# Who are your most admired people and why?



## peeyaj

Interesting question:

*If your going to list the people who you admire most in your lifetime, who are they? And why do you admire them?*

They can be popular personalities, deceased persons, your friends, family, the intellectual professor in your class, the old man you see everyday, the composer who make you hum everyday and anyone! What qualities do you admire them? Do you want to have those qualities? Why do you admire them?

In my case, these are my most admired persons..

*1. Gregor Johann Mendel* (1822-1884)

- Austrian monk and geneticist. Father of Genetics. I came up with Mendel's life in my Biology class and ever since, I've admired this man. You have to be a great genius when you study and crossed 20,000 plants in 8 years! Even though his ideas were not accepted during his time, the rediscovery of his pionerring work in 1900's made him, one of the most important men in Science.

*2. Vincent van Gogh* (1853-1890)

- Dutch painter, considered as one of the greatest painter in history. van Gogh was always poor and he suffered from mental illness. In fact, he only sold one painting in his lifetime. But, amidst of all these, he created some of the most beautiful and expressive painting in the modern era.

*3. Franz Kafka*
(1883-1924)

- German-Jewish writer, one of the most important in 20th century. Ever since, I've read Kafka's Metamorphosis and The Trial, my admiration to this great man never cease. His literature is an important part of my being, and the nightmarish depiction of his stories, suits my temperament.

*4. Franz Peter Schubert* (1797-1828)

- Austrian composer, the Father of Lieder. I've joined TalkClassical because I want to discuss the work of Schubert. Schubert, in my estimation, is the greatest of Post-Classicists. He is important on the development of my appreciation to classical music. He died poor and penniless (his family can't even afford to pay the funeral), but his shadow in the Romantic era can never be denied. In my opinion, his death at the age of 31, is the greatest loss in music. Perhaps, my kinship with him stems for my being Romantic.

*5. Marie Curie* (1867-1934)

- Polish-French physicist and winner of two Nobel Prize. If your going to ask me, who will be the person I've wanted to talk to, Marie Curie will top my list. Madame Curie, is the special kind of genius. A woman, who is determined to face all the obstacles as a woman in a scientific world. It's ironic, that the cause of her death, is the thing she was known for : discovering Radioactivity.

Special mentions:

Albert Einstein
Nelson Mandela
Leonardo da Vinci
St. Thomas of Aquinas

Who are yours?


----------



## Fsharpmajor

In classical music, *Dmitry Shostakovich*.

In popular music, *Bob Dylan*.

In politics, *Mikhail Gorbachev*.

In science, *Alfred Wegener* (originator of the theory of continental drift).

I'll post some in other fields later, if I can think of any.


----------



## Polednice

I might think of some more later, but for science I'd definitely go for *Charles Darwin* - the originator of the greatest idea ever, with the most thrilling consequences to our knowledge and perception of ourselves.


----------



## Kieran

*Jesus Christ*, for obvious reasons.

*Mozart*, for being the greatest genius known to man.

*Cervantes*, for writing the greatest book.

*Michaelangelo*, for being an incomparable artist, poet, sculptor, architect...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

For Theology: *John Calvin*. There have been many great theologians in history, but he was the greatest (in my opinion).


----------



## Toccata

Queen Victoria - for presiding over the greatest Empire the world has ever seen

Pope John Paul II - for being the greatest religious leader in living memory

Winston Churchill - for being the greatest political leader in this country's greatest hour of need

Charles Dickens - for being the greatest novelist and story teller ever

Franz Schubert - for being the most touching of the greatest composers

Admiral Lord Nelson - for sorting out the French, and dying in the process 

Sir Thomas More - for placing God before King

Margaret Thatcher - for restoring credibilty to the UK's international image after years of decline

David Ricardo - for being one of the greatest and most influential classical economists

Sir Isaac Newton - for his enormous contributions to science and mathematics


----------



## Guest

William F. Buckley - the father of the modern American conservative movement

Jesus Christ - seems obvious

Joseph Smith - prophet of the restoration

Thomas Jefferson - for his too often forgotten ideas on the role of limited government

Humphrey Bogart - one of the greatest leading men the silver screen has ever known

Johann Sebastian Bach - a man that so perfectly wedded his incomparable music genius to his love of God

Mother Teresa - because I am amazed at how much just one person could give of herself to the poor

Ronald Reagan - changed the landscape of American politics, and proved false the claim that conservative principles couldn't win elections

Benjamin Franklin - an incredible individual who was a genius in too many ways to keep track


----------



## Guest

Toccata said:


> Queen Victoria - for presiding over the greatest Empire the world has ever seen
> 
> Pope John Paul II - for being the greatest religious leader in living memory
> 
> *Winston Churchill *- for being the greatest political leader in this country's greatest hour of need
> 
> *Charles Dickens *- for being the greatest novelist and story teller ever
> 
> Franz Schubert - for being the most touching of the greatest composers
> 
> Admiral Lord Nelson - for sorting out the French, and dying in the process
> 
> *Sir Thomas More *- for placing God before King
> 
> *Margaret Thatcher *- for restoring credibilty to the UK's international image after years of decline
> 
> David Ricardo - for being one of the greatest and most influential classical economists
> 
> *Sir Isaac Newton *- for his enormous contributions to science and mathematics


Toccata, you are going to be shocked, so brace yourself - but I actually like your list.:lol:


----------



## Machiavel

What are those obvious reasons for Jesus. I mean you know for a fact he did exist?


----------



## Polednice

*says to self a thousand times over, "do not come back to this thread, do not come back to this thread, do not come back to this thread"*


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Polednice said:


> I might think of some more later, but for science I'd definitely go for *Charles Darwin* - the originator of the greatest idea ever, with the most thrilling consequences to our knowledge and perception of ourselves.


Yea, the Apeman!!!


----------



## Almaviva

The unknown man who, seeing an ugly red animal that looked like an overgrown scorpion - a lobster - first thought: "I bet I can crack that thing open and eat it, and I bet it's quite tasty."

Edit - actually, a brownish animal. They turn read once they're cooked. Since I am in the habit of eating them only *after* they've been cooked, I kept the wrong color in my mind.


----------



## Argus

*takes notes*

Thatcher and Reagan.



Saul said:


> Yea, the Apeman!!!


Well, colour me suprised. I thought you'd be a big Darwin fan.:tiphat:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Not in any particluar order.

