Man is a fortunate species. The marvelous (and still largely mysterious) complexity of the human brain has gifted him with speech, language, and the power of creative, abstract thought. Over thousands of years our intelligence has given us tools and technology, art and science, society and civilization. We now possess a treasure house of intellectual achievements in which all of us can take a pride. I present here ten works of superlative genius, in no particular order.
There are those who believe the Immortal Bard did not write the 39 plays which bear his name, citing lack of education and unfamiliarity with the source material. However, the evidence for this is scant, and the world generally acknowledges Shakespeare to be the greatest playwright who ever lived. More than mere stories, Shakespeare’s greatest plays analyse life and death, love and hate, revenge and forgiveness, good and evil. Centuries before Freud and Jung, Shakespeare picked apart human psychology, presenting it as comedy, tragedy, and historical drama, expressed in language of sublime power and poetry. If the list were longer we would also have to consider that Miguel de Cervantes would be equal in position 10 for his contribution to literature.
Along with William Shakespeare, John Milton stands as one of the twin giants of English literature. However, his reputation rests almost entirely on his most famous work, one which has spawned a branch of academic study all to itself, the great epic poem ‘Paradise Lost’. Drawing on his vast and intimate knowledge of language, the Bible, Greek and Roman mythology, and literature from the Ancient world, Milton created one of the most enduring poems in English. Based on the Book of Genesis, ‘Paradise Lost’ concerns itself with Lucifer’s rebellion and subsequent expulsion from heaven, the creation of the world, and the Fall of Man. Lofty, noble, darkly majestic in tone, ‘Paradise Lost’ takes the reader on an awe-inspiring journey through heaven, hell, and the newly-created earth with its Garden of Eden, the paradise Adam and Eve lost. Though written in English, the grammatical structure is based on that of Latin (the reason some people find it a difficult read). However, once the reader has grown accustomed to the style they are rewarded with a unique literary vision. What makes Milton’s achievement even more remarkable is that he was totally blind, composing the entire work in his head (over 10,000 lines) between 1658 – 1664, and dictating it to his daughters.
Aristotle was a student of Plato and the teacher of Alexander the Great. He was a scientist beyond compare, doing more than all before him to synthesize all the scattered truths of the earlier philosophers. He devised the four causes (formal, material, efficient, and final) – two of which are still essential in the modern scientific method, formulated the notions of act and potency, and was the first to systematize the acts of the intellect and deduce the rules for proper thinking and reasoning. His influence spread not just to Christendom through St Thomas Aquinas, but the Islamic lands through Averroes.
The second oldest item on this list (written 300 years before the birth of Christ), Euclid’s ‘Elements’ was the first rigorous account of geometry (drawing on earlier, less rigorous works). Starting with a mere ten axioms (statements which cannot be reduced to simpler ones), Euclid defines points, lines, two- and three-dimensional spaces, and the mathematical objects which inhabit them. The lucidity of Euclid’s style and the tight logic of his proofs meant that ‘Elements’ remained one of the standard texts on geometry right up to the nineteenth century, until more rigorous definitions of geometry emerged, along with the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries. Over two-thousand years after being written, such diverse people as Abraham Lincoln, Edna St. Vincent Millay, and Albert Einstein drew inspiration from Euclid’s mathematical masterpiece.
Differential and integral calculus were developed separately by two men who could not have been more different: Isaac Newton was secretive, obsessive, and generally shunned company; personal grooming and even eating took second place to his work. Gottfried Leibniz was charming, well-dressed, had a wide circle of friends, and was the toast of German intellectual circles. Trouble between Newton and Leibniz began over the matter of who discovered calculus first. In 1675 Leibniz used integral calculus for the first time, but did not publish his results until 1684. Newton had already worked out both differential and integral methods in 1666 (which he had employed in his work on gravitation), but did not publish until 1693. Leibniz’s publication and the urging of colleagues prompted Newton to hastily publish his own results. Initially they were more or less cordial on the subject of their mutual discovery, but quickly became enemies, a situation made worse by the interference of supporters. Today both men are credited with the discovery of something without which advanced engineering and physics would be impossible, the messy details of their dispute being left for the historians to mull over.
Though he had to share the development of calculus with Leibniz, Newton can claim the theory of gravity for himself, and it is in the ‘Principia’ (published in 1687) that Newton presents the law of universal gravitation. Using classical geometry and the method of ‘fluxions’ and ‘fluents’ (what we today call differential and integral calculus), Newton could account not just for the fall of an apple, but ballistic trajectories, the orbits of moons and planets, and the motions of stars. With ‘Principia’, physics took a mighty leap forward. As the poet Alexander Pope put it ‘Nature and nature’s laws lay hid in night; God said “Let Newton be” and all was light.’
Whereas relativity theory (entry 2) was the product of a single mind, the contributors to quantum mechanics read like a physics hall of fame: Rutherford, Bohr, Planck, Schroedinger, Pauli, Heisenberg, Dirac, Feynman, Gell-Mann, to name a few (Einstein also made important early contributions, but grew to dislike quantum mechanic’s bizarre, counter-intuitive nature). Also, it took several decades and many arguments to bring quantum mechanics to fruition. The frontiers of quantum mechanics are still expanding as ever-deeper levels of matter are probed by powerful particle accelerators and powerful minds alike.
Probably the most controversial entry on this list, evolution inspires more heated debate and animosity between its adherents and detractors than any other scientific theory, but let’s get a couple of points out of the way. Darwin never stated that humans evolved from apes; they both have a common ancestor. Also, ‘On the Origin of Species’ (published in 1859) only mentions human evolution in passing, for two reasons: Darwin was wary of the response (‘Vestiges of Creation’ in 1844 had met with controversy), and there wasn’t enough evidence available at the time to make a detailed analysis of human evolution. That said, Darwin’s book brought about a classic paradigm shift; never again could man look at the natural world around him the same way (or himself, for that matter). As for Darwin, over the years his religious beliefs had eroded. By 1859, Darwin considered all religions equally valid, and was critical of the Biblical account of creation. The death of his daughter Anne in 1851 at age 10 had also contributed to his loss of faith, and he stopped attending church entirely (though he never quite became a total atheist). Doing for biology what Einstein would later do for physics, Charles Darwin gained both immortality and notoriety.
Like Newton before him, Albert Einstein was an outsider. Often bemused and frequently saddened by the human world, he considered the secrets of nature the deepest problems anyone could face. Mostly unconcerned with worldly affairs, Einstein’s genius took science to unparalleled heights. Any one of the three papers he produced in his ‘miracle year’ of 1905 would have won him the Nobel Prize; it turned out to be his work on the photoelectric effect which did so, but it was special relativity (and in 1915 general relativity) which would seal his reputation as the greatest physicist since Newton, and one of the greatest thinkers in history. In order to redefine the nature of matter, gravity, mass, and energy, Einstein had to draw together mathematical subjects such as differential geometry, tensor analysis, and electromagnetic theory (tales of Einstein’s poor skills in mathematics are entirely myth). Once when asked by a reporter where his laboratory was, Einstein simply replied “here”, and held up his fountain pen.
Richard Wagner was a man of fearsome genius, dubious character, revolutionary fervor, blustering nationalism, and racist vitriol. Though his output was small in numerical terms, his artistic influence has been seismic, to put it mildly. Without Wagner opera and its close cousin cinema would not have developed into the forms we recognize today. Innumerable composers, writers, and artists have been influenced by Wagner, especially his masterpiece, the gigantic Ring Cycle, a tetralogy of operas comprising a single story. Drawing on medieval Germanic, Scandinavian, and Icelandic mythology, Wagner laboriously brought the Ring Cycle into existence over a 25-year period, much of that time spent criss-crossing Europe conducting, proselytizing about his work and artistic theories, running from creditors, involved in various intrigues and scandals, and composing other operas. By 1876 the entire Ring Cycle was ready for its world premiere (though ‘Das Rheingold’ and ‘Die Walkure’ had already been performed for King Ludwig II of Bavaria, to Wagner’s fury). Wagner had erected his own theatre in Bayreuth, mostly paid for by King Ludwig II. In August 1876 the crown heads of Europe and several other nations beyond (including Pedro II, emperor of Brazil), composers, and intellectuals attended the premiere. A total of fifteen hours of music of colossal grandeur and unequalled technical complexity washed over the audience during the four-day performance. To this day staging the entire Ring Cycle remains the ultimate operatic challenge, demanding the highest standards from singers, orchestras, conductors, designers, and producers. Above is probably the most well known piece of music from the Ring Cycle.























November 16th, 2009 at 1:37 am
Really good list!
November 16th, 2009 at 1:40 am
oh yeah the neverending evolutionary theory
November 16th, 2009 at 1:40 am
I’ve totally got to check out more of The Ring Cycle now.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:48 am
I like these types of lists!
November 16th, 2009 at 1:50 am
Cerebral guns on the list G. The brain aches just pondering the heights that allowed these works to be, yo.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:56 am
I always appreciate these sorts of lists. It reminds us of how great the human mind is, and how it can continue to contribute to humanity and life itself. This was pleasant to read. Thank you
November 16th, 2009 at 1:57 am
Studied him in my ‘O’ and ‘A’ levels and had no clue Milton was blind…wow!!! (excuse my ignorance, i musta been sleeping when Mr Lynch mentioned that!”
November 16th, 2009 at 2:01 am
Very interesting list
November 16th, 2009 at 2:08 am
“paradise lost” is indeed lovely, but am i misremembering in thinking that it was partially inspired by an opium dream? i’m calling on the LV to let me know.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Interesting list, Mr/Ms Riesstu!
For me, the two foundation texts of western thought are Plato’s “Republic” and Aristotle’s “Ethics”. I would have had Plato in this list. But it is your list!
In the non-opera world, most of us are only dimly aware of Wagner. I submit that, had “The Ride Of The Valkyries” not been included in the movie “Apocalypse Now”, Wagner would be even more unknown outside the world of opera attendees.
Perhaps my dislike of Wagner is because of his raging anti-Semitism which directly spurred Hitler on.
I am not a Jew. I was raised Roman Catholic.
Mike Seneca
November 16th, 2009 at 2:17 am
also, putting wagner first was a very interesting choice, i might disagree personally, but you backed it up very well.
i suspect that this list could become contentious. let’s wait and see.
……….
November 16th, 2009 at 2:28 am
i also want to submit Alfred Wegener as an honorable mention.
although the mechanisms behind his “continental drift” ideas turned out to be technically wrong, he had ideas that lead to our current understanding of plate tectonics and how the crust of our earth works. understanding this was a very big deal, and his published thoughts on it started a revolution of thought about geology.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:40 am
But Aristotle held back the world of science more than a thousand years he was wrong about most everything and everyone followed his dogma
November 16th, 2009 at 2:42 am
@seneca (10): I agree that Plato would have been a welcome addition to this list.
Perhaps a second list is in order…
Well done Riesstu, good list.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:45 am
Dante Alighieri’s Divina Commedia should have been included in the list
November 16th, 2009 at 2:50 am
@El_Karlo (14):
El_Karlo reminds me that I wanted to say that this list is well-written and full of insight. Perhaps that’s why we come here.
Mike
November 16th, 2009 at 2:52 am
Nicely written list Riesstu.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:54 am
Still einstein did work with minkowski for special relativity. And maybe one day number 2 and number 4 will be joined together
@jfrater: when will you post those submarine stories
November 16th, 2009 at 2:58 am
I would argue that some of these should not be here in favor of others… but I think perhaps I will wait and see if a similar list in the future puts them right instead.
Otherwise, great job, and very informative.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:01 am
I love this list. When I saw relativity at number two, I felt chills down my spine. What an incredible mind. I’m glad the word “top” is nowhere near your title as it would be a little pretentious and it is nearly impossible to say what the “greatest” achievement of the human mind has been.
And, by the way, I think that many joint efforts that span tens, hundreds, or even thousands of years can also be considered great achievements of humanity. Medicine, for example, or astrophysics. It is not only one mind or one stroke of genius that generated such achievements, but the fact that the human mind has been able to reach such heights in these two fields (and many more) is simply beautiful.
Sorry, it’s 4:00 am here in Chicago. I’m probably not articulating my thoughts very well.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:06 am
I have to disagree with number one. If you are really talking about achievements of the human mind, you have to put quantum mechanics as number one, because it an achievement of the human mind, not just a human mind. It is a feat of the ability of the human mind to go against common sense (instinct) and our unique ability to communicate that abstract knowledge to generate more knowledge (culture). Not to mention the influence in our modern society (Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Cold War, etc.)
November 16th, 2009 at 3:07 am
@Andres (20):
hey fellow chicagoland-person!
let’s get some sleep (if work schedules allow)
November 16th, 2009 at 3:10 am
@lo (22):
Geez, lo!
I’m also in Chicago!
Maybe everyone else is too!
Mike Seneca
November 16th, 2009 at 3:11 am
Peculiar choice for #1. Guess I’d put Einstein, Newton, Shakespeare, et. al. way above Wagner.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:16 am
Einstein and Newton were outsiders… Hmmm. Well really one has to look from outside what are the kinds of problems we normal earthlings suffer from. It really takes a view from height to see what’s really the problem and yes its solution too.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:25 am
I always thought Archimedes was the father of modern Calculus, since he used it to calculate curved surfaces almost 2000 years before Newton…
November 16th, 2009 at 3:26 am
Interesting. I think items for the next greatest human achievements list, if there is going to be another one, could be the invention of numbers, the invention of the wheel, the work of Leonado Da Vinci, and Robert Pattinson’s performance in Twilight.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:32 am
Not sure if I liked this one or not… it feels its missing some fields like medicine, chemestry… And I really don’t think Wagner should be number one. Good efford, though
November 16th, 2009 at 3:35 am
Wagner rocks, music to die for. Oops, did I really say that??? Just sign me—-Tristan.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:37 am
Indo-Arabic number system should also be included , their simplicity is what brought mathematics to the masses.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:37 am
I dont see how wagners ring cycle opera can take the entry over Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Gravity, or even Shakespeare. Einstein’s theories are responsible for many advances in science and technology today. Maybe it should be first on a list about opera..
Mike Seneca
November 16th, 2009 at 3:41 am
@Miss_Info (31):
How did my name get in Miss_Info’s post?
Miss_Info
November 16th, 2009 at 3:51 am
Oh God… Wagner and Evolution together on one list. Has anyone said it yet? Prepare for despair.
That out of the way, nice list!
November 16th, 2009 at 3:51 am
This is an excellent list, Riesstu! It is interesting and informative. I hope you will write another list on the same subject, as there are so many great achievements of the human mind. I am glad that you put Wagner in the #1 spot, as I think that art is the crowning jewel of human creativity.
I do have trouble with Wagner, because I truly love his stirring music, but I can never get rid of the thought that this man was a virulent racist. His art, when taken on its own, though, is a triumphant achievement.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:02 am
I would have put the Bible on this list. Good story couldn’t have done it better myself.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:03 am
Looks like a Greece vs. England vs. Germany list.
As for influential literature… shouldn`t Goethe`s Faust or Dante`s Divine Comedy belong at number 9 as well?
November 16th, 2009 at 4:05 am
Are these in order? Does Wagner really rank as no 1? There’s nothing in the title or introduction that suggests so, merely the countdown format.
If these are in order, then I am not the first and will not be the last to suggest that Wagner does not belong at no 1. If you need a composer anywhere in the list, I would nominate JS Bach. Bach’s total output outclasses Wagner’s – he just didn’t write a deliberate cycle in the way that Wagner did. Perhaps if he’d written music for all of the Gospel according to St John!
November 16th, 2009 at 4:15 am
Brilliantly presented list. I am not going to quibble over which position each should be in as they all seem to deserve their place on the list. I would never of considered Wagner’s Ring Cycle in the same list as Evolution or Eintein’s work but hey thats the beauty of Listverse!!
