So there's this mystery about why so many intellectual greats are in the past, back when the population was much lower. I wonder if part of it is this: maybe if you're one of the top ~5 people at what you do, you try much harder than if you aren't. So maybe in the past someone of some talent level was one of the top 5 at philosophy (or whatever), and that meant they tried harder to excel than a modern who's at the same talent level but who is sure that they're not the greatest modern philosopher because of all the competition.
Ben Weinstein-Raun
in reply to Daniel Filan • •Daniel Filan likes this.
Ben Weinstein-Raun
in reply to Ben Weinstein-Raun • •Daniel Filan likes this.
Ben Millwood
in reply to Daniel Filan • •like this
Amber Dawn and Daniel Filan like this.
Daniel Filan
in reply to Ben Millwood • •Amber Dawn
in reply to Ben Millwood • •I kind of had the opposite reaction, which is 'the intellectual greats of the past do deserve their reputation, but are we sure there aren't proportionate amounts of intellectual greats today also?'
I wonder if it's more that there's a fixed quota of fame for being an intellectual great, or something? Like it's easier for someone to become famous and go down in history if they're the one best philosopher/scientist/writer/inventor/whatever in their region. Whereas if there are 1000 such ones, even if they are producing equally good work to the people of the past, people don't have like a 'famous people Dunbar number' that could absorb knowing about that many people, so the culture gravitates to making just a few famous (either the best, or maybe people who are intellectual but also charismatic/notorious/good at marketing themselves).
like this
Ben Millwood and Daniel Filan like this.