Leonardo da Vinci - for his amazing foresight and ideas

Sir Isaac Newton

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz - philosopher and mathematician

Joseph-Louis Lagrange - astronomer and mathematician

David Ricardo - classical economist

Charles Darwin

John Maynard Keynes - neoclassical (macro)economist

Deng Xiaoping - leader of China first responsible for beginning the process of improving the economic standard of living for the largest population on the planet in modern times

Joseph Stalin - a murderous tyrant for transforming a peasant economy into the space age and for contribution in destroying Nazi Germany

*George Frideric Handel* - arguably the first independent and cosmopolitan composer in the modern sense of the words


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Argus said:


> *takes notes*
> 
> Thatcher and Reagan.
> 
> Well, colour me suprised. I thought you'd be a big Darwin fan.:tiphat:


Yes, I like his fictional adaptations, almost as interesting as Tolkien.

Science fiction at its best...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Almaviva said:


> The unknown man who, seeing an ugly red animal that looked like an overgrown scorpion - a lobster - first thought: "I bet I can crack that thing open and eat it, and I bet it's quite tasty."


I always found it difficult to grasp how in the world people can eat those things...


----------



## Polednice

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Yes, I like his fictional adaptations, almost as interesting as Tolkien.
> 
> Science fiction at its best...


I've always admired Jesus and Moses ever since I saw them in a Death Match. Moses won.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Polednice said:


> I've always admired Jesus and Moses ever since I saw them in a Death Match. Moses won.


Then you must be older then Gandalf...or Mithrandir as others call him...


----------



## Aksel

In science:
Albert Einstein: Relativity and other crazy things
Stephen Hawking: Because of his work in physics
Charles Darwin: Evolution and all that jazz

In music:
Kirsten Flagstad: For being the greatest Wagner soprano of the last century and also one of the greatest Grieg singers of all (at least recorded) time.
Maria Callas: Her devotion to music, her scholarship and general talent
Edvard Grieg: Being the most prolific of the composers to whom Norwegians owe their musical identity.
Arne Nordheim: For daring to go his own ways, and being one of the most important Norwegian composers of the last century.
Georg Friedrich Händel: For being so darn good at writing vocal music.

Literature:
William Shakespeare: For writing some of the funniest, most tragic, most inspiring plays ever.
Knut Hamsun: For his language.
Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson: Being one of the most influential writers that shaped Norwegian litterature
Francois Rabelais: Proving that potty humour exists since 1532
Charles Dickens: For lovely books.


----------



## peeyaj

Pretty good choices so far..

I've wanted to add the ff:

*Charlie Chaplin*

Arguably the greatest comic author of all time. Chaplin' films are celebration of the human life, at its fullest. City Lights is my favorite film.

*Charles Darwin*

For helming the most important theory in biology and creating an all-encompassing explanation of the origin of life. Love him or hate him, Darwin is still, one of the greatest biologist of our time..


----------



## Guest

I kind of hoped that nobody would take to criticizing the choices of others. I commented on Toccata's selections because I agreed with certain ones. It seems rather ridiculous, though, to criticize a persons choices for who they most admire.

I thought I would add one more to my list. Many people have mentioned big names in science. I would add Edward Jenner. While not the first to innoculate to prevent smallpox, he gave us the vaccination - using something other than smallpox itself to protect against the deadly virus. And thanks to him, we have eradicated smallpox, and have worked since to develop more vaccines. I don't think it would be possible to overestimate the good that has come from his actions.

In the vein of the first person to try to eat a lobster, given my love of barbecue, then I'd love to meet the first person to learn how to properly cook a pig "low and slow".


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> I would add Edward Jenner. While not the first to innoculate to prevent smallpox, he gave us the vaccination - using something other than smallpox itself to protect against the deadly virus. And thanks to him, we have eradicated smallpox, and have worked since to develop more vaccines. I don't think it would be possible to overestimate the good that has come from his actions.


Reminded me of Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin, two independent people contributed to the eradication of polio in modern times.


----------



## Weston

Carl Sagan, for turning the romance of science into a kind of religious experience. 

Henry David Thoreau - for championing the individual and the different drummer. 

Ludwig van Beethoven - the indomitable human spirit incarnate.

Ian Anderson - for providing me with decades of indescribable idiosyncratic joy.

Paul Lehr - not a household name, but a marvelous illustrator and the finest excuse for a human being I have ever met.

Thomas Jefferson - free thinker, inventor, enlightened statesman.

N.C. Wyeth - who, along with Howard Pyle, could be considered the father of modern illustration.

Chesley Bonestell - the father of space art, who fired the imagination of millions of baby-boomers.

There are many, many others.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Well mine would be more religious then others, but here it goes:

*Abraham* - for been a source of light and hope in a world that is full of darkness.

*David *- The Sweet Singer of Israel, the King of Israel, a great composer and musician, filled with the wisdom of the Torah, and a great servant of God.

*Joseph* - for been a righteous servant of God in a country full of idols and wickedness.

*Moses* - For bringing God's message, will and law to humanity.

*My own father *for been my personal hero.

*My Rabbi* for offering unlimited guidance and support without requesting anything in return, a noble and righteous man, in the fullest sense of the word.

*The Holy Maccabbe Warriors,* who 2200 years ago were willing to give their lives for God's name, rejecting Greek Hellenism , and restoring Jewish life in all of Israel. Insisting that all secular and artistic pursuits were not the aim, but a means to a higher end, the service of God.


----------



## Almaviva

OK, seriously now, in addition to the lobster guy, just a short list (of course there are many others, and I'm aiming for adding to this thread, so I'm avoiding repetitions):

*Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi *for curbing an empire with the sheer force of a peaceful idea.

*Sigmund Freud *for opening up the doors to the human mind.

*Giuseppe Verdi *for turning personal tragedy into a formidable creative force.

*Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky *for the extraordinary psychological depth of his books.

I refuse to quote most politicians or statesmen. Like *Douglas Adams *(another one I admire for his fine humor) said, people who are actually qualified for these jobs from the ethical and moral standpoints rarely *want* these jobs, therefore don't run for office. And even though I don't approve of his most cruel advice to heads of state, I'd rather admire a political scientist like *Nicollò Machiavelli *for at least having the courage to say it how it is.

I'm not that impressed with most scientists. I think that science is a moving force on its own, independently of who is there at the right place and the right time to finalize some discovery or some theory, most of the time by building up on top of what predecessors had done before. The few scientists that I do admire are those who built their theories almost out of thin air, without merely supporting themselves on a vast body of ever moving knowledge (this is why I did quote a scientist above, Freud). These are the really creative minds. Most scientists - with exceptions, of course - are just methodical and diligent workers, and those who get recognized and famous often were just lucky for being the first ones to publish the results, not to forget that these results often come from the work of a vast team of underlings. One of these days, for example, I was reading about the commonly held notion (by lay people) that Guglielmo Marconi invented the radio. It turns out that he was good at filing patents, but his own contribution to a vast line of previous and subsequent developments was rather minuscule.