November 16th, 2009 at 4:20 am
aaawww!!! lovely list…
November 16th, 2009 at 4:21 am
Lists like these are incredibly hard to boil down to 10 entries. I kind of agree with Wagner, since it’s not about the total output of a specific composer, but more like an individual achievement. This work by Wagner is undeniably a ‘great achievement of the human mind’.
The discussion of which composer should have been ‘picked’ is perhaps subject for another list…
The good thing is that we’re all set up for many follow-up lists
November 16th, 2009 at 4:30 am
@G-man (35):
What a revolting idea. Care to give some reasons why you think the Bible can compete with any of these?
November 16th, 2009 at 4:45 am
very unique list, well written
November 16th, 2009 at 5:23 am
have you considered any chinese literature? =P
November 16th, 2009 at 5:28 am
great list!
November 16th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Very good, well-written list. Even the spelling and grammar, and the logic of the whole piece. Darn, there goes that bar, up another notch!
November 16th, 2009 at 5:45 am
9 lo
Io, that wasn’t Milton. An opium dream was S.T. Coleridge’s inspiration for the poem “Kubla Khan” which was actually subtitled, “A Vision in a Dream: A Fragment”
The list is amazing and I agree with others that a list of ten achievements of this importance could be done on an of a number of fields: science (even that could be broken down), visual arts, music, literature, etc.
Great job, Riesstu.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:51 am
I wish some people would not just write Great list!
Please filter these boring, bland comments.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:01 am
Interesting list, Riesstu.
As for music, I would have thought Beethovan and the struggles he went through might have made it before Wagner. Or even Mozart with his achievements when he was young.
@astraya (37): Bach also out-shines Wagner. Good call.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:05 am
i like this list, but i’d get PL off of it. one of the most boring things i’ve ever read. still not as bad as dickens though.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:15 am
Interesting list. I would have to argue that evolution should be in the number 1 position if they are supposed to be in order of importance.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:29 am
I’d like to point out that all of these entries seem very western-centric. Out of curiosity, is this simply because you believe that these 10 great achievements (implied the ‘best’ of the human mind) all basically came from Europe, or that you simply don’t know non-eurocentric achievements well enough to list them?
November 16th, 2009 at 6:37 am
I like these kinds of lists. And I think you shouldn´t be afraid to mention the evolutionary theory. Whether they agree or not, no one can deny that it took a great human mind to be the first to come up with the theory.
@ Paddy (47) Maybe those comments are boring for you to read, but I bet they´re nice for the author of the list.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:42 am
I must say the British and Germans have contributed so much to our world. I wonder what makes them so great.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:44 am
This list is all well and good…
…except that the majority of modern philosophers hold significant issue with Aristotle’s philosophies. Really either Plato or Socrates should be on this list, not Aristotle.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:45 am
This list was dam good. I like the lists that provoke thought.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:45 am
I love it, Riesstu. I consider the b minor Mass a more awe-inspiringly perfect work of music, so I’d put that up here, but #1 should be the Principia. Evolution, while I agree with it, is more influential than brilliant. I’d put that at 10, and Shakespeare and Milton way higher up.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Very interesting and informative list, Riesstu, great job.
But are these items in order? If so, then Wegener certainly shouldn’t be number 1.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:53 am
Evolutionary Theory is only controversial to those who feel a need to cling to the supernatural instead of fact. I can understand their desires; it is easier than thinking deeply and accepting responsibility for one’s actions and life.
“Geraldine” (Flip Wilson) knew how to play that canard when she (he) exclaimed, “The devil made me buy this dress!”
Overall it’s a good list but it shares one glaring trait that also proved the downfall of the recent ‘banned’ list. The author obviously created it as a reason to frame his #1 choice in company that would elevate it by proxy. I take nothing from Wagner when I say his contribution belongs back at #10, with Shakespeare.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:56 am
Tsiamon,
I agree the list is Western European-centric; however, it is not ethnocentric to simply note the facts. If it’s true, it ain’t braggin’! You’re invited to submit any non-Western contributions that begin to equal these 10. I’ll wait.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:03 am
Riesstu, you really really impress me SO much.
I love your list. One of my favorites. And I
sense that you’ve got a big brain there.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:05 am
Indian Contribution: Vedas, Mahabharatha & Ramayana … epics that has stands on its own when placed with peers
November 16th, 2009 at 7:06 am
You know what this site needs? It needs a way for entries to be arranged in a circle or, failing that, a randomizer that rearranges the lists each time a person views them. That way, unless a list author specifically dubs a list as “THE top ten ____” instead of just “TEN of ___” we could do away with the arguments over which deserves to be #1. In this list, for example, when Riesstu titled the list “Ten Great Achievements of the Human Mind”, I take it to mean the ten could be in any order and Wagner is not necessarily the #1 choice insofar as it is the last item listed. I think a lot of times folks get upset at a hierarchy that is imposed by necessity rather than intended.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:06 am
I’m so glad that art gets equal billing with science on this list.
I have seen/heard the entire Ring cycle and it is the greatest opera ever. My dream is to travel to Bayreuth
and see it there. Don’t knock Wagner till you try it
yeah he was a rascist, but he didn’t own slaves like Thomas Jefferson and he didn’t molest young girls like Polanski and Allen.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:08 am
@59
Ibn Khaldun
Ibn Nafis
Abulcasis
Ramanujam
Brahmagupta
and I don’t know very much about China, but maybe Confucius?
November 16th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Re: Number 9, I should probably point out that Lucifer’s rebellion/exile is detailed in Isaiah, not Genesis.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:14 am
Sun Tzu’s Art of War!!!
hey, you gotta admit its a great achievement in military tactics, considering how old it is.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:15 am
The kind of list I like. I suppose it is the first in a series of similar themed lists because I was quite astonished not to see any painters in there. It is great list because it brought Jajdude back! Yo!
November 16th, 2009 at 7:16 am
See, this is why I have LV on my RSS feed
I’d have Copernicus’ De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (heliocentrism) somewhere around it too. There’s also things on medicine such as William Harveys’ (and a lot of people before) research on the circulatory system. I guess a second and a third list won’t take too long to appear.
Also, seeing as this is not a “top 10″, I guess we can all assume the order is irrelevant.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:20 am
@Tsiamon (51):
We in the west are all citizens of Rome, Rome being the merger of the ancient Greeks and the Judeo-Christian ethic. We are the descendants of that great empire.
Yes. The list is Euro-centric.
Yes. We, at least me, are capable of writing ONLY a Euro-centric list.
Nice criticism on your part!
Mike Seneca
If you wish a list that includes the greatest works of the Middle East, China, Japan, and India, western education does not equip us to write such a list.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:29 am
A minor critism. This is ten great achievements of Western Civilization. A twin to this list of great achievements of Eastern Civilization would be great to see as well. There are some great achievements from India and China that would be lovely to see.
1. Japanese smithies would be a good choice too because of the extrodinary swords they make.
2. The philosophy of Confucius is exceptional.
3. The Kama Sutra is something I’d put on the list because it is actually more about how to set up and run a household and marriage than it is a sex manual.
4. Bushido would also be something I would add because it codified warfare in an attempt to civilize it much like the knights of the western world were supposed to be pillars of the community.
5. Sun Tzu, the Art of War codified tactics and is still a primer for militaries the world over.
6. Chemistry has a long and very rich history in China that was originally learned well before westerners came up with the periodic table of elements.
7. The stirup was created by the Mongols and revolutionized the world by creating a faster and more secure means of riding horses.
8. The Buddha Siddartha. He revolutionized the morality of the day to something more honest and fair and greatly influenced the world over.
Pick a couple more. It’d be easy to do and it is worth a thought to remember we westerners aren’t the only thinkers and creators innovating out there.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:41 am
But, yes, this list is exceptionally well written and I think the author needs to be commended for the thought that obviously went into it.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:41 am
get a clue: that was my thought as well, that this list was composed to present an agenda or viewpoint. some of these just don’t see to to rise to the level of the other ones.
as far as your statement
“Evolutionary Theory is only controversial to those who feel a need to cling to the supernatural instead of fact. I can understand their desires; it is easier than thinking deeply and accepting responsibility for one’s actions and life.”
is this what you really think? do you think it is not possible to hold a rational competing view? it is this sort of line drawing and demeaning, condecending attitude that makes this argument so filled with vitriol. to not even respect those that differ from you to the point where they can have an opposing view absolutely kills any discourse and civil conversation.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:45 am
@sid (2): Evolution is not a theory, it is fact. Please dont reply based on your instinct, back it up with an education on the topic at hand please, there is no debating this.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:47 am
@sid (2): My apologies sid, i just saw that the author wrote it as a “theory” as well, my comment should have been to them, no hard feelings.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Nice list. Perhaps I would have included Beethoven, Lavoisier (the father of modern Chemistry) or Descartes.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Thank you all for the mostly positive comments. Even the criticism is useful, however, especially that about how Euro-centric my list is. Blame that on my lack of knowledge about Eastern culture and the highly Westernised university education I received. Perhaps someone else could redress the balance?
I put Wagner first simply because his was the first great work of any kind I became familiar with (I was only 16 when I heard the Ring Cycle in its entirety), and Wagner pretty much became my hero from then on.
In my original submission to Jamie I had Friedrich Nietzsche in eighth place, something which I think would have led to even louder howls of protest than Wagner! Wisely, Jamie suggested Aristotle, which in all fairness I couldn’t argue with.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Amazing list, that is until I got to number one. Could have done without opera on the list. A great achievement of the mind? Not at all.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:19 am
too stoned for this list, ill try later. better go look at funny pictures.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Here we go again, whenever there’s a list that’s not in any particular order we get a million comments as to why this one or that one should be higher up or lower down on the list. Riesstu says only this, “I present here ten works of superlative genius.” not “the top ten,” nor “the ten greatest,” just “ten works.”
November 16th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Really great list.
Not to sure about Wagner though, as a great man once said, ‘Wagner is the Puccini of music’. Though I understand why you put it in there, and you made a good case for it.
Perhaps would have liked to have seen a great novel in there, a Tolstoy or a Flaubert maybe. But overall a very good list.
And lets not have the ‘Evolution Debate’ people, because lets face it, there is no debate. You’re just wrong. Deal with it.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:33 am
good list! but i’ve never fully understood what the theory of relativity was proving
i guess it’s beyond me
November 16th, 2009 at 8:35 am
@Adam (73): Microevolution may be a fact, but macroevolution is still a theory. Just FYI.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:39 am
@archiealt (80): This depends on what you’re talking about debating. As I commented earlier, microevolution, sure, that’s a fact. The more theoretical macroevolutionary theory is certainly a theory at best.
Here’s a friendly challenge for the hardcore evolutionists: why are humans the only species to develop any sort of civilization? If macroevolution were true, don’t you think that other animals would have reached a point of sentience, developed linguistic abilities and possibly created similar societies? This is a question I have a hard time answering under the pretenses of the macroevolutionary theory.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:45 am
@ Adam (74) In science, a theory does not mean the same as it does in everyday speech. Calling something a theory in the scientific world is saying it is a fact, as for something to be called a scientific theory it must be proven by various sources and be accepted by the scientific community. Thus, the author correctly stated that evolution is a theory as that is what it is.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:48 am
@paddy (47): you’re right! let’s not give the author any credit, no matter how trivial!
November 16th, 2009 at 8:56 am
And, they’re all white LOL!
November 16th, 2009 at 8:57 am
@samanthad (81): Special relativity deals with inertial reference frames (basically how time and space appear to moving observers); one conclusion is that there is no unique frame of reference; another is that the speed of light is constant regardless of how fast the observer is moving; a third conclusion is the equivalence of matter and energy, connected by the equation E=mc^2
General relativity combines special relativity with universal gravitation (basically it updates and hugely expands on Newton’s work). Some of the predictions made by general relativity (which have been confirmed) are time dilation, the bending of light, gravitational redshift, and the existence of black holes.
And yes, it makes my head hurt too!
November 16th, 2009 at 8:59 am
where is the “Commedia” by Dante? He came 300 years before Shakespeare!
And what about Iliad and the Odyssey???
November 16th, 2009 at 9:03 am
@ crispin (83)
Microevolution implies that macroevolution occurs, after a long period of microevolution occurring. Also, I am not sure if this will answer your question, but as my biology professor explained recently, natural selection is not about survival of the fittest, but about survival of the fit enough. Thus, organisms do not evolve traits that are “the best”, but rather just ones that allow them to survive and reproduce. The brains of modern humans (though perhaps not of others, who shared the genus homo, do not quote me on this) happened to evolve a greater linguistic ability and this conferred a survival advantage (communication about food, danger, etc) which was thus passed on to further generations. Other organisms did not have this ability and survived just fine without it. Human inventiveness and intellect is our greatest survival adaptation, while other species have other traits allowing them to survive. Assuming that human civilization and intellect is the greatest adaptation to survival is foolish; it is simply one of many.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Really great list. being a literature student, I really appreciate their contribution, especially Shakespeare and Milton
November 16th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Brilliant list. Bravo.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:14 am
@86 – Typical racist.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:18 am
This list is both interesting and brave. Although arguements could be made as to the achievements that could also be included, or excluded, Wagner’s Ring Cycle is at least a contender. Criticism is easy so, without judgement of the list, I might add Bach’s works. Personally Bach seems more ingenious than say Darwin.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:20 am
@whathappened? (89): I appreciate the reply. I definitely see your point that human ingenuity is one of many ways to survive, however, without sounding homo-centric (oh someone’s gonna take that and run for sure) I still feel like humans absolutely dominate the earth in terms of their evolutionatry abilities. Even if, like you say, this but one mode of survival, why hasn’t any other species also used this method? I am still a bit surprised that there isn’t at least one species that has chosen the “human” path. Also, do you think that some animals actually do have the intellect and self-awareness of humans, but perhaps do not display this sentience in ways that are noticeable to humans? I am not trying to defend any “antievolutionist” stance with these questions; I am merely curious and thirsty to learn more on the topic.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Oh man…I have to check these out…I’m familiar with most of them but have never gone to great lengths to read/study(look at).
A suggestion on the numbers system controversy. Put them in bullet form with no numerical values attached; I’m sure there will be those who say that because this one’s on top and this one is on the bottom the first one is better but it may alleviate the arguments somewhat. What a run on sentence…
Forgive me if anybody else has suggested this-I usually read all the comments and actually kind of like the written bickering and riposting-but I’m kinda in a hurry today and that’s why I’m typing this fast…
November 16th, 2009 at 9:21 am
hahah
November 16th, 2009 at 9:28 am
@crispin (82): i appreciate you pointing that out actually. i also appreciate you pointing out that you knew what i meant by referring to the “every day conversation” bit…
to follow up on the statement you made about humans being the ‘most evolved beings’ (i know that is not verbatim)… i would challenge that with the now proven existence of extreme animals living near thermal vents in our oceans, who have developed tools to survive completely outside the realm of what we thought possible!
November 16th, 2009 at 9:34 am
@shannon (62) Well said
November 16th, 2009 at 9:35 am
@crispin (83): Neanderthals would be a competing humanoid evolution. They just lost out.
Also Porpoise and Dolphins are sentient. In fact engage in many of the same foolishness that we humans do. Their environment does dictate in what way they can evolve though eh? Can’t see them building any cities soon – they’ve lost the whole thumb and fingers thing when they went back to the ocean. A trade-off.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Davinci’s Codex Leicester should get some mention, but I like the discussion. Galileo’s assertion that the laws of nature are written in mathematics was fairly significant.
Whoever came up with the Brady Bunch was a goddamn friggen genius, I think we can all agree on that.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:55 am
@mom424 (99): An excellent point about Neanderthals, I’m surprised I didn’t initially think of that. Isn’t it true that dolphins are the only animal (other than humans) who have recreational sex? I think they are on to something…
November 16th, 2009 at 10:05 am
What an interesting list. I remember being bored dull when learning about the majority of these entries as a student, but now when I’m a little bit older and hopefully wiser, I can properly appreicate just what an impact they all of them have made on today’s world.
