated by hundreds of years!

Maybe we should also compare Lennon & McCartney to Leonardo DaVinci?

Alcoheda

Lovely bottoms

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

A Little Pony

LordSutch wrote: »

But why would you compare William Shakespeare to Albert Einstein?

Two totally different spheres, separated by hundreds of years!

Maybe we should also compare Lennon & McCartney to Leonardo DaVinci?

One could argue Hitler was more of a genius than either. It is just he was an evil genius.

murpho999

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In the English speaking world.

I don't think people think of Shakespeare as much as you think.