*Mrs. Almaviva *for being so intelligent, pretty, solid and substantial, a great mother to my kids, and a great companion.

But I do admire the lobster guy, and the guy who figured out how to make wine.


----------



## peeyaj

@Almaviva

I admire you for including your mother in the list. I've wanted to, but I don't want to be labeled as a 19 years old momma's boy!  jk..

Is it only me, but I find lot of TC's members are conservatives and there are few liberals here??


----------



## Pieck

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Yes, I like his fictional adaptations, almost as interesting as Tolkien.
> 
> Science fiction at its best...


The bible is science fiction at its best (also the new testamony)


----------



## Guest

peeyaj said:


> Is it only me, but I find lot of TC's members are conservatives and there are few liberals here??


Funny, in my experience it is just the opposite.


----------



## Art Rock

It may depend where you take the cut-off point.... An American liberal is a European conservative.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

DrMike said:


> Funny, in my experience it is just the opposite.


Mine too...


----------



## Guest

Pieck said:


> The bible is science fiction at its best (also the new testamony)


*sigh* I guess some people just can't help themselves.

All of you do know that, in fact, all your criticisms on here do mount to personal attacks? The question is what person(s) do you most admire - so if you attack the person that is admired, then you are also leveling criticism at the individual that made the selection. And I am also refering to people who criticized the choice of Darwin, not just those who have decided to take cheap shots at Christ and now the Bible. What, are we all like 15 on here, thinking we have to **** in everybodies' corn flakes the first chance we get?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Pieck said:


> The bible is science fiction at its best (also the new testamony)


Az Ma ata Ose BeIsrael? Ma Hazchut shelha Ba'aretz?

Lama David Ben Gurion Hechzik Besefer Hatanch leefnie Haoom, ve'Amar she Sefer Hatanch Mohiach, sh'Eretz Israel Shayach la'yehudim?


----------



## mueske

Almaviva said:


> *Sigmund Freud *for opening up* all the wrong* doors to the human mind.


Sorry, couldn't resist.

Mine would be:

*Beethoven*: nicely described by Weston, I agree with his sentiment

And another one from Weston's list:

*Thoreau*; also for the same reasons as Weston. 

Next, someone from Almaviva's list:

*Dostoevsky*: For creating characters with whom I can very much relate. For not being affraid of embracing the irrational, and for the wonderful melancholy that seem to surround most of his work.

*Géry van Outryve d'Ydewalle*: My professor in experimental psychology. Hugely intelligent, yet humble man. Very much in touch with his students. His courses made me "fall in love" with experimental psychology and the workings memory and language.
If I can achieve half as much as this man, I'll die happy.


----------



## Almaviva

peeyaj said:


> @Almaviva
> 
> I admire you for including your mother in the list. I've wanted to, but I don't want to be labeled as a 19 years old momma's boy!  jk..
> 
> Is it only me, but I find lot of TC's members are conservatives and there are few liberals here??


My mother? She's a nice old lady, but I was talking about my wife!

I don't know about any majority of conservatives; some members may just be more outspoken about it. As far as American members go (for other countries I wouldn't know) I belive that statistically speaking, chances are that we have about 50% of conservatives (including there conservative-leaning moderates) and 50% of liberals (including there liberal-leaning moderates) as shown by the results of the last several presidential elections, because this is what we see in the general population; so, if this is a valid sample of the population (probably it isn't - opera fans, for instance, tend to be much older than the average age for the general population), we'd tend to see about the same numbers.


----------



## Almaviva

mueske said:


> Sorry, couldn't resist.


Oh well, even when you open wrong doors, you invite people in and the right doors can be found. There's lots of merit in his pioneering work, even if some of his conclusions were wrong (also, you have to consider that during his lifetime he didn't have at his disposition many of the modern tools for neurobiological research that came much later - but he did get people thinking, and even hinted at what was to come - see, for instance, his _Project for a Scientific Psychology_).


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> *sigh* I guess some people just can't help themselves.
> 
> All of you do know that, in fact, all your criticisms on here do mount to personal attacks? The question is what person(s) do you most admire - so if you attack the person that is admired, then you are also leveling criticism at the individual that made the selection. And I am also refering to people who criticized the choice of Darwin, not just those who have decided to take cheap shots at Christ and now the Bible. What, are we all like 15 on here, thinking we have to **** in everybodies' corn flakes the first chance we get?


Excellent points. Lately we've been on a descending curve regarding civility and mutual respect. Why should a thread focused on admirable great human beings degenerate into people being sarcastic and dismissive of others' choices and beliefs? We are all different and we praise different things. But different people can still live in harmony. [Alma, in a saintly mood]


----------



## Chris

*Sir Isaac Newton *- for innumerable contributions to the sciences, including the discovery of calculus...unless you are German and insist of giving that honour to Gottfried Leibnitz 

*Carl Linnaeus *- the Swedish naturalist who devised the taxonomic system we use to classify living things.

I will omit biblical characters but I second Saul's choice of the *Maccabbean warriors *for their revolt against the Seleucid oppressors and the evil Antiochus Epiphanes. A truly exciting bit of history.


----------



## toucan

_______________

1. - The person I have most admired was a private individual who introduced me to good letters and the arts and knew the difference between good literature and mediocre literature, irrespective of reputation.

2. - I can see why so many people here are interested in the sciences. It is because many scientists have been very good amateur chamber musicians. My, one of them even claimed to be a composer: Iannis Xenakis.

My scientists: Isaac Newton, Lavoisier, Laplace (whose cosmology - the eternity of the laws of nature - I hope is true because I admire the grandeur of his conception, and also the moral ramifications: whatever is always has been, always is, always will be, just take it for granted, and move on), and Cuvier: the Classical scientists ( Natural Philosophers, not narrow specialists) whose orderly view of Nature (no doubt endangered in Cuvier by occasional catastrophy) - matches the orderliness of Mozart's cosmos (no doubt enlived in Mozart by force of passion and sheer drama).