I especially appreciate Wagner’s contributions. I remember performing the Ride of the Valkyries in an orchestra when I was sixteen — the first time I was introduced to Wagner’s work — and it gave me absolute chills the first time we ran through the whole piece. To this day it’s one of my favourite pieces to play, right up there with Stravinksy’s Firebird Suite and Rossini’s Barber of Seville. So much more fun than all the dull concerto’s and macabre operas we were forced to perform!
November 16th, 2009 at 10:05 am
@Adam (97): I will have to research these bizarre creatures; I haven’t heard anything about that.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:05 am
@ Crispin
One of the major frontiers of the human mind , was the working of fire. When man stumbled upon this, it got him thinking. What could he use fire for? It was hot, so he could use it for warmth. But food is so cold…. maybe we could heat up the food? But how do we make fire?There goes the trial and error of trying to make fire.
There are tribes in Africa who have not evolved alongside us, and are about a few hundred thousand years behind us. Scientists think that a major factor of why this is, is because they havent discovered how to make and apply fire.
From early on in our line (homo erectus, or before that even, I need to brush up on that..), we started asking questions about how to catch food more efficiently, to move around on land better (walking, and eventually running), etc. These questions have just evolved to a point where we found out about the wheel, horses for transport, etc.
A lot of it was mistakes, which helped us to unlock the creative part of our mind. I could be wrong, obviously, but this is my opinion on things. I hope I answered your question.
Xion
November 16th, 2009 at 10:08 am
To anyone considering making a list that includes Eastern civilization:
The Mahabharata by Vyasa, it is 100,000 verses and 1.8 million words long and is 10 times longer than the Illiad and Oddysey combined
Islamic Mathematics which pretty much paved the way for algebra, geometry, and calculus
The 4 great classical novels of Chinese literature:
Romance of the three kingdoms, water margin, journey to the west, and dream of the red chamber
November 16th, 2009 at 10:10 am
I enjoyed this list very much, especially how it didnt include architecture and technology. Interesting choice for number 1.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:20 am
@crispin (83): If macroevolution were true, don’t you think that other animals would have reached a point of sentience, developed linguistic abilities and possibly created similar societies?
Perhaps in a million years or so, other species will have evolved in such a way to “reach that point”. What you see “today” is not a fixed end result, it is just a point in time.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:22 am
EXCELLENT READ!
I’m wondering about Dante being on the list or the framers of the U.S. constitution or St. Thomas Aquinas . . .
November 16th, 2009 at 10:23 am
No Walt Disney??!
November 16th, 2009 at 10:24 am
The periodic table should have been in there for sure
November 16th, 2009 at 10:26 am
oh yeah . . . What about Madonna . . . genius!
November 16th, 2009 at 10:33 am
How come this list is a bunch of rich, white Europeans? Did the rest of the world not achieve anything?
November 16th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Should be called “10 Great Achievements of the European Male Mind” otherwise there is no excuse for leaving Marie Curie off the list for her contributions into radioactivity. Also, the Chinese discovered gun powder centuries before the Europeans and no one can argue that that achievement hasn’t changed the world.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Should be called “10 Great Achievements of the European Male Mind” otherwise there is no excuse for leaving Marie Curie off the list for her contributions into radioactivity. Also, the Chinese discovered gun powder centuries before the Europeans and no one can argue that that achievement hasn’t changed the world!
November 16th, 2009 at 10:51 am
opps!
November 16th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Evolution is both a Theory and a fact.
At its simplest Evolution simply means “descent with modification.” This is simple to observe. Simply compare yourself and your siblings to your parents.
It is also a SCIENTIFIC Theory. A Scientific Theory isn’t a guess or a hunch. It is a collection of facts, hypotheses, observations and laws related to some aspect of the natural world that has been accepted through years of study and peer review.
An educated guess based upon observed facts is a “hypothesis.”
When Darwin first wrote his book he presented a hypothesis. 150 years of testing, peer reviews, successful predictions and new information, all of which have supported the original hypothesis, albeit sometimes only after adjustments to the original hypothesis, has transformed evolution into a Theory. A Theory is the pinnacle of science. To call anything in science a Theory, is the height of praise.
The modern Theory of Evolution is not exactly what Darwin hypothesized. It is actually a synthesis of Evolution and Genetics. Darwin didn’t know about genes and DNA. Nor did he have any significant number of fossils to study. It’s actually amazing that he got as close as he did.
What crispin calls “macro-evolution” is more properly termed “speciation.” It is the process whereby new species emerge from existing species. This is also a fact and has been observed on a number of occasions (although this may be subject to some debate depending upon one’s definition of “species”). The problem is usually that most people don’t understand that “speciation” is a process and not an event. Witin the modern synthesis macro-evolution is simply the accumulation of changes over millions of years. It isn’t different from what is called “micro-evolution,” it is simply the same process over a much, much longer period of time.
The main area of contention within the Theory of Evolution is the argument over the mechanisms which drive it. We’re aware of random mutation and natural selection, but are these the only processes? Why does evolution sometimes appear to occur in bursts following periods of relative little change? Why do some species, the so-called living fossils, appear to not evolve at all?
November 16th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Omer should have been there, he is the most influential author of all time
November 16th, 2009 at 10:56 am
If you can think of anything that is on the same level of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity by somebody other than “rich white europeans” name it.
Or would you like each list to be politically correct and have some form of affirmitive action entry on each list?
November 16th, 2009 at 11:00 am
@ G Note
There are plenty of non-European achievements “of the human mind” that could make this list. This has already been discussed.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Well, I have a number of criticisms of this list, first and foremost of which is that I would have preferred the philosophers and early scientists of Ionia and the Aegean over Aristotle, who, while hugely influential and in many ways great, proved to be a step *back* for science–Aristotle was against empirical study by experimentation because he considered it “ungentlemanly,” and he also spoke in favor of slavery as a practice—two attitudes which did no service whatsoever to the Western world in the subsequent millenium or so. He was anti-democratic and even, at times, dogmatic. The same can be said of Plato. These two are over-emphasized.
Really, the birth of agriculture in the Paleolithic era and the birth of civlization itself in around 3-4000 BC were both gigantic achievements of the human mind that deserve a place here. So too does the development of moral law by the Hebrews, which is still a heavy influence on us today. Eastern mystical philosophy, primarily in the guise of the Upanishads and later Buddhist teachings deserves a mention as well.
It seems far too specific to include Wagner, who while admittedly a genius, is hard to quantify against other great geniuses like Kant, Goethe, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Haydn, Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Bernini, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Machiavelli, Dante, etc. In short, why does Wagner deserve a mention over all of these? I see no reasonable criteria for it.
Shakespeare is a bit more of an argument, but nevertheless–why Shakespeare alone and not Tolstoy, Conrad, DH Lawrence, Joyce? Okay, one could argue, as I say, that these are not the equal of Shakespeare. But surely it’s always been ackowledged that Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripedes and Aristophanes were Shakespeare’s equal—particularly if taken together as representatives of ancient Greek drama and comedy. You can be certain that Shakespeare himself would have agreed.
It seems to me that the author of the list was torn between wanting to mention individual works, individuals of genius, and more general discoveries and/or achievements such as Quantum Mechanics. And the list ended up being too much of a mish-mash between the three. In my view it makes no real sense and leaves far too much out.
It also, as some have pointed out, seems far too western-centric. Now, western civilization has a lot to be proud of; let’s not pretend it doesn’t. But if you’re going to attempt to be comprehensive, as the list author seems to want to be, then you miss a great deal by passing over half the planet to focus instead upon certain individuals.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:01 am
@Brian (112):
You give yourself away by putting the word “rich” in there. You don’t really care about other races and their achievements (they are many, and a genuine proponent of them would have made mention them) – rather than being for the achievements of (for example)Arab scholars you are against “rich, white Europeans”, for no other reason than they are ‘rich’ (while they may not have been poor I hardly think the people on this list could be fairly described as rich), white and European. You are the worst kind of hypocrite and philistine. You are the kind of person who simply wants to attack something for no reason other than a kneejerk negative reaction.
Maybe if you don’t like the choices listed on here then you can submit your own top ten list. And make sure that it is 50/50 male and female, and that whites, blacks, hispanics, Europeans (both East and West), Asians (both east and west), arabs, native Americans, Asiatic Russians and the inbred community of Pitcairn Island are all equally and fairly represented.
Stop shitting these comments onto the page where Woyzeck can read them. You make me very cross.
P.S. I’m white and European. Boogedy boogedy boo! They’re coming to get you, Barbara!
November 16th, 2009 at 11:04 am
PEOPLE, PEOPLE -
This is a list of TEN GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE HUMAN MIND.
Does the fact that everyone on the list is white detract from that mission statement? Answer: fuck no, it doesn’t. Stop acting like this offends you. The culture of whinging on Listverse is getting on my tits.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:05 am
When compiling the list I chose those subjects with which I had the greatest familiarity, and could therefore easily write about. Also, limiting my choices to a mere ten meant leaving out an awful lot, including many from my own culture.
@Tom Wang (114). Yes, Marie Curie definitely deserves to appear on a second list. Gunpowder I’m not so sure about, however. The Chinese have created many fine things, and wasn’t gunpowder more of an accidental discovery than the result of deliberate enquiry?
November 16th, 2009 at 11:06 am
@ Woyzeck,
But are you rich? Because then you’d be in trouble.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:17 am
@Scratch (124):
I’m quite the opposite! So I suppose I’d be perfectly at liberty to achieve some great task of the mind, so long as I didn’t have the audacity to come into some money beforehand.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:20 am
I am at somewhat of a loss as to the reason for all the bickering about “Eurocentrism” and “white male” domination of this and other lists.
Everyone has his or her education and experiences to draw upon and some of those hardy, or foolhardy, individuals decide to make a list and share it with everyone on listverse where it is promptly torn to shreds by people who have a mulitude of ideas as to how the list could be better, but who don’t seem in any real hurry to make a list of their own. A famous writer once said, “a critic is one who knows the way, but can’t drive the car.”
It’s not the listmaker’s fault if he was educated in a western or westernized culture. He made the list out of what he is familiar with. It’s hard to argue that this list is inconsistent with its title. This IS a list of 10 of the great accomplishments of the human mind. Is it exhaustive? No. Does it shade one way? Certainly.
Why attack a perfectly good and logical list just because it isn’t exhaustive? I submit that it would be next to impossible to make an exhaustive list of all the accomplishments of the human mind. Even one library full would not be enough to catalog all the fruits of human ingenuity, passion, and luck.
Rather than wasting time and energy sniping at the list because it is “Eurocentric” why don’t some of the esteemed members of this community who have a compendium of EASTERN knowledge make a comparable list?
I for one would love to see more eastern ideas, but in my education, I have not been exposed to them.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:21 am
I am at somewhat of a loss as to the reason for all the bickering about “Eurocentrism” and “white male” domination of this and other lists.
Everyone has his or her education and experiences to draw upon and some of those hardy, or foolhardy, individuals decide to make a list and share it with everyone on listverse where it is promptly torn to shreds by people who have a multitude of ideas as to how the list could be better, but who don’t seem in any real hurry to make a list of their own. A famous writer once said, “a critic is one who knows the way, but can’t drive the car.”
It’s not the listmaker’s fault if he was educated in a western or westernized culture. He made the list out of what he is familiar with. It’s hard to argue that this list is inconsistent with its title. This IS a list of 10 of the great accomplishments of the human mind. Is it exhaustive? No. Does it shade one way? Certainly.
Why attack a perfectly good and logical list just because it isn’t exhaustive? I submit that it would be next to impossible to make an exhaustive list of all the accomplishments of the human mind. Even one library full would not be enough to catalog all the fruits of human ingenuity, passion, and luck.
Rather than wasting time and energy sniping at the list because it is “Eurocentric” why don’t some of the esteemed members of this community who have a compendium of EASTERN knowledge make a comparable list?
I for one would love to see more eastern ideas, but in my education, I have not been exposed to them.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Isn’t it amazing that, to self described socialist, politically correct “intelectshuels”, Eastern religious dogma is somehow of greater value than Western religious dogma.
And, that despite the fact that religion was deliberately omitted, mouth breathers like telosphilos, seneca, eyeswideshut, all feel compelled to complain that personal superstition wasn’t wedged into the list.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Apologies for the double post.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:33 am
@Woyzeck Returns – Dawn of the Dead and Green Street Hooligans references make me mist in my shorts.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:35 am
@ Woyzeck Returns (124)
Nice. Just try not to get rich off of your achievement, because that would make you part of the bourgeoisie and then you’d be back to square one.
@ daxxenos (128)
Who on here has ever described themselves as a politically correct socialist?
November 16th, 2009 at 11:47 am
@Maggot (107): True, the process is still in action–but it gave humans enough time to develop into the advanced creatures we are now, so I still have to ask why other species do not progress as quickly towards mastery and domination of their environment. We are still the only animal that can read, write, and communicate original ideas concerning the nature of existence. Perhaps this is more of a blessing than a curse, but I still have to say that there is something that makes humans very distinct from other animals. Something’s very different about us.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:57 am
@Xion (104): You make a great point, but I would find it hard to believe that the early human’s mastery of fire was the impetus that led to reading, writing, and philosophical and moral thought. Particularly the latter–even the African people you speak of, and I daresay all humans, have the ability to think about and question the nature of life and have a similar set of moral ideas (not trying to spur the nature/nurture morality debate, so don’t take that as bait).
Either way, I am still not totally clear on why humans appear to be much more advanced than other creatures. Notice I am skeptical enough of both sides of the argument enough to say “appear to be.” I still just think that humans are on a wilidly different plane of existence than other animals; and lately I have been entertaining non-scientific notions of why that is the case. You’ve all given me a lot to think about, however, so thanks for all the replies!
November 16th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Riesstu: Great list! Very well written and informative. I’m sure it was difficult to keep the blurbs on each item short and concise with the wealth of information available on each. Good call on not making it a “top ten”. You’d be asking for a fight.
Shannon: I agree that on lists that do not have a hierarchy no numbers should be implied. I totally understood that there was no intended order and yet
archiealt: That was a dumb thing to say. Asking people to not debate evolution and then stating that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is wrong and to “deal with it”? Hypocritical to say the least. Thats asking for fight, which you apparently were trying to avoid? Um…what?
I personally do not see why:
a) Those who believe in a Creator cannot at least allow the possibility that God could use any means (possibly evolution?) to create man and the other creatures. Doesn’t it put God in a box to suggest that you know exactly how He does things?
b) Why so many atheists are so intolerant of other beliefs. Evolution is not a “fact”. It is a word assigned to a process that has many blanks yet to be filled in. Yes, we have a solid framework but many questions still remain. Obviously there is a wealth of evidence to support the theory, and yet a theory it remains. Look up the definition of a theory. It is incomplete. Please do not act like you know everything and anyone with differing ideas are idiots.
Moral of the story, science and belief in God are not enemies!
November 16th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Great list until the end. Having seen parts of Wagner’s work (first two operas) I agree you could make an argument for “The Ring Cycle” to be on this list, but not at number one. That’s a bit much. I also can’t believe you didn’t mention the “Nibelungenlied” as the source material because that’s probably my favorite epic poem.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Shannon: I got interrupted on my thought there. I meant to say I understood that there was no intended order and yet I still had a hard time accepting Wagner at #1. Even though it didn’t necessarily mean anything my brain is just trained to think that way. So yeah, I agree! There shouldn’t be a numerical hierarchy for lists without rankings.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
sen·tient
adj.
1. Having sense perception; conscious: “The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God’s stage” (T.E. Lawrence).
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.
How does that NOT include non-human animals?
Have you never seen a non-human animal mourn the loss of a friend/child? Or maybe a dog scream when he is kicked? How about the fact a pig has the emotional capacity of a 3 year old child?