There were also educated gentlemen who knew how to make their researches accessible to educated gentlement who are not scientists, without dumbing the subject down (unlike the popularisers of today)

Also D'Arcy Tompson (On growth and form) and Stephane Leduc (Les bases physiques de la vie et la biogenese). D'arcy Thompson and Leduc did pretty much the same thing: they compared organic and inorganic processes and found great similarities between the two. They drew drastically different conclusions from the same line of observations, however: Thompson thought the common processes led to a common, unmaterial cause, while Leduc thought it corroborated a materialist philosophy.

Vladimir Vernadsky, The Biosphere, the correlations between geological, meteorological and biological processes Vernadsky has documented. Vernadsky's biosphere, because of its coherence, is basically Aristotle's Cosmos, but confirmed and solidified by means of modern chemical analysis. In short, Vernadsky is still Classical science - modernized.

An odd thing about Vernadsky. He was politically on the right & a member of the Cadet government during the parliamentary phase of the Russian Revolution. Yet he was able to survive the Soviet regime without harassment, thanks to a couple of friends he had within the Politburo.

One scientist who was not so lucky is Nikolai Vavilov: he was one of the primary victims of Lyssenko's persecutions, dying after several months of severe beatings and starvation inflicted by the Gepeou. What Vavilov came up with is the Law of Homologous Series in Variations. By comparing graminates all over the world he find that variations occured simultaneously, periodically, and with predictable regularity. 

Louis de Broglie. Jesus and his disciple, Lenin, are not going to like this: but the De Broglie family offers singular proof of the heredity of talent, merit and intelligence, symbolized by the word: "Aristocracy." After a life time of struggle, doubt, periods of discouragments and hard work, Louis de Broglie triumphed with the publication of his Theory of the Double Solution, by which he offers a viable alternative to the obscure day-dreams of Niels Bohr and the Coppenhagen school. This De Broglie accomplished after winning the Nobel Prize, for inventing Quantum Physics. Talk of not resting on your laurels. (To oversimplify, what comes up as particles are high concentrations of energy occuring from within the wave function).

3. - Philosophy: Plato and the better Platonists (Boecius, Newton et alii), the depth of perception of the platonists, the glow of light that emanates from inside their writing, and, inside the glow: joy!

4. - Literature: too many to list but I will name Jean-Jacques Rousseau (his autobiographical writing) and Stendhal, Rousseau for personality-type and affect, Stendhal for incisive psychology and the high literary and artistic ideal (as high as Schubert). These were two authors who, when I was a young man, helped me identify, justify, and develop my own personality - in all its contradictions. 

Special mention for Joseph de Maistre, who has that rare virtue of shocking us out of complacent expectations, and therefore prodding us to think and to question.

5. - Music: Vladimir Horowitz, because he was the greatest pianist of the XXth century, and Pierre Boulez, just because I like him.


----------



## Chris

toucan said:


> _______________
> 
> One party says we are descended from a bitch called Eve.
> Another party says we are descended from a monkey called Lucy.
> If given time, the genealogists might find the documents to settle the matter, either way
> 
> _______________


I have the documents, including detailed genealogies. All bound in a book with black covers.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> I'm not that impressed with most scientists. I think that science is a moving force on its own, independently of who is there at the right place and the right time to finalize some discovery or some theory, most of the time by building up on top of what predecessors had done before.
> 
> But I do admire the lobster guy, and the guy who figured out how to make wine.


Really, though - don't you realize that the hack who figured out you could eat lobsters was just extending the findings of the guy who first discovered you could eat crabs? And he was just stealing an idea he got from the guy who first began consuming crawfish!

As for the guy who first made wine - I don't think that took much genius. Fermentation happens all the time. Someone got some yeast contamination in his grape juice (as a scientist, surely you know how easy it is to get yeast contamination). That's nothing to praise him for. I think the award should go more to the first person to DRINK that fermented grape juice.


----------



## Guest

mueske said:


> *Dostoevsky*: For creating characters with whom I can very much relate. For not being affraid of embracing the irrational, and for the wonderful melancholy that seem to surround most of his work.


I keep meaning to read something by Dostoevsky.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Einstein
Newton
Darwin
Linnaeus

Despite what Almaviva mentioned all these scientists have been responsible for huge shifts in thought.

Of course all the composers we ramble on about here

A dutch politician called Joop den Uyl, who was PM in the first 'purple' cabinet. A coalition with the Labour, Conservative and radical liberals.
Theodor Roosevelt for creating the first great National Parks

Plato
Nietzche
Schopenhauer


All the Martyrs who have died fighting oppression, including the oppression of religion.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Oh and how about an updated poll to find out the forums political opinions?


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Really, though - don't you realize that the hack who figured out you could eat lobsters was just extending the findings of the guy who first discovered you could eat crabs? And he was just stealing an idea he got from the guy who first began consuming crawfish!
> 
> As for the guy who first made wine - I don't think that took much genius. Fermentation happens all the time. Someone got some yeast contamination in his grape juice (as a scientist, surely you know how easy it is to get yeast contamination). That's nothing to praise him for. I think the award should go more to the first person to DRINK that fermented grape juice.


Oh no, I have from reputable sources [Almaviva browses frantically his copy of The Universe for Dummies] that the lobster guy came first, and the crab and crawfish guys learned from him!

OK, right. I'll change the wine guy to the ones who figured out how to make fermented grape juice that *tastes* like Ornellaia, Sassicaia, Penfolds Grange, Roederer Crystal, Chateau Petrus, Chateau d'Yquem, Chateau Latour, etc.


----------



## Serge

Giordano Bruno - for eternally burning in heaven.

Jesus Christ - for not giving a damn.

Charles Darwin - for making a big deal out of little differences and also not giving a damn.

Buddha - for being a bold role model to those with enough patience to watch the hair grow.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Chris said:


> *Sir Isaac Newton *- for innumerable contributions to the sciences, including the discovery of calculus...unless you are German and insist of giving that honour to Gottfried Leibnitz
> 
> *Carl Linnaeus *- the Swedish naturalist who devised the taxonomic system we use to classify living things.
> 
> I will omit biblical characters but I second Saul's choice of the *Maccabbean warriors *for their revolt against the Seleucid oppressors and the evil Antiochus Epiphanes. A truly exciting bit of history.


Thank you Chris!


----------



## Almaviva

emiellucifuge said:


> Einstein
> Newton
> Darwin
> Linnaeus
> 
> Despite what Almaviva mentioned all these scientists have been responsible for huge shifts in thought.


Sure. That's exactly why I said "with exceptions" and added that the ones I admire are those with really creative minds who "almost built their theories out of thin air" - a hyperbole of course because nothing in science, not even the most innovative idea, is entirely built out of thin air, but what I really meant was a paradigm shift. But if you look into the history of science with the millions of scientists who have lived, the number of the ones who are really and truly responsible for paradigm shifts is counted at best in the hundreds, not in the thousands. The vast majority of scientists are ultra-specialized diligent workers who are not likely to be that much brighter or more creative than the average highly educated person. Sometimes a scientist gains fame among the lay public for no other good reason than being on the right place and at the right time and getting some media attention, with many of his/her colleagues being actually a lot more competent. Science is a field in which intellectual property *can* be somewhat iffy, as in the common occurrence of a Principal Investigator who is listed first in the authorship list of papers, while having often very little to do with the research that is being published, except for being the departmental chair or the head of the lab.

I have offered the example of Marconi... the person who actually implemented the first transmission of human voice through space using radio waves wasn't Marconi at all... but Marconi was more skilled at filing patents... would file multiple patents at all stages of development of radio transmissions, often slightly modifying devices that he hadn't made at all but were rather designed by other researchers... and he ended up getting his place in history as the inventor of the radio. Read about it, it's fascinating.

Another example is the endless controversy about who actually invented the airplane. The Brothers Wright? Many disagree. There are many considerations to make about this, starting by how you define an airplane - is it a machine heavier than air that *takes off from the ground on its own resources*, flies a *controllable* path and *lands safely*, or is it something that you catapult first into the air, flies randomly, and often crashes on landing? At the time of their experiments, there were countless other aviation pioneers working on the same principles; some behind them, some ahead of them. But again, they made their claim more efficiently and backed it up with more patents, and got the upper hand. Mind you, I'm not even implying that they did not invent the airplane... it's hard to tell and their claim *is* strong... I'm just saying that discoveries, intellectual property, new theories and techniques are a *very* complex matter and we often admire the wrong person - not to forget that almost everything in science for a long while now (unlike the typically isolated, autonomous scientist of other historical eras) is authored, discovered, or developed by a *group* of persons either associated with each other or not, either simultaneously or sequentially, and most of these things are a lot more complex than what the lay public believes.

Also please notice that I said I wasn't in the mood for repeating names, and many people I do admire had already been quoted.


----------



## mueske

Almaviva said:


> Oh well, even when you open wrong doors, you invite people in and the right doors can be found. There's lots of merit in his pioneering work, even if some of his conclusions were wrong (also, you have to consider that during his lifetime he didn't have at his disposition many of the modern tools for neurobiological research that came much later - but he did get people thinking, and even hinted at what was to come - see, for instance, his _Project for a Scientific Psychology_).


I'll have to agree, the merrit is in bringing the study of behaviour more popularity if you will, not so much in his theories. Though it isn't all for the good. Freudian psychology still dominates with the general public, eventhough his theories have little to no influence on present day psychology and psychiatry.

But I do admire Freud, something, I think, most psychologists do, though some might be reluctant in admitting it.

I suppose, if we'd want to keep it a bit more 'scientific', we'd mention Wilhem Wundt. But let's be honest, reaction times aren't nearly as exciting as the stuff Freud pulled out of his ... hat.


----------



## Almaviva

mueske said:


> I'll have to agree, the merrit is in bringing the study of behaviour more popularity if you will, not so much in his theories. Though it isn't all for the good. Freudian psychology still dominates with the general public, eventhough his theories have little to no influence on present day psychology and psychiatry.
> 
> But I do admire Freud, something, I think, most psychologists do, though some might be reluctant in admitting it.
> 
> I suppose, if we'd want to keep it a bit more 'scientific', we'd mention Wilhem Wundt. But let's be honest, reaction times aren't nearly as exciting as the stuff Freud pulled out of his ... hat.


I still seem to give him more credit than you do, and I respectfully disagree with your assertion that psychology and psychiatry are not influenced by many of his ideas any longer - e.g., defense mechanisms remain very relevant in understanding many pathological behaviors. Most of what you find in axis II psychiatric diagnosis (the personality disorder axis) as well as a good chunk of the psychotherapeutic treatment for these conditions can still be traced as being heavily influenced by Freudian theory. Regarding axis I disorders, many of his descriptions and insights regarding for instance melancholia, paranoia, OCD, phobias, and PTSD (which he of course called by a different name) are still highly relevant even though the understanding of the biological aspects of these conditions has evolved much beyond what he had access to - which is a natural occurrence in science (but he didn't fail to anticipate the likelihood of these findings, like I said).

I do believe that the man was a certifiable genius and introduced a strong paradigm shift in the understanding of the human mind. And I wouldn't also say that all his conclusions came out of his hat - many came out of clinical observation, the same method used by all pioneers in psychology and psychiatry before the strong development of the neurosciences in the 20th century.

May I ask, have you directly read his books? Or are you saying what you're saying out of others' quotes and criticism of his works? Because once you read his books, there will be little doubt in your mind that you're dealing with a brilliant man. Always right? Of course not! He published his theories a century ago, in a rapidly evolving field. But a brilliant pioneer? Absolutely!

Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion of his works, I'm just expressing mine.

Cheers.


----------



## Sid James

These were some of the ones I could think of off the top of my head...

Henry Parkes - the guy who moved Australia towards becoming a Federation of states in 1901, i.e. a united country not just a collection of separate colonies. He didn't live to see it happen though.

Leaders of Communist countries who stood up against Soviet bullying - I'm thinking Alexandr Dubcek of Czechoslovakia, Imre Nagy of Hungary and Lech Walesa of Poland.

Gough Whitlam (he's still alive, in his 90's, our oldest living former Prime Minister) - Prime Minister of Australia in the 1970's who made a lot of reforms to the health & educations systems, to cultural life and also to indigenous relations. Unfortunately his economic policies/management were controversial and he was dumped from office by the Governor-General in 1975.

Ghandi, Martin Luther King - for their advancement of non violent protest.

Anwar Sadat - Egyptian leader who was the first from an Arab country to make "peace" with & recognise Israel - unfortunately he paid the ultimate price for this.

Yehudi Menuhin - not only a great musician but also someone who was an ambassador for music in many styles playing with a lot of musicians - be they classical, jazz or world...

Bob Geldof - for organising the "Live Aid" concerts in the 1980's, rasing funds & awareness for Africa in particular.

Thomas Edison - where would we be without electricity?