As for humans being the only species that has a “cilvilisation” That to me is relative, there are many humans out there that I would consider much less civilised than my cats! There are many non-human animals out there that have communities, and there own version of civilisation, humans always seem to have to compare other species to ourselves, rather than seeing that other species should be allowed there own perspectives on what is considered the right way to live.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
To those who are worried about Western-centric lists…why don’t you make your own Eastern-centric list? Seriously, no one is stopping you…unless you’re on the internet in China or North Korea.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
@crispin (83): You should note (as Lleana above has pointed out) that sentience is not a thing which separates man from brutes. The thing that separates us is rationality – the ability to reason between two known things to come to a third. All first knowledge comes from sentience – this is true of man and brutes. Man can abstract, non-human animals can’t.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I have updated the introduction to point out that there is no particular order in this list – I thought it was too obvious to need mentioning but I guess I was wrong
November 16th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
@ Shannon (62) Good point. Maybe, if the lists were numbered 1-10 rather than the other way round, that would remove the whole hierarchy thing.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I also want to give an argument for the inclusion of Wagner’s Ring Cycle over other classical (style – not period) composers. Wagner was really the last of the great Romantics – the last great composer to produce tonal music (albeit through chromaticism). It is like he is the pinnacle of Western classical music and after him we went from music which was appealing to the majority, to classical music which was so artistic and dissonant that many people reject it. Wagner is, in a manner of speaking, the apex of the art of music.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
@Lleana (137): Perhaps “sentient” is the wrong term to use here. What I mean is that humans are self-aware, and are able to objectively think about raw perceptions and stimulus in their environment, and most importantly, beyond their immediate environment. I am a cat lover myself (grew up with Siamese, if you please) and while I agree that they are often more civilized than human beings, I do not believe they are capable of the sort of meta-perceptions that I am. Nor can they share an original idea or consider a moral quandary (that I can tell). I agree that this is all based on my empirical observations, but I haven’t seen a cat do anything that led me to believe otherwise.
Furthermore, cats would be incapable of engaging in a complex social structure like a human society, much less able to build roads, farms and other trappings associated with human civilization. While I agree that they are fascinating and adorable creatures, I simply can’t say that a cat’s experience of life is in any way like my own.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
I think around here you can shit sitting down instead of squatting and someone will take offense.
Not to offend people who squat. There is nothing wrong with it. But sitting is more Euro-centric. But there is nothing wrong with squatting. In the world-centric world a man, (or woman, or hermaphrodite, white man, or black man, or yellow man , or red man/woman/herm/gay/straight/animal-centric/eunuch) can argue that squatting is better. But to say squatting is Asia-centric might be ignoring people who are Middle-Eastern-centric who squat AND sit. There is nothing wrong with that either. I hope I didn’t offend anyone. I do not mean to ignore those people who don’t shit. I don’t know any. And I don’t intend to anger people who shit upside down or hanging from trees. Just in case, here is a shout-out to everyone who shits while crab walking.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
@jfrater (139): Duly noted, sir. Thanks for the clarification… I’m not as good with words as I’d like to be.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
jfrater: I think it was obvious! But we’re conditioned creatures. Numbers imply hierarchy so even when we know the list was random its still hard to convince our subconscious mind that no order was intended. Which is made all the more amusing when juxtaposed with this list’s topic! The great achievements of the human mind arrayed before us and we can’t grasp that simple number assignments do not imply hierarchy. That’s funny.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
@jfrater (140):
Mr Frater, sometimes I feel like we commenters are nursery children and you are the fellow who brings us milk and cookies. Well done for keeping your head…
@Spiff17 (134):
Evolution is a fact (otherwise there would be no such thing as pedigree or cultivation), and a theory is what we call the conclusion we reach from studying evidence. You’re right to say that evolution and God are not incompatible, but the fact is that it isn’t exactly arrogant to support evolution, as to say one supports evolution is to say that one supports the evidence.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
This is completely biased to the WEST. The EAST has done just as great things, most of them first, and some better.
We need to get over this racism of the east.
“Great Achievements of the Human Mind” should not pertain only to half of the world.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
@Squatter (144):
You are a genius.
@JBF (148):
You are a moron.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
144 Squatter That’s some funny shit.
As for “sentience, et al”, my understanding is that humans possess an idea of morality (well, as a species. As individuals, meh . . .). Humans have some sort of grasp of right vs wrong and why X is right and Y is wrong.
A dog doesn’t know right from wrong, he only knows what does and does not get him popped on the bottom with a rolled up newspaper.
Cats, however, are not to be considered in the argument as they have evolved beyond we mere humans to become the apex of life on earth removed from any need for morality. We are simply their staff until they decide to do away with us. As a t-shirt I once read stated, “6000 years ago, cats were worshiped as gods. They have never forgotten this.”
November 16th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
@crispin (132): True, the process is still in action–but it gave humans enough time to develop into the advanced creatures we are now, so I still have to ask why other species do not progress as quickly towards mastery and domination of their environment.
You are still looking at this from the POV that we humans are the “ideal” example of evolutionary results and that the timeline associated with that development is the standard by which others should be measured. On the contrary, other species have “mastered and dominated” their environments for longer periods and more successfully than humans. It can be argued that we haven’t “mastered” it at all…rather we are exploiting and pillaging our own environment to our eventual ruin. And then some other species will likely replace us as top-dog in the food chain.
We are still the only animal that can read, write, and communicate original ideas concerning the nature of existence.
True but who says that is the criteria for “success”?
November 16th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Squatter: That was awesome. Your point was beautifully, if slightly disgustingly, illustrated. I’ve heard that squatting eliminates many of the “issues” we tend to develop in Western countries! So all of you non-squatters can shove it! You’re all idiots if you don’t squat! I’m not as PC as Squatter so I don’t mind saying that if you don’t believe in squatting you’re a brainless porcelain kisser!
The lists are Western-centric because they’re written by Western people who know mostly about Western history, philosophy, etc. Its unfortunate that we’re not educated more diversely but I’m pretty sure the East is no different. But I for one would welcome some Eastern education! So lets see some lists Easterners! Which raises another problem. The site is in english. Which means that any Easterners have to cater to our first language. So we better offer this site in every major language of the world! Which means jfrater has to hire a massive staff, which he cannot afford because this is just a little website created by one guy who can’t possibly please everyone. Get it? PLEASE stop complaining about the “Western-centric” tendencies of this site. There are very logical reasons for that and unfortunate or not that’s just the way things are. We work with what we’ve got.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
ps You’ll notice that I’m not biased towards Westerners as I have indicated that I’m a believer in the squatting method more common to the Eastern hemisphere.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Very good list, one of my favourites in a long time.
But I can’t see why the Euro-centricness of it is such a big deal. And before I explain myself, I am not a racist, I don’t discriminate or anything like that.
It is simply the truth that in the Western part of the world (Europe, North America and Australia), the works of ‘white’ people are more known than those out of other parts of the world. I have heard of some of the Indian and Chinese achievements in the comments, but I don’t know about it the way I do about the achievements mentioned on the list. This is simply because of where I grew up, and I think it is the same for the maker of this list. It would be great to have a non-European centric list for great achievements though. Could be very interesting, ESPECIALLY because not much of that is known in the whole world.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
@Maggot (151): It may not be the criteria for success, but the fact still remains that we are the only creatures with those abilities, and I simply can’t glaze over that. I am skeptical as well about whether or not we are the “ideal,” but I wouldn’t trade the ability to think creatively and express myself, or to be able to ask questions such as these for any other animal’s abilities. Also I might point out that reading and writing are not “survival” techniques at all, and so I do not understand how they would come to us through an evolutionary process.
November 16th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
@Boysuck (149)
I have lived in America all of my life and I am caucasian so I have not reason to be biased to the East. Calling me names is childish and silly and does not help your position. You need to educate yourself. The Mahabharata is a greater work than all of these. It makes The Ring Cycle look like garbage.
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are both still theory and cannot account for all four forces and thus are inherantly flawed. Evolution is a Big Lie that is completelt been disproven and is utterly dead now. Plato outclasses Aristotle in every way conceivable save for his distaste of poetry. And Shakespeare was a Baconian Mill fraud, which has been proven overwhelmingly.
Proves that over 90% of the populace are gullible sheeple that follow whatever tripe they are told. Carry on with your stupidity….
November 16th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
@Spiff17 (152)
You are ridiculous. English is the most widely-read lg in the world. 99% of the world would have no problem reading it. That is no excuse.
Again, get educated…
November 16th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
JBF
99% of the world is literate?
November 16th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
158
99% of the countries…
November 16th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
@JBF (156):
That’s “Woyzeck”, fucktard. Can’t you read? Oh wait, we’ve already established you can’t read, because if you could you would see that this list is called “TNE GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE HUMAN MIND” not “THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE HUMAN MIND MADE ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET AT ANY TIME”.
That is why you were, and remain, a moron.
I’m not even going to go into what you said about evolution other than to say that you are utterly, ridiculously wrong.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
JBF – It took me this long to realise you are a troll. Fail.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
JBF (159)
There is no excuse to be on the internet, where you can look up worldwide literacy figures AND the number of people in the world who can speak English, and write shit like that.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
@JBF (156):
You know what, there are two types of people in this world. Everybody else. And you. What’s the difference between you and everybody else you say. Well, everybody else has a limit to which they can be annoying, ignorant, pathetic, whining little fuck sticks. It seems you don’t. Well done.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
To @SQUATTER(144)
Do think Wagner was sitting or squatting when he was doing his ring cycle?
November 16th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I agree with this list generally, but there is one crucial omission: The Brothers Karamazov.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
So if anyone disagrees with the great Boysuck they are immediately discredited as being a troll.
Okay…I see my lesson went over your head…
Toodles. Have fun. o_O
November 16th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Woyzeck Returns: You sort of missed my point. My point was that “Evolution” is a word that means many things. Its not a “fact” by definition. Its a word assigned to a type of process that applies to many different things. “Species have evolved.” That is a fact. But the more detailed you get on the specifics the less facts we are able to state and the more theories we must state. A theory explains a list of observations, which is what we currently have. We don’t have concrete evidence on all the “hows” and “whys” so we must continue to view the “evolution of species” as a theory. Note that I said the evolution of species rather than just “evolution”. Obviously evolution as a process occurs in many situations. An individual evolves socially and emotionally throughout their life. So I guess the point I was attempting to make in my eariler post is that in most cases of the evolution debate neither side of the argument actually knows what they’re arguing about. Is it over the existence of a Creator? Good luck on proving your point on that way, for either side. Are we arguing over whether species have changed over time? Cause currently the best theory that we can postulate based on the evidence that we have witnessed is the Theory of Evolution. Evolution occurs. In countless ways everywhere, everyday. No Creationist can argue that. So why are we arguing points that actually don’t conflict with each other? I’m tired of people acting like they know everything! The smartest people in the world are the quickest to admit how little we actually know. I personally believe in a Creator. No amount of science can disprove that but rather strengthens my belief. And no amount of me acting superior will convince any atheists to agree with me. And thats ok. I’m fine with people having differing opinions. I’m not fine with people acting superior because of them. I also am smart enough to see the evidence before us and agree that yeah, it really appears as though the species of the earth arrived at this point via major changes of a long period of time to adapt to their environments. Its still a theory by definition of theory so please don’t tell me its not. I wish that people could just agree that our universe is a mysterious place and we’re all figuring it out together. Arguing (as of yet)unprovable points is an example of the capacity for humans to display exactly the opposite of this list.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Randall: I agree on your suggestions but the writer did indicate that this was just ten great achievements rather than the ten greatest achievements. So criticisms of what should have been on the list are moot. Suggestions of what could be on a second list however are great! Also he pointed out that he wrote about what he knew about. I personally think its wise to stick to your areas of expertise as long as you don’t suggest that there are no other greater examples. There could definitely be many lists of this kind made.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Woyzeck Returns: I just reread your post and I didn’t realize I had come across as saying that its arrogant to support evolution? I do support evolution. I was saying its arrogant to call others idiots for having differing beliefs. Just as its foolish to believe in something that completely conflicts with the obvious evidence sitting right in front of your face as many creationists do. The ignorance on both sides of the argument is what irks me.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
@MiSaNtHrOpE (165):
At the back of my mind I too was hoping for some Dostoevsky…
@JBF (166):
Actually I assumed you were a troll because what you said is so ridiculously far-removed from reality that I thought nobody could ever read those depths of eye-crossing, drooling fucktardery without deliberately trying to.
Notice something: your “lesson” contains no facts, only nonsensical assertions. You couldn’t teach fish to swim.
@Spiff17 (167):
I think our views are rather closely linked, and you seem like a very rational person. You are a credit to religion!
November 16th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Sorry to generalize. On MANY of the supporters on both sides of the argument. Certainly not all. But I think most intelligent people would sit somewhere in the middle of seeing the evidence and taking it for what it is, but also being open to the vast possibilities allowed in the gaps of our knowledge.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Where we err is in acting as though we personally have it all figured out.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Shakespeare DID write his own his works, what he didn`t do, was write them down! Somebody memorised them!
November 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Woyzeck Returns: Thanks! I apologize for misrepresenting my thoughts initially. In discussions like this one has to use very delicate and well thought-out wording in conveying opinions and thoughts and I guess I didn’t quite succeed. Thus I subsequently wrote a novel to attempt to explain myself. Sorry if I’m boring anyone with all my posts!
November 16th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
@Spiff17 (174):
Not at all, I’m sure. I actually went back and reread your post and I’m pretty sure I misread it when I first replied. I tend to speed-read these comments, I must have got the wrong end of the stick.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
JBF: So I’m uneducated and yet you just informed me that 99% of the world speaks english? And you’re accusing others of being Wester-centric? Is your head really so far up your ass that you haven’t noticed that other languages exist? To be exact a current estimation of 17.76% of the world speaks english!! Thats as a first or second language. That means the rest of the 82% of the world does not speak english At all. Thats no excuse you say? No, its not an excuse, its a perfectly valid reason that this site is not accessible to the entire world!! You honestly told me to get educated?
November 16th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Woyzeck: I speed read too. And speed type. Both get me into trouble from time to time.
November 16th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
@crispin (155): but I wouldn’t trade the ability to think creatively and express myself, or to be able to ask questions such as these for any other animal’s abilities.
Me neither, but that’s only because since we have those abilities, we are aware of those abilities. Other animals don’t know what they don’t know.
Also I might point out that reading and writing are not “survival” techniques at all, and so I do not understand how they would come to us through an evolutionary process.
Reading and writing are tools for communication. Sure, they’re well-developed tools, but lots of other animals employ similar methods, albeit seemingly rudimentary in comparison, and primarily for the purpose of such things as territorial marking and/or mating (i.e survival). I agree though, we’ve obviously moved beyond just doing things out of instinct, for the purpose of survival. I’m not at all disagreeing with you there.
and so I do not understand how they would come to us through an evolutionary process.
It is our brain/intelligence that has evolved, and those physical manifestations are the results. Those results have evolved too, from cave paintings to things such as the other items on this list. From contemplating where our next meal will come from, to much more philosophical things such as what’s beyond the stars and the meaning of our existence.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I’ve yet to see one of these comment threads go all the way to the next day without any hatred being spewed across it.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Not all of evolution is about “survival of the fittest”. It is just a reflection of mating trends.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
crispin:
One question you asked was about porpoises and recreational sex. Research Bonobos for that one!
As far as societies go, you should research elephants, baboons,chimps, gorillas, lions, whales… I could go on and on, but elephants and baboons are particularly interesting and have quite complex societies.
Crows and ravens are among the smartest birds. They have actually become so good at finding food, that they have time left over in their days for play! They are the only birds that engage in play for play’s sake, and they are among the small group of intelligent birds who create and use tools.
There are so many animals that would amaze you if you truly studied them. They communicate with each other, they teach each other, they risk their lives to save other members of their societies, they create tools, they bond for life… Go to your local library and read up on some of these animals. They may not be, in your mind, as well developed as humans, but they have societies that work for them, and that’s all they need. Humans are definitely not the only creatures with intelligence. They are not the only creatures that have evolved. Humans have rationality, as Jamie said, but evolution has worked very well in other animals to bring them to a level of cooperation that works for them in their world.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
this list is an excellent achievement of the human mind. lol
November 16th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
@Maggot (178): I guess my real question lies in your last point: have our brains evolved to allow for the sort of special abilities we’ve been discussing, or is something else at play?