@ HarpsichordConcerto - Do you seriously admire Stalin? - I mean the guy was the worse dictator of the century besides Hitler


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Andre said:


> @ HarpsichordConcerto - Do you seriously admire Stalin? - I mean the guy was the worse dictator of the century besides Hitler


:lol: About time someone questioned the sanity of this choice without worrying too much about being polite.

It's a rather crazy thread anyway. I thought about listing more local people but who the heck who recognised them unless this was an Australian forum. Like you mentioned G. Whitlam, I would bet 99% of folks would not know who you're on about.


----------



## Art Rock

Gustav Mahler - for composing the most beautiful piece of music I have ever heard (Das Lied von der Erde), amongst many other gems.

Franz Marc - my favourite painter, one of the leading representatives of expressionism, his life tragically cut short in the Great War.

Peter Gabriel - for a large number of fantastic progressive rock albums, from Genesis to solo.

Terry Pratchett - my favourite author by far. No-one can make me smile, laugh and think like him.

Lu Schaper - love of my life, and highly talented artist.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Chris said:


> ... unless you are German and insist of giving that honour to Gottfried Leibnitz


But you are almost certainly to be using the f(_x_), df(_x_)/d_x_ or the elogated S to denote the integral notation, aren't you?


----------



## Sid James

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> :lol: About time someone questioned the sanity of this choice without worrying too much about being polite.


Well, I thought it was a bit of a joke. Good to have someone here with a sense of that Australian larrikinism which is fast dying out in this country...



> It's a rather crazy thread anyway. I thought about listing more local people but who the heck who recognised them unless this was an Australian forum. Like you mentioned G. Whitlam, I would bet 99% of folks would not know who you're on about.


Sadly, I think that even many Australians particularly of my generation (gen X) and younger (gen Y) probably don't know that much about old Gough either. Let alone the likes Henry Parkes or our first PM, Edmund Barton, who was a local boy here from Sydney's humble Rocks district...



Art Rock said:


> Gustav Mahler - for composing the most beautiful piece of music I have ever heard (Das Lied von der Erde), amongst many other gems...


Mahler's Das Lied is one of the things I'll have to hear at some stage. I am familiar with some of his other lieder, have some on disc & have encountered others live in concert, but not Das Lied - which many people around here and many scholars in books I've read have praised to the heavens...


----------



## Chris

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> But you are almost certainly to be using the f(_x_), df(_x_)/d_x_ or the elogated S to denote the integral notation, aren't you?


Don't remind me!!


----------



## mueske

Almaviva said:


> I still seem to give him more credit than you do, and I respectfully disagree with your assertion that psychology and psychiatry are not influenced by many of his ideas any longer - e.g., defense mechanisms remain very relevant in understanding many pathological behaviors. Most of what you find in axis II psychiatric diagnosis (the personality disorder axis) as well as a good chunk of the psychotherapeutic treatment for these conditions can still be traced as being heavily influenced by Freudian theory. Regarding axis I disorders, many of his descriptions and insights regarding for instance melancholia, paranoia, OCD, phobias, and PTSD (which he of course called by a different name) are still highly relevant even though the understanding of the biological aspects of these conditions has evolved much beyond what he had access to - which is a natural occurrence in science (but he didn't fail to anticipate the likelihood of these findings, like I said).
> 
> I do believe that the man was a certifiable genius and introduced a strong paradigm shift in the understanding of the human mind. And I wouldn't also say that all his conclusions came out of his hat - many came out of clinical observation, the same method used by all pioneers in psychology and psychiatry before the strong development of the neurosciences in the 20th century.
> 
> May I ask, have you directly read his books? Or are you saying what you're saying out of others' quotes and criticism of his works? Because once you read his books, there will be little doubt in your mind that you're dealing with a brilliant man. Always right? Of course not! He published his theories a century ago, in a rapidly evolving field. But a brilliant pioneer? Absolutely!
> 
> Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion of his works, I'm just expressing mine.
> 
> Cheers.


The reason it might come across that way is because I know fairly little about clinical psychology and psychiatry, those classes are in the second, and possibly third year of my education, while I'm still in my first.

My criticisms are based on the fields of experimental psychology, mostly concerning his claims about the memory. Though I'm aware this might in some degree relate to defense mechanisms, much of his assertions regarding memory have been proven to be wrong. As much as that is possible at least, Freud's theories happen to be very difficult to test empirically, perhaps the greatest shortcoming of his. I do recognize this had much ado about the time he lived in, and in the manner he collected his 'data', it still can't be ignored.

Another one of his theories concerning agression has also been proven to be wrong, though many people in daily life still seem to hold on to them.

I agree that he was a great genius, I think no one could deny that. And I'll gladly agree (for now possibly) that his insights are still relevant in clinical psychology and psychiatry, but concerning the experimental fields, his views just aren't relevant anymore. Because experiments have either disproven them, or they are unfalsifiable, and so almost by definition unscientific. Like you said, a brilliant pioneer, absolutely. Relevant? Maybe in some areas, but a lot less in others (most?).

To answer your question: I have read one of his books: introduction to psychoanalysis. Most things concerning Freud I got out of textbooks and lectures by various professors. Next year I'll have to read his case studies in my psychopathology and psychiatry classes.

May I ask how you are related to the fields of psychology or psychiatry?


----------



## Pieck

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Az Ma ata Ose BeIsrael? Ma Hazchut shelha Ba'aretz?
> 
> Lama David Ben Gurion Hechzik Besefer Hatanch leefnie Haoom, ve'Amar she Sefer Hatanch Mohiach, sh'Eretz Israel Shayach la'yehudim?


Lama lo Uganda??! Ani baaretz biglal sheze habait sheli bli kesher im ze katuv be'eize sefer. Hayehudim tzrihim medina bli kesher latanach


----------



## Weston

Art Rock said:


> Terry Pratchett - my favourite author by far. No-one can make me smile, laugh and think like him.


I got to meet Terry Pratchett briefly at a regional convention a few years back. Unfortunately, a terrible ice storm had closed all the airports and he couldn't get home. He was not in the best of moods - and who would be?

I wasn't much of a fan of humorous fantasy at the time, though I might enjoy it now. I have not taken time to read a word the man has written. Where should one begin? The first Discworld novel?


----------



## Aksel

Weston said:


> I wasn't much of a fan of humorous fantasy at the time, though I might enjoy it now. I have not taken time to read a word the man has written. Where should one begin? The first Discworld novel?


That's where I began. It was hilarious.


----------



## Art Rock

Weston said:


> I got to meet Terry Pratchett briefly at a regional convention a few years back. Unfortunately, a terrible ice storm had closed all the airports and he couldn't get home. He was not in the best of moods - and who would be?
> 
> I wasn't much of a fan of humorous fantasy at the time, though I might enjoy it now. I have not taken time to read a word the man has written. Where should one begin? The first Discworld novel?


The first 3-4 are not the best. I would start with Guards! Guards!


----------



## science

Wow, this is a surprisingly interesting list of people. I commend us. 

I might've missed it if someone said it already, but there was a scientist in the 1950s who developed some genetically modified grains and kicked off the Green Revolution, which is arguably about the best thing to happen to humanity for a long time. I can't remember that guy's name, but he died a few years ago and Scientific American had a paragraph obituary for him that stuck with me. 

Aung San Suu Kyi. 

And anyone else willing to risk their lives to defy tyranny, such as Daniel Elsberg and Bradley Manning. 

Darwin. I know he was mentioned already, but I think he was a pretty good guy. AFAIK, so was his grandfather, Josiah Wedgwood. Speaking of abolitionists, I'm also an advocate of John Woolman and William Wilberforce (both much neglected) and John Brown (much maligned). Lincoln of course. 

Also, FDR and George Marshall. The Civil Rights leaders of the 1950s and 1960s. The union organizers back when it was dangerous work. 

Whistle-blowers. 

War journalists who don't go embedded with troops. Robert Fisk, Chris Hedges, and so on. 

Adam Smith. Another guy who deserves more credit than he gets. In general I favor the Enlightenment thinkers and Enlightenment values.

Amartya Sen, Jared Diamond, E. O. Wilson, Stephen Pinker, William McNeil.


----------



## jurianbai

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


----------



## science

New addition: Bill Cronon:

http://scholarcitizen.williamcronon.net/2011/03/24/open-records-attack-on-academic-freedom/


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Pieck said:


> Lama lo Uganda??! Ani baaretz biglal sheze habait sheli bli kesher im ze katuv be'eize sefer. Hayehudim tzrihim medina bli kesher latanach


Oh comon....you don't really expect me to buy this...
The only reason that its your home is because of the Tenach...


----------



## Couchie

Chris said:


> *Sir Isaac Newton *- for innumerable contributions to the sciences, including the discovery of calculus...unless you are German and insist of giving that honour to Gottfried Leibnitz :eek


To be fair, Leibnitz's notation is much more elegant than Newton's.
I have a theory that Newton also discovered amphetamine, which he kept secret for his own purposes....


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

I hesitated because I'm not entirely sure I put enough thought into this...

I have some conventional American heroes- George Washington, Abraham Lincoln (don't forget- I'm originally from Illinois). Have tremendous admiration for James Madison for his work on the text of the American Constitution. Also keeping in mind Alexander Hamilton for his writing in _The Federalist Papers_.

In more modern times, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia & Samuel Alito have given my wife two more reasons to be proud to be an Italian-American.

Returning to men of action, there's Gettysburg hero Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, for showing that amazing combination of erudition and fighting prowess, and (on a larger scale) Douglas MacArthur for his combination of strategic genius and personal courage.

In sport, baseball's Ted Williams possibly passed up a chance at a run at (then) Babe Ruth's home-run record- because he recognized that during World War II and the Korean War, there were more important things at that time than playing a bat-and-ball game.

There's a classic line- I believe it's by John Updike- that when Ted Williams ended his career in a storybook fashion by belting a home run in his very last at-bat, the Boston fans (who had a rocky relationship with 'The Splendid Splinter') gave a standing ovation, in the hopes of having him emerge from the dugout and tip his cap. Ted didn't do so... and the author later wrote "gods don't take curtain calls.")


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Couchie said:


> To be fair, Leibnitz's notation is much more elegant than Newton's.


Agree. Newton simply used a dot on the variable to denote the first derivative etc. but to be fair, he was discovering the calculus more as an analytical tool to further his main interest in physics rather than mathematics on its own.



Couchie said:


> I have a theory that Newton also discovered amphetamine, which he kept secret for his own purposes....


Interesting. Do tell, please ...


----------



## mamascarlatti

Elisabeth I of England, for sheer guts, intelligence and tricksiness.

Henri Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross. Where would we be without it?

Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte, for making their voices heard within the confines of 19th century domestic femininity.

Jan Vermeer, for his luminous chronicles of the pauses in everyday life.

Kate Sheppard, the leader of the women's suffrage movement in New Zealand. NZ became the first country in the world to grant women the vote in 1893. 

Charles Darwin, not only for his postulated theory but also for his tremendous stickability - 9 years dissecting barnacles, wow!

Right now I'm in awe of the Fukushima workers stoically putting their lives at risk to avert a nuclear disaster.


----------



## science

mamascarlatti said:


> Right now I'm in awe of the Fukushima workers stoically putting their lives at risk to avert a nuclear disaster.


All good choices, and this one seems especially notable.


----------



## kmisho

Bill Moyers, because he actually listens to and learns from the widest variety of people.

I always include Bill Moyers and he's still out there. So, darn it, I have decided to write him.


----------



## Comus

Andre said:


> Thomas Edison - where would we be without electricity?


Edison did not invent electricity and his direct current is vastly inferior to Tesla's (one of my most admired) alternating current. Edison was very unfair to Tesla in many ways. Anyway,

*Nikola Tesla*- for AC and many seemingly mad ideas and inventions.

*Arnold Schoenberg*- for being self-taught and writing original, gripping music

*Terence McKenna*- for reconciling Jungian psychology with 20th century philosophy and psychedelic phenomenology

*Benoit Mandelbrot*- for developing fractal geometry

*Bill Hicks*- for teaching me to think for myself

All 19th/20th century. Me oh my.


----------



## science

I tend not to use the word "admire" for artists - I don't know why. Anyway, some artists and thinkers whose work I most deeply respect (not counting classical musicians) include Shakespeare, Sophocles, Thomas Mann, J. D. Salinger, Cezanne, Monet, David, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Rilke, Kierkegaard, Hume, Adam Smith, Amartya Sen, E. O. Wilson, I mentioned Darwin already, Albert Schweitzer, E. P. Sanders, e. e. cummings, Jaroslav Pelikan, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Chet Raymo, Euler, Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, Maximus the Confessor, Andrei Rublev, Vermeer, Ben Franklin, John Woolman, George Fox, Emerson, Thoreau, Annie Proulx.


----------



## Pieck

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Oh comon....you don't really expect me to buy this...
> The only reason that its your home is because of the Tenach...