I am reading a book right now called “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen Meyer (critically acclaimed and a fantastic, thought-provoking read) that explores science’s inability to explain the initial chemical evolution that would need to happen to turn something lifeless (a rock) into something capable of spawning life. It’s astonishing how little science can offer in an explanation of that process. Richard Dawkins was on a talk radio show (the Michael Medved show) recently and even he conceded that science has no explanation for how chemical evolution occurs. Anyway, that’s why I am so curious today (and lately) because this book has really challenged some beliefs I hadn’t questioned in a long time.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
@BooRadley (181): I absolutely agree, BooRadley, that animals are much more complex than people give them credit for and have some pretty incredible abilities. I still am not convinced, however, that they can think or reason on metaphysical topics, or sort through an ethical issue, or have an understanding of any meta-perception, which seems to set humans apart from animals. Whether or not these abilities are “superior” to those of animals is sort of irrelevant to me. I’m looking for an answer as to why we do have these skills, and if perhaps there is a bigger reason behind it.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
JBF (156) wrote: “The Mahabharata is a greater work than all of these. It makes The Ring Cycle look like garbage.
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are both still theory and cannot account for all four forces and thus are inherently flawed. Evolution is a Big Lie that is completely been disproven and is utterly dead now. Plato outclasses Aristotle in every way conceivable save for his distaste of poetry. And Shakespeare was a Baconian Mill fraud, which has been proven overwhelmingly.”
Let’s deal with these in turn.
Exactly how does the Mahabharata make the Ring Cycle look like garbage? Length? Subject matter? Writing quality? Comparing both these great works is really a non-starter. Besides, by condemning the Ring Cycle you are by extension condemning the literary works on which it is based, specifically the Prose and Poetic Eddas of Iceland and the German Nieblunglied. Interestingly, Wagner actually considered the Mahabharata as a subject for an opera, but found greater inspiration in the aforementioned writings.
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, as you are no doubt aware, deal with very different phenomena at very different scales. Neither alone was originally intended to be a complete model of the universe. Relativity deals with nature on the large scale, and at the time of its development (1915 – 1905) the strong and weak nuclear forces had yet to be discovered anyway. There are now several candidates for a workable theory of quantum gravity, but each one depends on which parts of relativity and quantum mechanics you leave unchanged, so the jury is still very much out there. Just because one theory doesn’t mesh well with the other doesn’t mean both are flawed.
Evolution a lie and utterly dead? Incomplete perhaps, but not a lie, and certainly not dead. The body of fossil and genetic evidence supporting evolution grows yearly, but frankly I find defending evolution a fruitless task these days; either you believe it or you don’t, and neither side seems to have much to say to the other anymore beyond hurling insults.
Plato outclassing Aristotle? From what I’ve read of both (not their entire output, by the way) I would have said they were pretty much equal, a conclusion which had been reached by the Renaissance. The poets perhaps have a bigger axe to grind with Plato than anyone else, so you’re right about that.
Shakespeare a Baconian fraud? I smile every time that old chestnut comes up. This particular debate didn’t even start until about 150 years after Shakespeare’s death. The theories against Shakespeare are based mainly on lack of documentary evidence supporting his authorship, rather than solid evidence supporting anyone else’s. This is just building on sand. Many official records from Shakespeare’s time failed to survive, not just his.
Though there are no formal records of any school or university entrance for Shakespeare, we can’t rule out the possibility of self-education.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Not one of these entries included thought by a woman. in fact, the vast majority of the entries came from white males. What about the rest of earth’s population? Did they not make any great inputs?
November 16th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Flamehorse: I’d say this one is relatively civil though! Some good discussion going on without too much bickering. There’s always a couple of poop-disturbers.
crispin: Very interesting point you’re making. That’s what I was talking about when I said that there are very many unexplained gaps in the evolutionary theory indicating that we are far from having all things figured out. And thus we should have some tolerance for those who believe differently than us. Could there be a higher being that orchestrated these things? There are many factors in the development of the creatures of the world and especially man that certainly seem to be designed. Such as the abilities of reasoning and emotion that you’re talking about. One explanation is the existence of a creator. Can anyone prove this? Nope. But should anyone be judged for believing it or not believing it for that matter? Certainly not. You’ve been my favorite commenter on this list so far for the fact that you’re bringing up truly interesting discussion that carries no arrogance that says you have it figured out. You’re just asking some questions that none of us have the answers to but sure are interesting to consider. Having the answers doesn’t make you exceptionally intelligent. The world is full of know-it-alls. Finding the things that don’t have the answers and asking the right questions is the true mark of intelligence. I think far more of a person who says “I don’t know but lets try to find out” than of a person who’s always spouting what they think they know without a shred of uncertainty.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
@crispin
I think I understand your point of view more clearly now than when I wrote my original reply to you. There is no reason why other organisms hadn’t “chosen” the same path as us, other than simply because they didn’t have to in order to survive. Success of an organism is simply being able to survive and reproduce as best as it can, or at least better than the least successful of its species. I also see your point about humans being different from other creatures. As far as I know, no evidence has been found of other creatures displaying the same intellectual ability, problem solving skills, use of logic and rationalizing, as well as creative abilities that we have, so we certainly are special. Which brings me to my next point, which I feel slightly reflects (180) Woyzeck Returns’ comment. Recently I had heard of an interesting (though I am sure not new) hypothesis. The gist of it is that all human abilities such as creativity and complex intellect ultimately evolved as a result of sexual selection, as posessing these traits would allow you to find a better mate, or more mates, or something of the sort. Also, in response to your comment 183, this certainly sounds like a very interesting book and I will be sure to read it. I have heard a few hypotheses about the initial beginning of life, and it seems not one of them has enough evidence or support in the scientific community to be accepted as anything resembling fact. The one I remember most clearly was the “primordial soup” hypothesis, about the mixture of various element floating around and spontanesouly combining to form amino acids, and from this, life as we know it. I’ve also heard speculation about how many times life has evolved on Earth. I rememember hearing that some scientists suggested life has evolved and become extinct a few times throughout Earth’s history, though I do not rememember what evidence there was for this or if it was merely speculation of the “why not” variety. After reading through the comments for this article, I think this must be the most civilized discussion of a list I’ve seen on listverse in quite a while. Excellent work Riesstu, I look forward to seeing more lists from you!
November 16th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Sofia: There are a number of reasons that the majority of the great works of intellect have been accomplished by men, and none of those reasons include men being of greater intellect. Unfortunately most of them are because women have historically played a role in society that left them little time or opportunity to pursue such things. There are certainly notable exceptions all throughout history but they have been rare enough that it could hardly be considered bias to not include an example in choosing only ten. Thanks to great strides in certain societies in gender equality (and we admittedly have a long way to go) you will certainly see a change in the trend of male domination in intellectual achievement as more women advance in the areas or science and arts. Having said that I’m sure if further lists on this topic were to be published some women would pop up. I highly doubt the lack of women on this particular list is due to prejudice by the writer.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
@crispin (101): I think bonobos (a great ape) also have rec sex.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Riesstu: Well played. He has yet to make a single valid point and I’m glad you diffused those statements. I especially enjoyed your reply to his comment on evolution. As I said earlier, most arguers of both sides of the debate frustrate me.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
@Spiff17 (187): Thanks for the kind words, Spiff. I will be the first to admit that I don’t know much about anything, but I sure like exploring any and all topics. It’s very difficult for me to take a totalitarian stance on any issue, and though for a long time I felt like I was being wishy-washy and non-committal, I really do feel that allowing yourself to be vulnerable to new points of view is really the way to go.
@whathappened? (188):
I really like your point about sexual selection and preferable traits in potential mates, I hadn’t thought of that at all, and I will definitely investigate that further. I also had no idea that scientists had postulated that life on earth could have gone through this process of evolution many times over; that is a staggering concept–my initial reaction, however, is that if evolution led a species to the point where humans are at now, why is there no evidence of this in the fossil record or in archealogical observations? I think the “primordial soup” hypothesis is exactly what has come under fire in Meyers’ book and in the work of other scientists–I know there are people hard at work on the issue, so I’m sure if we keep our ears to the ground we’ll hear some of their findings in the near future.
As for the civilized nature of this debate; it was a bit of an experiment on my part… I was sort of testing the waters to see how resistant a place like listverse would be to such ideas. I see that there is many an open mind on this site and that is delightfully reassuring! It’s good to know there’s a place I can come to deposit my curious drivel
November 16th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
The ring cycle is nothing more than an artistic expulsion of fecal matter.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
@ crispin (192)
.
First of all, thank you for replying to my comments, I greatly appreaciate it!
I also completely agree with you! It is so wonderful to see how many openminded, curious and intelligent people such as yourself visit this site and contribute to the comments. I often hesitate to ask questions in the threads of LV, but perhaps now will ask questions about topics I know little of, which is most of everything posted here.
To answer your previous question about the minds of animals as compared to humans, I do strongly believe that humans often think themselves to be far superior to all other creatures where no such distinction exists. I truly do think that in the future we may find evidence of rational thought in other animals, though so far this is very limited.
Now to go off topic slightly, I have a question for you and other listverse readers. Do you believe that all living creatures have the same value? Or are some more valuable than others? If all creatures are equally valuable, do we have a moral obligation to treat them as such, or do animals have rights different from those awarded to humans? I’ve been thinking about these questions quite a bit lately and would like to see yours, or anyone else’s view on this topic
November 16th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Anyone complaining about the focus on Western thought should simply produce a list that focuses on Eastern accomplishments. I mean the title is not “THE greatest achievements of the human mind” it would be simple enough to add another list called “Another 10 greatest etc…” with a focus on Eastern thought. I mean the point is to produce lists with whatever knowledge you have. If you have a lot of knowledge on eastern accomplishments then just cough em up, dont just complain about it. You think the article would be rejected because its not western or you just feel like whining?
I liked the list, was very interesting and certainly shorter than it could have been as there are a lot more great thinkers. There was also a lot of heavy emphasis on physics/literature/science. There were also great thinkers in religion (mind you there are quite a few fools too), politics, the law, and militia. So I actually do hope there is a continuation of this list for more variety.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
@whathappened? (194): Wow, what a question… I’m going to give this one some thought and get back to you. My kneejerk reaction is to say that as we are part of the human species, we should care a bit more about our own kind than other animals, but like I said I need to ruminate on this one. Cheers for the provocation of thought, my friend.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
To Sofia (#186): These accomplishments are examples of LOGIC. Not emotion. Only a standard leftist would whine about, or even notice, some perceived anti-womyn bias.
To JBF (#156): Hot flash to you: Any explanation that includes “Then a miracle happens…” is not science. If you had actually listened in middle school science, you would know why evolution is still refered to as “theory.” It’s not my fate to explain your stupidity.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
To JBF (#156): Hey, Dude, I just got back from the pharmacy (chemist? apothecary?) getting my meds filled. Could I interest you in some? They go along way towards treating Rectal-Cranial Inversion Syndrome. Makes you a lot easier to get along with. I’d be glad to send you some. It just might take a couple of days to kick in fully, so just relax and give it time.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
What about the Kama Sutra?
It was a real achievement of the human mind to come up with such a book.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
‘If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.’ – Most of us know this quote by Isaac Newton…but it fits this list perfectly. Humanity has come far [and will go a lot further] thanks to these [and other] brilliant minds.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
@crispin (183): I am reading a book right now called “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen Meyer (critically acclaimed and a fantastic, thought-provoking read) that explores science’s inability to explain the initial chemical evolution that would need to happen to turn something lifeless (a rock) into something capable of spawning life. It’s astonishing how little science can offer in an explanation of that process.
Yeah? So what’s Meyer’s explanation? I wouldn’t exactly categorize the belief in ID and YEC as a “great achievement of the human mind”.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
@whathappened? (194): After some thinking, I am going to attempt to answer this question by using an argument a good friend of mine uses to defend his vegetarianism. His argument is that because he has been afforded the option in modern society to satisfy the nutritional needs of his body with edible substances other than the meat of living animals, he feels an ethical obligation to pursue that option and not eat meat. I would apply this idea to your question: I am fully capable of treating every living thing on the Earth as an equal. It would be a voluntary decision on my part to harm another creature, as I have full control of my faculties and a mind capable of discerning the positive and negative outcomes of my behavior. Therefore, if I am capable of treating animals as equals, why should I not?
The fuzzy part comes in when you add plants or “lower” forms of life into the equation. This comeback infuriates my vegetarian friend
November 16th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
@Maggot (201): I never submitted Meyer’s book for an addition to this list, it just so happens I am reading that book right now. I am open to all ideas, from the intelligent design camp or the neo-darwinist camp. Why wouldn’t you want to explore both sides of the issue? I realize William Dembski made a fool out of himself, and the ID community, years back but I think other voices in that community are worth hearing.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
@BooRadley (181):
Hi Boo, I remember seeing this clip a while ago. It certainly backs up what you said about crows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03ykewnc0oE
Riesstu, I enjoyed your interesting and well written list.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
@Maggot (201): Let me clarify: two years ago I would have been the guy that dismissed this book immediately because it was associated with the theory of intelligent design. Meyers makes some compelling arguments in this book, and even harsh critics of ID are lauding it because it’s scientifically sound. I am not going to tow the party line anymore and ignore literature that contradicts my worldview just because it makes me nervous and I might have to shift the way I think about things. I think your kneejerk reaction to the general content of the book (you obviously haven’t read it yet) was a bit hasty. Just because it falls under the ID umbrella doesn’t mean it’s religious bullshit.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
@ tito29 (77):
“Amazing list, that is until I got to number one. Could have done without opera on the list. A great achievement of the mind? Not at all.”
Never have I so badly wanted to smack someone through my computer monitor.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
As much as I love this list, I don’t think that The Ring Cycle should have been first. Maybe second or third, but not first. I would consider The Principia and the Theory of Relativity to be much greater mental achievements, and I am a music major who loves Wagner.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
@crispin
That is probably, in my opinion, the best answer I have received to this question from anyone I’ve asked. Now if only every human being thought this way, and acted accordingly, Earth would be the place people have been dreaming of inhabiting since they’ve been able to dream.
The plant thing is somewhat fuzzy indeed, but since it is practically impossible to sustain oneself without consuming plants of any kind (if you are vegetarian, I do not count meat), I do not think it immoral, as starving oneself is in a way immoral as well. I certainly admire your vegetarian friend’s philosophy, as I also have been vegetarian (though somewhat on and off) for the past few years, and his is certainly one of the most reasonable explanations for his choice. Thank you very much for the response, I truly do appreciate it!
Also, is intelligent design another term for creationist? I see in mentioned in your last post and I am curious as I do intend to check out the book you spoke of.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
@whathappened? (208): I think the term “creationist” refers to a person who believes that the higher power described in the Bible is the one responsible for the universe. A proponent of Intelligent Design is one who, while entertaining notions of general theism, holds that an intelligent and more powerful “other” being assisted in the inception of life on Earth, without reference to any particular god specified in any religious text. Taken to extreme, a creationist would probably not entertain the idea that extraterrestrial entities intervened to concoct life on Earth, whereas as the more open-minded, permissive Intelligent Design-er would likely be open to such an explanation.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
You won me over with the Ring Cycle. The epitome of his “Gesamtkunstwerk” – complete sensory overload.
It is my ultimate goal to visit the Bayreuth Festival Theatre for their regular performance of this opera. Maybe someday, when I’m not a poor bass clarinet player….I can only imagine it will be nothing short of spectacular.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
I meant to include in my previous comment…I’m glad to see a musical work is listed in these “top ten” lists of great human achievements – people often overlook the music world when discussing topics of this manner. It’s a shame people neglect our musical past – so kudos to the author. Even if someone disagrees with this item on the list, they’re still being exposed to it.
You’ve gotta plant the seed somehow
November 16th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
@crispin (205): and even harsh critics of ID are lauding it because it’s scientifically sound.
Like who? I’d be interested to see some scientific peer review.
(you obviously haven’t read it yet)
Nope, I haven’t.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Well, I was going to write a comment congratulating the LV community on not turning this into another yawn-fest Evolution debate as we’ve seen countless times before, then I reached about 70 comments and saw that’s exactly what it became. Predictable. On another note, enjoyed the list and other recent ones of late. Feels like the listverse of old. It many have been a good idea to split this list into two, one concerned with scientific achievements, and the other with artistic. It’s very hard to compare Wagner to Einstein, music vs physics. Other than that, enjoyed it very much.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
@G Note (118):
al-Khwarizmi, a Persian, invented algebra in the 9th century.
Sun Tzu’s Art of War is still taught in military schools.
Any of the Great Pyramids of Egypt
The Mayan Calendar
Bhaskaracharya, an Indian man, is credited with calculating the time the Earth takes to orbit the sun.
I’ll let you read about this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose
Chess was invented in India
The father of the theory of relativity, which was stolen by Einstein, had this to say about non-rich, non-white, non-Europeans: We owe a lot to the Indians, who taught us how to count, without which no worthwhile scientific discovery could have been made.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
@Iakhovas (213): another yawn-fest Evolution debate…Predictable.
I knew it was just a matter of time before someone whined about that. Predictable.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
@Maggot (212): Richard Dawkins commented on the book in his aforementioned radio interview. Chris Mooney also conceded on the radio that he find Meyers’ argument to be up to par. Most of the reviews I read were in print form, and I hate to use the reviews linked to the site selling the book as some of them are certainly positive feedback from ID fanboys, but others are not: http://www.signatureinthecell.com/quotes.php
My favorite quote on that page:
How does an intelligent person become a proponent of intelligent design? Anyone who stereotypes IDers as antiscientific ideologues or fundamentalists should read Dr. Meyer’s compelling intellectual memoir. Meyer as a student became fascinated with the ‘DNA enigma’—how the information to produce life originated—and at considerable risk to his career hasn’t given up trying to solve the mystery. Meyer shows how step-by-step he concluded that intelligent design is the most likely explanation of how the DNA code came to be, but he’s open to new evidence—and in so doing he challenges defenders of undirected evolution to have the courage to explore new alternatives as well.
— Dr. Marvin Olasky, provost, The King’s College, New York City, and editor-in-chief, World
November 16th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Is it like just another teenage whirlpool that figures its parents don’t get it?
I might argue that rationality does occur in the nonhuman kingdom, but because trial and error or pavlovian style indications does not always fill the bill with our own point of view , then the rational is faulty because our construction of understanding tends to separate us, yet indicates a connection to, certain others on this planet. If we are to reinforce what we know as a means to explore what we don’t know, then what we know is what we propel- and what we propel is largely loud & irritant gaseous fumes, littered with metallic plastic waste!
I’m just foolin around here, but:
To exist is to survive, prey and to breed and protect.
All else is agitation, reaction, and contemplation on our part (morals,standards,individualized principles, ect.)
emotion is evident in more than just humans. Emotion in a bonding thing that is in the DNA. Some religions have the whole and all as being big time in worthiness of our universe (yup,ours). This is true when right and wrong, true and false is tossed out. True because “nothing is true, all is permitted”–or is it,
“everything is true, nothing is permitted”?.
Isn’t it our hope- Science and Art – our extending longevity , our vanity…
and the human mind and its mirror of recognition award
goes
to….
“out, out brief candle, life is but a walking shadow”
MUD
clap clap clap clap clap clap
here to accept the award is……..
November 16th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
@Maggot (215): Yeah, really. Good contribution, Iakhovas.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
@Spiff17 (152):
Shit, if only there was some way to find information about another culture or country or ancient civilization without having to travel to another country or time period. Like if a group of people created a site to search millions and millions of pieces of information in an instant.
November 16th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
“…because our construction of understanding tends to separate us, yet indicates a connection to certain others on this planet.”
—ourselves included of coarse—-
November 16th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
jajdude returns!!!!
November 16th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Brian S.: What are you talking about? Obviously I’m aware of the internet and using it to learn about other cultures. Which comment are you referring to? I don’t think I said anything that required a smartass remark.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
I call BS on crispin. He started the day claiming to not be one of those “anti-evolution” people and then wasted the rest of the day proving two things. One, he is anti-evolution…he’s just fey not coy about it. Two, it is futile to use reason and fact (you know, science) to debate people who insist on believing in magic. They’re incapable of grasping physics over make-believe. Call me names for not being “civil” about it, but it doesn’t change the truth. I’ll take rude and right over polite and ignorant any day.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
@get a clue (223): I stated earlier that I have held atheistic beliefs in the past, and that is generally my philosophical background. I haven’t tried to prove anything. I’m just asking some questions. Also I have never indicated a belief in magic, and I’d appreciate if you didn’t stereotype me as a religious fanatic, as I have have not once espoused any such belief in this thread. If you’re unwilling to research the arguments against your comfortable position on the issue, that’s fine. However, I won’t stand idly by and let you dismiss and marginalize the counter-argument against what you feel is true. I’m too open minded for that.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
@get a clue (223): Not everyone takes a partisan side to the debate, either. You have tipped your hand, you’re obviously dead set against any notion that might disturb your current viewpoint on the issue.
I try to be open to each side of the argument, and I suggest that you do the same.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
I was a little surprised to not see Thomas Paine’s Common Sense on the list. Without that book, America would probably still be under the control of Britain and the world would be a very, VERY different place.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
The greatest achievement of the human mind would have to be the integrated circuit. They are everywhere.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Where is Bach? He was the father of modern music! What about Beethoven or Mozart for that reason?
And this is going to spark a bit of controversy, but where is the bible? I mean if the bible is fake, it must have been GENIUS to make a book that holds so true to this very day, even if nothing in it happened, and it must also be genius if it’s true because it’s VERY well written. I think you are missing some very key things.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Did you know that Darwin’s Origin full title is “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. It is argued that Darwin believed in a perfect human race and that others were inferior based on color. Something to think about.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Wagner???
Number one was anti climactic. Only a big opera lover would consider it one of the top ten achievements of the human mind.
I nominate:
Imhotep for contributions to engineering and architecture
The Republic by Plato
The collective works of Confucius
Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas
Imh
November 16th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
These could also replace wagner:
Mediations of Philosophy by Descartes
Leviathan by Hobbes
The Prince by Machiavelli
November 16th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
am i the only person who kept hearing “KILL DA WABBIT” in their head during #1?
November 16th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Awesome list! We’re studying the Ring Cycle in my music appreciation class. It’s pretty complicated stuff.
November 16th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
@whathappened? (194): My understanding of the “animal rights” question;
Do non human animals deserve to have certain rights, yes, of course they do. Should they have the same rights as us? I don’t think either my cats, my tarantulas, chickens etc…would care very much about putting an x on a piece of paper would they?
But they do deserve the basic right to live free of pain and suffering, and the right to live their life as they were naturally intended to do.
I am also a vegan, and I completely agree, that we are living in a time when eating meat or animal produce is actually a choice, not a requirement. (no I am not stick thin and I do not have grey skin! My doctor says I am perfectly healthy
)
A quote that I love;
“The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creature that cannot.” -Mark Twain
November 16th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
@234:
The quote kind of makes sense, but I view the world differently than that. I believe that humanity doesn’t know right from wrong. They have conscience, which is pretty much their biggest advantage and their biggest downfall. Animals have the instinct to protect what needs to be protected in order for them to survive. Humans are wasteful and can’t be trusted with 99/100 of the freedoms we are given. Humans aren’t naturally wicked, but they are naturally stupid.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Shakespeare was also one of the best poets of all time. But you wouldn’t know it from the entry which talks about his “works” but only mentions the plays. It is probably best to say “Shakespeare’s plays” or, like the others on the list, the particular work of his being cited.
It is an eclectic list, because it combines oeuvre with general theories with very specific important works. I would have liked to have seen a more tightly focused list of this sort.
November 16th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Listen, folks – scanning this page I keep seeing “science can’t explain…” “science doesn’t know…” etc., etc.
“Science” is not a person, or a dogma, or an organisation. It is the act of looking at evidence and drawing a conclusion. If you say that science “can’t explain something” then what you are saying is that there is no explanation for something, which doesn’t help your position if you’re trying to flog religion or creationism.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:02 am
@crispin (202):
I am fully capable of treating every living thing on the Earth as an equal. It would be a voluntary decision on my part to harm another creature, as I have full control of my faculties and a mind capable of discerning the positive and negative outcomes of my behavior.
oops, i totally understand what you are saying about animals, but i think you just forgot that plants (and bacteria and fungi, etc.) are all also alive.
unless you can preform photo- or chemio-synthesis yourself you must kill some other things to stay alive, there is no avoiding this.
every person has personal thresholds on if it’s “okay” to eat “free range” but not “factory farmed chickens”, or eggs but not chicken, or plants but not eggs or chicken, or only plant parts that leave the plant alive in the harvesting etc. this is an incredibly complicated question, and it appears to be one that we all make our own ethical call on…… i’ve actually had this exact conversation here before.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:08 am
p.s. crispin, i meant your friend forgets this, as you obviously know. sorry.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:13 am
and crispin-
i would be delighted to hear even a single scientifically sound and testable piece of evidence or prediction that “ID” makes, i have never ever come across any that were irrefutable by actual scientists…… nor have i seen any published in serious journals. if this evidence exists and is so convincing why is it not being published all the time?
this is not an attack, but if you found enough “scientific evidence” supporting ID to change your views it must have been both striking and sound, so you must remember it.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:49 am
It’s sad how people have so low regard for music that’s actually good.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:27 am
It seems I come so late to the fair!
So I’ll just give my few opinions and go away quietly.
I have spend years reading Quantum Mechanics, Relativity Theory, as well as all the different ideas that came along ( chaos, string, etc). Each had it’s exciting moments, and each had it’s weak points, but all were things everyone should know.
There is nothing on this list that should not be required learning; some at the prep school level and the rest at Uni.
I, personally, believe that learning is a lifelong endeavor, to be explored with gusto once the choice of what to learn, when, is entirely up to you.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:45 am
hey segue! hope you are well
November 17th, 2009 at 4:31 am
grrrmbl
I miss these:
Leonardo Da Vinci
Galileo galilei
Nikolas Tesla
November 17th, 2009 at 5:23 am
another amazing work of the human mind is the picture for Quantum Mechanics. It’s so cool.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:58 am
@lo (240): There is much published research on the topic; if you have access to EBSCO or an academic search engine of some kind, I think you might be surprised what you’ll find. Also, I have to recommend the book that got me to ask all these questions in the first place. Stephen Meyer’s “Signature in the Cell.” Check it out; there’s loads of scientifically verifiable evidence that has persuaded me to believe that this is not a theory to dismiss out of hand.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:44 am
Anesthetics? written language? Spinoza? Microprocessing? Those might be a little more important than Paradise Lost. I love it and all but its not even intellectually unique its just borrowed from a lot of other stuff
November 17th, 2009 at 8:04 am
@crispin (246)
lo just asked your for some of this evidence. Do you have it or not?
November 17th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Nice list !!!
Maybe someone shud have mentioned something related to socio-economic or racism related topic
November 17th, 2009 at 9:31 am
@crispin (225):
crispin, I have stayed out of this discussion because I find these interminable round-and-round “debates” about evolutionary theory to be utterly tedious. If it isn’t religious nuts attacking biology, it’s people such as yourself wearing a false face of “reason” and “I’m oh so more open minded than the rest of you slaves to science.” And it was that air of smugness that finally pushed me to respond.
The fact of the matter is that “intelligent design” has made not the slightest inroad against evolutionary theory. It has not offered up *one* single scientific refutation of evolutionary theory or in ANY way proven a single tenet of its own. It is, in fact, nothing more than an intellectualized version of creationism, and is employed as a tactic for furthering the agenda of creationists who realize that their previous attempts to attack evolutionary theory on its own terms have gotten them nowhere. ID is no less dogmatic or unscientific than creationism, it merely pretends to be non-dogmatic and merely pretends to be scientific. It is, in short, a trojan horse attempt by creationists to bring down evolution–yet again. And it is nothing ELSE than that.
You have, I believe, admitted that you yourself are a layman, and not a professional biologist. But your statements are all prefaced on how “open minded” you are that you are not simply slavishly following the dictates of the dominant scientific paradigm in question here–which is evolutionary theory. But this is, in fact, an absurd stance. You are basically saying that you are lending more credence to intelligent design-ers than to evolutionary biologists, or at least saying that you are willing to lend such credence. Yet how can you? Have you truly studied evolutionary biology as fervently as you’ve studied ID? I highly doubt it. In fact, I can say with certainty that you haven’t, given some of the statements you made much earlier (unless I’m confusing you with someone else) regarding the differences between so-called “micro- and macro-evolution.” Anyone who had truly lent an ear to study evolutionary theory would not have made the mistakes you made regarding “macro” evolution. It’s clear that you have no true grasp of evolutionary theory. Yet you can claim to possess an “open mind” regarding it? And lend credence to ID as an alternative?
No. You are a dogmatist masquerading as a reasonable and rational person on the fence, when it in fact happens that in a question such as this there really is no way to be “on the fence.” Evolutionary theory is the thoroughly proven, tested, and scientifically sound basis of all modern biology. There are no “cracks” in it, and no place for an “intelligent designer.” There is no issue with the theory that calls for such a designer or indicates some missing element which might BE a designer. The idea of such a designer is scientifically INvalid and unnecessary to the theory.
If you’re in earnest about wanting to keep an open mind, then I suggest you go and make as keen a study of evolutionary biology as you have of ID. It’s high time you did. Because you’re actually talking from a handicapped stance until you do so.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:33 am
@Scratch (248): Yeah, its in the book “Signature in the Cell”, as I have already said. Did you even read my response?
You should read the book and find out for yourself. I am not going to attempt to summarize such an elegant argument in a comment post, so do your own homework. Or dismiss the book, and the idea out of hand and demand my “evidence,” which is what you have already done. I’m not here to convince anyone of anything, as I stated earlier I am just asking some questions. So go read the book, get back to me, or don’t add something relevant to the topic other than sounding like a whiny little bitch.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:42 am
@Randall (250): “No. You are a dogmatist masquerading as a reasonable and rational person on the fence, when it in fact happens that in a question such as this there really is no way to be on the fence.’”
Dead wrong. I’m just a guy exploring the issue. You sound like more of a dogmatist yourself when you say that there is “no way to be on the fence.” Sorry, I constantly challenge all of my beliefs, even if they are widely accepted “paradigms.” I’m also not trying to be smug about it, I’m just poking around for some answers. Of course I need to research the evolutionary theory more; I think its obvious from my comments that I do not have a firm grasp on it, and I never said I did. To stereotype me as someone who is “masquerading” as anything other than how I’ve reprented myself here is a load of crap, and I’m going to disregard that comment and soldier on. I would have thought you would have commended such intellectual honesty, but all I sense from you is a sharp disdain for “meddlesome” thinking that goes against what you hold to be true.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:43 am
*represented
November 17th, 2009 at 9:47 am
@crispin (251)
Testy, testy.
Yes, I read your response. You were asked to provide scientific evidence of Intelligent Design.
Your response?
Well, I read this book by a proponent of ID and it’s really super duper awesome. Also, you can look for the information yourself on an academic search engine.
I never asked you to summarize the book. That has nothing to do with the question. The question is whether you can remember any scientific evidence for ID. An author’s argument, as elegant as it may be, is not scientific evidence.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:52 am
@Scratch (254): OK, OK, sorry for being testy. It’s just that everyone is putting some sort of onus of proof on me when I never once espoused any side of the argument, and that’s not fair.