I'd have answered it, but you're banned


----------



## gurthbruins

*JHM Whiteman*

The most *remarkable man* I ever *met* was JHM Whiteman.
(google whiteman mystical life) .

He was my lecturer in Applied Mathematics at UCT in 1952/53. I knew nothing about his mystical proclivities in those days, but the effect of his presence was extraordinary. It was completely humble and exquisitely polite and sympathetic towards his class, with no suggestion of any sort of superiority.

I have always been susceptible to the personalities of those around me, and have absorbed their characters into my own by a process of osmosis. But he has always remained my most powerful role model.

As hobby I knew he took a class of very young recorder players, and I knew he was married to a piano teacher and that his daughter gave concerts as pianist with the CTSO.
(google Sybil Whiteman).

All that impressed me as I was just discovering the world of classical music myself in those years.

Years later, as he and I resided in the same suburb, I visited him and we discussed mysticism, and he lent me some of his drafts of forthcoming books for me to read.

Finally I visited him in another suburb, he was still going strong at 100.


----------



## gurthbruins

Almaviva said:


> I still seem to give him more credit than you do, and I respectfully disagree with your assertion that psychology and psychiatry are not influenced by many of his ideas any longer - e.g., defense mechanisms remain very relevant in understanding many pathological behaviors. Most of what you find in axis II psychiatric diagnosis (the personality disorder axis) as well as a good chunk of the psychotherapeutic treatment for these conditions can still be traced as being heavily influenced by Freudian theory. Regarding axis I disorders, many of his descriptions and insights regarding for instance melancholia, paranoia, OCD, phobias, and PTSD (which he of course called by a different name) are still highly relevant even though the understanding of the biological aspects of these conditions has evolved much beyond what he had access to - which is a natural occurrence in science (but he didn't fail to anticipate the likelihood of these findings, like I said).
> 
> I do believe that the man was a certifiable genius and introduced a strong paradigm shift in the understanding of the human mind. And I wouldn't also say that all his conclusions came out of his hat - many came out of clinical observation, the same method used by all pioneers in psychology and psychiatry before the strong development of the neurosciences in the 20th century.
> 
> May I ask, have you directly read his books? Or are you saying what you're saying out of others' quotes and criticism of his works? Because once you read his books, there will be little doubt in your mind that you're dealing with a brilliant man. Always right? Of course not! He published his theories a century ago, in a rapidly evolving field. But a brilliant pioneer? Absolutely!
> 
> Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion of his works, I'm just expressing mine.
> 
> Cheers.


Yes, I'd like to agree, and further: Freud is the only psychologist who merits the term genius, the only one I selected in my study of 410 geniuses.

And yes, I have read his books: more than half of them, starting from the first and omitting the last. (in English translation). All my experience has borne out the truth of his fundamental propositions regarding the huge role played by sexuality and its repression.

In Polynesian cultures, Freud would have been irrelevant. There where sex was freely permitted between six-year-olds. And practically everywhere else.


----------



## gurthbruins

I could have sworn somebody included *Benoit Mandelbrot* in his list, but now I can't find it. Can anyone shed light on this mystery for me?


----------



## Couchie

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Interesting. Do tell, please ...


I was just joking. The fact is that if you read a list of Newton's achievements, just one of any of them would have been enough to put him down in history as a great scientist/mathematician, yet the fact that he's responsible for _all_ of them is just beyond belief, and makes us all look stupid just for trying. 

I remember in my college days Newton's name would always pop up in seemingly any subject: calculus, numerical methods, heat transfer, dynamics, fluid mechanics... YOU CRAZY NEWTON, YOU CRAZY!


----------



## gurthbruins

gurthbruins said:


> I could have sworn somebody included *Benoit Mandelbrot* in his list, but now I can't find it. Can anyone shed light on this mystery for me?


Where it says "Search Thread" at the top of the posts you can enter "Mandelbrot" and then vBulletin Messsage will tell you "no match found." ?

I did find post #71 eventually, which clears up the mystery.


----------



## gurthbruins

Comus said:


> Edison did not invent electricity and his direct current is vastly inferior to Tesla's (one of my most admired) alternating current. Edison was very unfair to Tesla in many ways. Anyway,
> 
> *Nikola Tesla*- for AC and many seemingly mad ideas and inventions.
> 
> *Arnold Schoenberg*- for being self-taught and writing original, gripping music
> 
> *Terence McKenna*- for reconciling Jungian psychology with 20th century philosophy and psychedelic phenomenology
> 
> *Benoit Mandelbrot*- for developing fractal geometry
> 
> *Bill Hicks*- for teaching me to think for myself
> 
> All 19th/20th century. Me oh my.


It is very rarely that I come across anybody with an interest in Benoit Mandelbrot. 
When I first saw the pictures of his famous Set in _The Golden Age of Mathematics_ I was inspired to devote thousands of my hours to the exploration of fractals. My aim was to be as original as possible, to get as far as possible from the themes of his Set (spirals and stars). You can see my results at

http://sites.google.com/site/gurthsmathart 
(the most complete collection of Gurth's Math Art).
See also 
http://www.mathart-g.blogspot.com


----------



## science

I want to add Christopher Hitchens, not just for his courageou writing and thinking in the past, put for the courage and candor with which he is facing disease and death now. I hope I will be able to do it so graciously.


----------



## science

gurthbruins said:


> It is very rarely that I come across anybody with an interest in Benoit Mandelbrot.
> When I first saw the pictures of his famous Set in _The Golden Age of Mathematics_ I was inspired to devote thousands of my hours to the exploration of fractals. My aim was to be as original as possible, to get as far as possible from the themes of his Set (spirals and stars). You can see my results at
> 
> http://sites.google.com/site/gurthsmathart
> (the most complete collection of Gurth's Math Art).
> See also
> http://www.mathart-g.blogspot.com


I like your fractals!


----------



## samurai

I would have to nominate my father, who is the most humble and intelligent person I have come across in my life. He taught me what it truly means to be a man--in the best and most noble sense of that word. He instilled in me a sense of ethics--by example and not by lecturing--which I would hold up against those of any religion that is or has ever existed. One of the most basic lessons I have learned from him is that "might does not make right", and wherever and however one can do it, he or she should fight for those weaker than themselves. Also,that being merciful is a strength, not a weakness, most especially when one is victorious. 
When I told my father that he is my hero, he flat out didn't believe me {his humility coming into play again}.
And lest I forget, I would also like to nominate my mother {may she rest in peace}, who had the wisdom and foresight to marry him.


----------