I will reiterate my main point: chemical evolution cannot be explained, as Richard Dawkins recently stated. That’s a fact. We don’t know how life rose from the primordial soup out of lifeless matter. That fact has led me to consider ID viewpoints on the issue. I don’t have any scientific proofs to throw at you, and I don’t even have the book on me to reference some of his points, so I am sorry I cannot provide this information right now. I am just open to the idea that an intelligent “other” of some sort could have possibly played a role in this phenomenon. If you disagree, fine. I’m not looking for a debate.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:07 am
@crispin (255)
No worries. However, it does seem that you are on the side of ID and creationism.
The lack of scientific knowledge about abiogenesis is not evidence of ID. It seems as though you are using a God of the gaps.
Do you believe in biological evolution?
November 17th, 2009 at 10:13 am
@Scratch (256): I know it appears that I am some creationist troll with a hidden agenda, but I am honestly not at all. I realize that lack of scientific knowledge on abiogenesis does not immediately validate ID, but to completely ignore their explanation is, in my mind, to ignore a unique point of view that could at the very least lend some opposing views to the issue.
I do think that I believe most of what biological evolution entails. Like I told Randall, I do need to brush up on my knowledge of the subject, as I am in no way an expert. I’m more interested in this question of how abiogenesis works, because that seems to be a very key point in the process, and without scientific consensus on the subject I feel that all viewpoints, popular or unpopular, are worth hearing.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:34 am
@ crispin (257)
Alright, I think I see where you stand.
In the absence of a definitive explanation, I don’t think all viewpoints on a subject are valid.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it’s maybe more of a philosophy. As such, I don’t see how it can be seen as another view or possibility on abiogenesis.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:05 am
@Crispin et al re ID:
The 2005 court case in Dover, Pennsylvania decided by Judge Jones III has sufficiently destroyed the ID/Creationist movement, having found that they are one in the same, and that defendants had lied about their religious views in order to veil their original intent. “Intelligent” Design was found to be a specifically Christian ideology, at least when it comes to the movement to teach it in public schools.
Intelligent Design/Creation proponents often have to ignore previous knowledge of natural phenomena in order to claim that “God Did It”. The methods of the Discovery Institute, Kirk Cameron, et al have been nothing but dishonest, both ethically and intellectually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
November 17th, 2009 at 11:06 am
One of the problems with Intelligent Design (other than the ones Randall pointed out) is the fact that if there is a design to nature, it is far from intelligent.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:43 am
@crispin (252):
Sorry, crispin, but I’m still not buying your line.
“Dead wrong. I’m just a guy exploring the issue.”
If you were merely a “guy exploring the issue,” then you first would have spent more time learning about evolutionary biology… certainly enough to know that there is no reason to doubt “macro” evolution. Nevertheless, you expressed such doubts–I believe you said something about it not being at all proven or some such thing–which signals to me that you are either hiding an agenda from us—or are hiding a bias from yourself.
“You sound like more of a dogmatist yourself when you say that there is “no way to be on the fence.””
Naturally you would say this, because the line you repeat ad nauseum is that you are “oh so reasonable and open minded,” clearly implying that any who do not share your “open mindedness” (which in fact is itself a bias masquerading as something else) are themselves scientific dogmatists.
Whenever someone so vocally refers to those who accept a prevailing scientific paradigm (that has been PROVEN, TESTED, and reliably explains nearly every aspect of modern biology) as “close-minded” either by inference or direct accusation, it’s a sure danger sign that the person making such a statement is in reality harboring an anti-science, creationist point of view. Calling it “intelligent design” doesn’t change this fact.
Now, I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on this. Perhaps you are as you say are; simply someone interested in getting at the bottom of things. In that case I merely point out that you are painfully misguided in your method of going about it. You have made erroneous statements regarding evolutionary biology. You have further made statements that by implication lend to ID a level of credence that it simply does not deserve. You are a layman trying to formulate an opinion for something on which you are not an expert, and while you have every right to seek knowledge and understanding–and I applaud that you do so–you ought to go more carefully given the gaps in your knowledge to begin with.
“Sorry, I constantly challenge all of my beliefs, even if they are widely accepted “paradigms.””
And you do this… why? What useful purpose does it serve? Are you telling me that you go around challenging your belief in gravity? In thermodynamics? Do you go around challenging your certainty that fire is hot? Do you challenge the facts that describe respiration, so that you’re occasionally forced to hold your breath from time to time?
This is silly. Forgive me, but you’re doing it again—blowing smoke up your own ass. Listen to the pomposity of it: “Sorry, I constantly challenge all of my beliefs, even if they are widely accepted “paradigms.”” It positively rings with smug self-assurance that YOU are right and everyone else who doesn’t share your willingness to “challenge” is wrong and close-minded. You can barely hide the pride that you glow with, that you don’t accept the “paradigms.” (and note the qualifying quotation marks around the word, which you employed). You are speaking as an egotist who is trying very hard to sound reasonable, rational and scientific. In fact, MORE reasonable and rational and scientific than those who don’t agree with you. This is not the path to wisdom and awareness.
“I’m also not trying to be smug about it, I’m just poking around for some answers.”
You’re failing, trust me.
“Of course I need to research the evolutionary theory more; I think its obvious from my comments that I do not have a firm grasp on it, and I never said I did.”
Nevertheless, you have made statements that implied conclusions and doubts—which you do NOT possess the necessary knowledge to make.
“To stereotype me as someone who is “masquerading” as anything other than how I’ve reprented myself here is a load of crap, and I’m going to disregard that comment and soldier on.”
Of course you would; again, if I’m right you’d never admit it. If I was wrong about it, it’s unlikely you’d have made some of the statements you’ve made here, and unlikely you’d have the attitude you have.
I freely admit I could be wrong, of course. I simply doubt that I am.
“I would have thought you would have commended such intellectual honesty, but all I sense from you is a sharp disdain for “meddlesome” thinking that goes against what you hold to be true.”
More shallow self-congratulation. No, crispin, I am no dogmatist, and I DO commend and applaud intellectual honesty—SINCERE intellectual honesty. Again, if you ARE being sincere, then I point out that you are a trifle misguided and need to do some more work on this topic before you go snuggling up to the ID camp.
If you’re insincere, then we really aren’t ever going to get anywhere—and neither are you.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
@lo (243): lo! As always, as well as can be, under the circumstances. I’ll be, at least, refreshed in a couple of weeks. My husband and I are off, in just over a week, to our bi-yearly 10 day Kauai trip.
I spend most of my time in the water, snorkeling.
We have the hotelier empty out the honor bar, and provide us with china and silverware and glassware. We grocery shop for salad and fruit, and make our own dinners in room (we always have the same room, nothing but ocean outside our windows). It’s very romantic.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
@Randall (260):
“And you do this… why? What useful purpose does it serve? Are you telling me that you go around challenging your belief in gravity?”
I laughed.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Randall- Too true. I don’t know when exactly it happened but at some point the creationists decided to use open mindedness as a tactic against science. It really is a rather brilliant strategy albeit totally disingenuous. Imagine the absurdity of Christians telling the world of their open mind. Where is their open mind on gay rights? Where is the Christian literalists open mind on German higher crit. Or on the brilliant work of the Jesus seminar. Its almost non-existant. And they choose to call us close minded because we accept verifiable science. Too funny.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
“There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of “microevolution”–they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the “facthood” of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.
There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is “only” a theory which can’t be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.
We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word “fact.”
In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a “fact” since there are reasonable alternatives.
Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be “proven” and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999…9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won’t do in the real world. A “fact,” as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.
The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ….
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.”
– H. J. Muller, “One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough” School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.
November 17th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Well i completely agree with comment no. 70.. i mean where are the eastern breakthroughs? how about ayurveda or geometry discoveries made long before by indians?
November 17th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
@Randall (260): I would much rather that you address some of my questions posted above and clear up some of my doubts than have you speculate on what kind of person I am to make sure I am not a creationist in disguise. I can assure you I am earnest and my motivation is to learn something.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I wish people would stop bitching that this list is too “Western”. We work with what we know. Most Western students are much more well-versed in the Western canon, just as I assume most Chinese students are familiar with their own cultural figures than, say, Russian literature or Greek philosophy. YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO WRITE YOUR OWN DAMN LIST, instead of bitching about someone else who actually took the time to write a VERY well-done list.
If you want to come up with Eastern alternatives to quantum mechanics and evolutionary theory, or if you think there were greater Eastern scientific minds than the likes of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, or if you think there’s a work of Eastern music that rivals the Ring Cycle – leitmotifs, operatic virtuosity, orchestrations, libretto, and all – then go ahead and make your list.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I havent read everything here (and dont think I want to because these debates make me angry) so I only read the last 2 responses and I will reply to part of Damien’s quote:
@ Damien (and Crispin), there is no difference between micro and macro evolution – distinguishing the 2 is just a convenient distraction.
Smaller organisms (and animals in general) have FASTER REPRODUCTIVE CYCLES and shorter life spans, which means that evolution happens faster, which means we can see it happening.
The same process happens in larger animals (flora). The only reason you cant “see” it happening is because LARGER ANIMALS REPRODUCTIVE CYCLES ARE SLOWER and their life spans are longer. This means you wont necessarily see their evolution in ‘real time’, but we know it is the exact same process at work in larger animals.
ERGO, micro and macro evolution are NOT different things – they are the SAME i.e just plain old evolution at work in ALL organisms, regardless of size. Incidentally, genetics has pretty much proved it.
@Damien, When scientists say they cant say any of their theories are 100% true, they are interested in being precise and careful. How many religious people do you know who are interested in being precise and careful? I know none who will challenge their belief in a god that they have no proof exists. However, I know scientists will give me evidence and a theory that fits it. Damien, the guy you quoted is a dolt. The fact that you chose a quote from the 1950s (prior to genetic advances) says a lot.
evolution.berkeley.edu
A one-stop site for all of your evolution needs and all for free! Beginners classes, FAQs, news items, essays etc.
–
The problem with creationists and the whole ‘open-mind’ idea is that they are not putting forward a scientific viewpoint. They are challenging science with theology/philosophy – and that is NOT a scientific debate because creationism puts forth no evidence for their theories that have not been immediately debunked.
@ Crispin, Putting forth or challenging an alternative viewpoint without being sufficiently educated on those ideas is NOT the same thing as having an ‘open-mind’.
November 17th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
One more thing…
@ Crispin,
If you want to know about abiogenesis you need to understand the whole theory of evolution. You cant take one part of the theory out of context and study it alone – you need a firm grasp on all the principles involved in the process. To do any less would be akin to taking a quote out of context, or cherrypicking.
You to the berkeley site I wrote in the last post above and it should get you started.
November 17th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
@Toad (269): “When scientists say they cant say any of their theories are 100% true, they are interested in being precise and careful.”
Who’s arguing that fact? Certainly not the gentleman I referenced. He was trying to dismiss the “nit-picking” epistemological argument against evolution. On this point, I agree with him. Though the quote might be outdated by your standards, the underlying principle holds true.
And the citation does not refute or imply that macro and micro evolution are different. Can you quote from it and point that out to me?
Beware of dismissing ‘outdated’ information. There is still wisdom there.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Finally a good list, but whats with #1? The rest are great!!!
November 17th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
@ lo (238)
Your point makes sense, but I think the key thing to focus on is the option part of crispin’s and lleana’s comment as well. While it is fully possible to live without purposely harming animals, or at least minimizing this hurt, it is impossible to survive without consuming plant material. Thus, you can choose to avoid hurting animals without bringing any harm to yourself, but avoiding eating ALL living matter would certainly kill you, and is not an option for any human I know of. I think what they mean to say is that we have a moral obligation to treat organisms as equals when we can without harm, simply because we can. In my opinion, any organism’s primary goal is to survive, and this also applies to humans of course. Once the goal is met, there is no excuse to not treat all as equals, since we as humans have the ability to reason about this and make these choices, and in my opinion are thus obligated to do so.
@Toad
I don’t think the difference in micro and macro evolution is quite what you think it is. You refer to it as a scale of size, while it in fact refers more to a time scale. Microevolution occurs at different rates for different organisms indeed, but macroevolution refers to the eventual speciation that occurs once organisms become different enough due to a very long time of microevolution occurring. Perhaps I misunderstood your point and if this is the case I apologize.
November 17th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
@calm_incense (268):
The problem with saying that Western people work with what they know is assuming that Western people cannot easily search for information on other achievements not from their own culture. I mean, the internet has been around for a few years now and google is quite useful in helping people find millions of pieces of information. Using “well it’s what we know or have been taught” is not a good excuse.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
the real definition of “macro-evolution” is “a change on or above the level of species, such as a speciation event.” it has absolutely nothing to do with the physical size of the organisms undergoing the genetic changes.
but it does make perfect sense to say “macro-evolution” is nothing more than “micro-evolution” all added up over long periods of time, this is true.
and lastly “flora” are plants, like the word floral….. if someone wants to use those terms “fauna” is the one you want for animals, of any size…….
November 17th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
When I saw the title “10 Great Achievements of the Human Mind” a lot of question marks popped on my head.
Then I scrolled down the list and I said like, “Oh.”
I thought I would be reading stuff about telekenesis, telepathy, tele-what-may-care and mind control.
HAHAHA, my bad.
Anyway, though it’s not a source of debate right now, list contributors should give great care in giving titles to their lists. It was an indirect source of controversy before (i.e., the certain pulled-out list which caused JFrater to issue an apology) and it can be a source of controversy again in the future.
Then again, controversy and possible controversies is what make people read these lists in the first place.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
You forgot something, Music.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
@ jstar (272):
I want to smack you so badly.
@ Brian S. (274):
Bull shit.
The author of this list is not “obligated” to learn shit. What he or she wishes to learn about is completely up to him or her. There aren’t “quotas” on how culturally thorough each individual’s leisurely use of researching ought to be.
It goes without saying that the Western canon is much more accessible to Westerners, Internet or not. I didn’t need the Internet to find out about Sheakespeare, quantum mechanics, or evolutionary theory. Even taking the Internet into account, it is easy to find people talking about their love for Wagner’s music. It’s not quite so easy to find people talking about, say, some pre-colonial Indonesian gamelan instrumentalist. You’d be hard-pressed to find such discussion on the Internet even in Indonesian. It goes without saying that Western art tends to be much more person-centered and well-documented, unlike non-western art, which tends to have much more of an “anonymous” factor.
Altogether, the likes of Aristotle and Newton weren’t included because the author found them on the Internet, but because he or she (as well as most of us) was raised with them in the tradition of common knowledge.
The main point is, though, that this is the author’s list, not yours. The content of the list certainly fits the title, and your protest that it does not focus on the East is a personal quibble (a “special interest”, if you will) that is completely irrelevant to the quality and validity of the list ad it currently exists.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
You know what I hate about the evolution argument? There is no proof that it is truth, and there is no proof otherwise. You don’t need to prove someone wrong, because that’s not really wise. Learn to leave people how they are and only defend your beliefs instead of attacking theirs. It doesn’t give evolution a good name, it doesn’t give religion a good name, and it doesn’t give humanity a good name. Tolerance is more important than the “truth”. At least to me it is, but of course, I just don’t really like people, so I guess I am being hypocritical.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:29 am
I found Wagner to be the most interesting addition. Admittedly till before this list I was unaware of his existance and influnce, since opera is one of the forms of art which I have not been able to follow. The rest of the entries are good and the arguements bear testimony to the author’s thought process. Good job!!
November 18th, 2009 at 3:11 am
Love the list, personally I’d have Shakespeare at the top of my list. It is nigh-on impossible to go a day without having Shakespeare enter your life in an English speaking country. His influence is everywhere in the spoken work, idioms, and corporate brands often try to borrow some Shakespearean integrity with their names.
Feargy
http://anactorslife.wordpress.com
November 18th, 2009 at 4:53 am
@Razi (277):
Razi, that comment is so stupid you made me puke my pants.
November 18th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Wow… such a broad title for a list. I’m surprised you narrowed it own to 10 and I certainly agree that all these people deserve to be here. The human mind is certainly a wonderful and creative thing and I sure know there are lots of other people who would qualify to be on this list!
November 18th, 2009 at 8:50 am
@crispin (267):
And what questions are those?
You know, again, while I applaud anyone’s attempt to further their knowledge, it strikes me that you’re not at all a dumb person, and should therefore be able to find the answers you’re looking for on your own. But even if you choose to find them by this means, on the internet, it doesn’t strike me that “List Universe” would be the first place I’d go to for answers, if I was sincerely looking for them. I’d be seeking out evolutionary biologists to specifically answer questions about evolution, and look at some science sites devoted to this sort of thing.
http://www.talkreason.org/Links.cfm — is just one such site which provides links to various sources which can answer questions, or send people to places where they can find them. There are countless others.
But again—why the internet? Why ask your questions here? If you’re that in earnest about the subject, why not take a course in evolutionary biology? Why not just go and talk to an evolutionary biologist?
It seems to me that bringing your questions to a site like this is really the act of someone who isn’t sincerely looking for actual answers, but is looking to set up a debate so he can present the case for Intelligent Design. When I read through some of your postings, I got that distinct impression.
Now if true, you’re already biased and aren’t really here to see answers.
If I’m wrong, however, then I have to ask, again–why here?
November 18th, 2009 at 9:45 am
@Randall (284): It seems to me that bringing your questions to a site like this is really the act of someone who isn’t sincerely looking for actual answers, but is looking to set up a debate so he can present the case for Intelligent Design. When I read through some of your postings, I got that distinct impression.
I agree. I tried to ignore his little subtle interjections along those lines in my first responses to him. That is, until he exposed himself by touting his ID book as if he was a shill for the publisher or something.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Concerning the debate on evolution and abiogenesis:
This is far, far, far from my field of research, but doesn’t the Miller–Urey experiment casts at least some light on the problem of abiogenesis?
November 18th, 2009 at 10:13 am
Typo: cast, not casts.
November 18th, 2009 at 10:47 am
@Calm_incense (278):
If you look at my previous posts I have never once stated that this list needs to be Eastern centered or that the list creator is “obligated” to learn about other cultures. I simply observed that every person on this list with something attributed to their mind was a rich, white, European male. Then I pointed out that everyone has the opportunity to learn using the internet and that the author didn’t take that opportunity. Personally, I like the list. Don’t get me confused with the other people who are saying it should include Eastern philosophy. Hell, I don’t even care about that. What I’m saying is the list uses only a very small group of people to choose from which, while each item mentioned is a wonderful achievement, is incomplete. Like I mentioned before what about the invention of algebra? Or like someone else mentioned what about Madame Curie’s works? These are very notable achievements that were overlooked. Which I guess is what happens when you have to pick ten great achievements for the sake of space. You will always get assholes like me thinking something should be different.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
@Kanza (286):
“This is far, far, far from my field of research, but doesn’t the Miller–Urey experiment casts at least some light on the problem of abiogenesis?”
The Miller-Urey experiment showed how organic matter can be created in a lab, under conditions which are as close to identical as though supposed to have been prevalent on the early earth as we can get. As Carl Sagan said, no one’s performed the experiment yet and had something crawl out of the flask, but then nature had millions of years to make this work.
What the experiment shows is that it is not at all difficult to “create” organic matter out of inorganic materials. That alone does, yes, support the notion that life could have developed from ultimately inorganic matter, since the next presumed step is that you get nucleic acids, and, of course, DNA. At least that’s how it happened on earth.
That’s the missing step that we don’t yet know–we can put together organic matter, and organic matter is already known to exist in the cosmos, including in our own solar system (Titan for instance, is assumed to be awash in the stuff) but the jump from that to “life” is what we haven’t got to yet.
Creationists/intelligent designers will say that this invalidates the notion of abiogenesis, and by extension evolutionary theory. (The latter is ridiculous, however… evolutionary theory really has nothing to do with abiogenesis, and it still operates no matter HOW life was originally formed). But of course this isn’t at all so. It simply means that we haven’t gathered enough knowledge yet to make an informed call. It’s like, let’s say you’re sitting in your living room, and a baseball comes smashing through your window. You get up and look out and there’s no one there, but there’s the sound of running footsteps and there’s a bat and a glove discarded on the ground. We might make the deduction that some kids had just been playing ball and they’d hit the thing into your living room window. We didn’t SEE it happen and can’t yet prove how it happened. That would take a little investigation and time. But the creationist/ID argument is, since we can’t see how the ball got into the living room, then god must have tossed it there.
Frankly, I’ve always felt the Miller-Urey experiment actually shows us how close we are to the answer. Clearly life was not at all difficult a creation. Organic matter was easily composed on the earth given the conditions, and clearly the conditions were then also right for that organic matter to eventually form into life itself. The likeliest step being that these crude bits of organic matter stumbled upon a way to make crude copies of themselves, and from there to begin specialization.
How EXACTLY they accomplished this, we don’t yet know. Big deal. We’ve only been at this for a few decades at best. Nature had millions, if not billions of years, to make it happen. Intelligent designers want to call the game awfully early. I say the game only just started, and there’s not a cloud in the sky. AND we’ve already got a runner on base–the Miller/Urey experiment.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
@Randall (289): AND we’ve already got a runner on base–the Miller/Urey experiment.
The IDers have already waived their guy home. But it’s a phantom runner, so it doesn’t count in the box score.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
@Maggot (290):
Well there’s no way they’re winning the game anyway, because they don’t even have a team.
How far can we take this retarded metaphor I wonder?
November 18th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
@Randall (284): You’re absolutely correct, as JFrater has pointed out today, the Internet is probably not the best place to educate myself on the topic. I’m not sure why I brought it up in this thread; I just had a boring day at work and had the questions on my mind and came to ListVerse and voila–we arrive where we are now. I will certainly investigate the sources you have provided. Thanks for the advice, I will definitely take it to task. I hope to be able to return to a LV debate much more prepared and sure of the facts. Cheers.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
@crispin (292):
Randall’s definitely right there. Biology is a fascinating discipline, even studying things like microscopic biology can be an incredibly enlightening thing. For instance, you share the same genetic code as every other species on this planet, and, as far as we know, the universe. The codes for our DNA are all universal, the only difference being the way in which they’re arranged. It is a fascinating supporting factor for evolution. College Biology is much different than any other science class you’ve ever taken and it’s an incredibly enlightening experience, however as a warning it’s a lot of studying and a lot of work, so be prepared.
Good luck.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Definitely one of my favorite lists in a long time from this site!
November 19th, 2009 at 12:55 am
236– the fact that the list isn’t tightly focused on any certain criteria is absolutely appropriate. The human mind is capable of not only reflection in depth but on a vast array of topics.
I usually refrain from critique but am afraid that the inclusion of numero 1 on the list at all is a big reach, much less having it as THE primary example of accomplishments of the human brain, period. I cannot remember the name of the physicist but ill quote him anyway that “if you put 1,000 philosophers in a room for 1,000 years you still wouldn’t come up with anything more bizarre than quantum mechanics”. Also Shakespeare’s “works” just might be THE all-time humanist accomplishment. Ill put it second just behind quantum mechanics though its close. An operatic mechanism may be interesting but it hardly ranks on the all time list of produce of the human mind. I’d say civilization should replace the ring theory or whatever its called– nothing we have accomplished could have been remotely possible had man not sacrificed the right to act instinctively to society in order that a social compact that gives rise to order may follow.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:28 am
@ brosiusjb (295):
I find it utterly fascinating that you can completely disregard Wagner and yet immediately afterward suggest that Shakespeare’s artistry might be the pinnacle of human intellectual achievement. I am at a loss for words in trying to fathom your apparent system of reasoning behind this.
Then again, perhaps I find it even more fascinating that you could so easily shrug off Wagner’s Ring Cycle while so clearly not being familiar it in the least, as evident by your reference to it as “the ring theory or whatever its [sic] called”.
You might as well say, “Sigmund Freud was a much superior scientist to Isaiah Fig Newton or whatever he’s called.”
*sigh*
This kind of ignorance truly does depress me. Hell, brosiusjb’s comment probably ruined my whole night. Ugh.
November 19th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Love the list;
The COMMERCIALS are so annoying, especially on the autostart about mucus… Can you at least select that they don’t start playing unless I ask them too? I wanted to forward that list to my 27,679 followers on twitter, but because of the stupid commercial that coughs and screams LOUDLY – I can’t. Sorry.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Quantum mechanics at no. 4 ?? Shame.
As for the Ring Cycle, there is no reason why it should be no. 1. Others are way better, in terms complexity & mental ability required to work em out or, for us laypeople, to even understand what they are about.
At least the selection (& not their order) was good.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
^ What single work would you pick over the Ring Cycle?
November 19th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
this is a shit list mankind has come up with way better thing than this shit…the great wall, the hanging gardens of babalon, the pyrmids…. all that was in the human mind befor it was created and yall have the dumbest stuff ever
November 19th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
brosiusjb, you’re off the hook. jake’s post above just took the proverbial cake.
November 20th, 2009 at 2:45 am
I also belive that this list is eurocentric. The Pyramids. There they are in front of you people and yet nobody can say for sure how they came about. And they were created by a human mind.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:02 am
The pyramids might be baffling to the human mind, but there really isn’t any intellectual component to them from which we could reap any benefit. You basically just look at them and that’s it. Compare that to the incredible implications behind quantum mechanics and evolutionary theory, or the incredible depth of the works of Shakespeare and Wagner. Including physical feats like the pyramids or the Great Wall just doesn’t fit this list very well at all.
Oh, and I’m still disgusted by jake’s comment. Reading stupid comments by stupid people makes ListVerse a lot less enjoyable than it should be.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
WITTGENSTEIN MISSING?
HOW UNFORTUNATE
November 20th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Ok do you know how complex the universe is? Like, mind blowing complexity. Saying a god created our planet (he didn’t), creatures, humans would imply he would have to have created the universe. It makes ABOSOLUTELY no sense. God does NOT exist.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Wagner’s Ring cycle over Relativity and the Principia???
This HAS to be a joke…
November 20th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
@ kevin (306):
Kevin, let’s do a little reading exercise:
“I present here ten works of superlative genius, in no particular order.”
What do you reckon this means, Kevin?
November 20th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
calm_incense
A boring, pretentious, fifteen-hour wankfest doesn’t even belong in this list to begin with. The author could have at least put in an actual composer.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:36 am
Boring? If you say so, it must be.
Pretentious? If you say so, it must be.
Wankfest? If you say so, it must be.
Wagner not an actual composer? If you say so, it must be.
In case you didn’t get it, your “personal opinion” is not synonymous with “fact”.
Name me a piece and a composer who you think would belong on this list, and I’ll name someone who thinks the music is a boring, pretentious wankfest.
November 21st, 2009 at 1:51 am
Oh, so by your logic, hitler or family guy could be on the list and you wouldn’t have any qualms with it, since, according to you, any objections made by someone else is that person’s personal opinion.
BTW, I don’t think the holocaust was a great achievement, but that’s just me.
November 21st, 2009 at 1:53 am
@299 (calm_incense)
Republic (plato)
Wittgenstein
Pyramids
The Prince
Works Of Bertrand Russel (logic)
Summa Theologica
Reaching the moon
Godel’s incompleteness theorem (ingenious)
Language
Nano-tech
Computer
Harnessing electricity
Paradoxes (all)
I know there are literally hundreds more … but … these are all I could think of right now. I hope ppl suggest a lot of others
But above :
“I think, therefore I am”
p.s “The greatest achievements of the human mind are generally received with distrust.”
Arthur Schopenhauer
November 21st, 2009 at 1:53 am
@299 (calm_incense)
Republic (plato)
Wittgenstein
Pyramids
The Prince
Works Of Bertrand Russel (logic)
Summa Theologica
Reaching the moon
Godel’s incompleteness theorem (ingenious)
Language
Nano-tech
Computer
Harnessing electricity
Paradoxes (all)
I know there are literally hundreds more … but … these are all I could think of right now. I hope ppl suggest a lot of others
But above all:
“I think, therefore I am”
p.s “The greatest achievements of the human mind are generally received with distrust.”
Arthur Schopenhauer
November 21st, 2009 at 1:55 am
srry … double post.
November 21st, 2009 at 2:45 am
@ kevin (310):
If you’re honestly suggesting that the difference between the Ring Cycle and that work by that composer that you consider superior to the Ring Cycle (and yet mysteriously have yet to share its identity), in regard to its validity of placement on this list, is the same difference between the Ring Cycle and Hitler and/or Family Guy, then that must be one hell of a work and/or composer, and you really must share.
@ 7raul7 (311):
I was specifically referring to music.
November 21st, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Oh dear, my poor human brothers and sisters…. no human achevievement matters. we are blind maggots existing for brief momements in time. our existance is not noticed in the complex nature of the universe. we cant comprehend what a god is. we still shit in holes.oh music-vibrating air! the photocopier holds a good beat too, shall i praise it? Ha! human beings and their arrogence. Ha, how amusing! oh quantum mechanics? go forth, deeper into the rabbit hole children and find your nightmares answered!
November 21st, 2009 at 9:14 pm
@Titanium Black (315): Would you like fries with that?
November 22nd, 2009 at 12:02 am
onion rings > fries
I don’t know why fries are so popular. Onion rings are so much tastier. Fries are overrated as fuck. It pisses me off.
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:31 am
@Titanium Black (315):
“No human achievement matters.”
Maybe not to you…
“We are blind maggots existing for brief moments in time.”
I agree with the latter half of that statement.
“Our existence is not noticed in the complex nature of the universe.”
Does it have to be?
“We can’t comprehend what a god is.”
Do we need to?
“We still shit in holes.”
If you can think of a better place let me know…
“The photocopier holds a good beat too, shall I praise it?”
If you like.
You lost me after “oh quantum mechanics?”
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
You praise Wagner and make no mention of Mozart??
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I can’t stand people who idealize Mozart as if he was unparalleled.
Those people are so obnoxious. No taste. No substance.
Just sheep.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:57 am
@Randall (289):
Thanks for the explanation. I didn’t know if the experiment had been recently refuted or put under some kind of suspicion. It really seemed to me that it was a very proficuous path to the investigation of abiogenesis, and you have supported this notion very eloquently.
November 24th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Father Wagner made it! *proud*
November 24th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Of course he made it! I would never have left the Master off such a list.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Nice list. Personally I would have swapped Wagner’s Ring and the works of Shakespeare (I know you said no particular order but #1 is still #1).
November 27th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
^ And no particular order is still no particular order.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
@299 “What single work would you pick over the Ring Cycle?”
How about Tristan & Isolde, Mahler’s 2nd, 5th, 8th, and 9th symphonies, Beethoven last three string quartets, Bruckner’s 7th, 8th, and 9th symphonies, Strauss’s Four Last Songs, Schoenberg’s Verklärte Nacht, …
The Ring is certainly an achievement and I’ve travelled to other cities and other countries to experience it live. Don’t know if I would put it on my own top 10 list, but hey, that’s me. I think it’s Act 1 and 2 of Siegfried that keeps it from my own top 10.
January 11th, 2010 at 7:51 am
Mind blowing! Thanks for this!
January 30th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Placing an opera as the number one greatest achievement of the human mind? I’m surprised more listverse readers haven’t complained more about this. Opera, especially such works as those by Wagner, may be works of genius. But honestly, placing it ahead of Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity, or the development of quantum mechanics??? Some people have commented about how they disagree with the placement of “The Ring Cycle” at number 1, but state that this list’s author backed it up quite nicely. I disagree. Just because Wagner’s opera influenced other operas, doesn’t make it the number 1 greatest achievement of the human mind. I mean, The Beatles influenced culture a lot more than Wagner did, but I seriously doubt anyone would place them on such a list as this one. Placing Milton ahead of Shakespeare was a little weird, and the inclusion of Mozart or Beethoven, in my opinion, would have been a far better choice for this list than Wagner.
January 31st, 2010 at 5:08 am
Darwin’s Theory should be the worst achivement.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:19 am
Evolutionary Theory is not controversial in any way. It’s the truth. Belief in magic amongst grown men is controversial.