Its a common phrase for an exceptional mind. Its not meant to be taken purely literally becsuse its untestable, but generally remarked upon in hindsight.
You can argue Newton fit the bill even though Liebniz was a peer of his. Einstein and Oppenheimer, etc.
You can argue Newton fit the bill even though Liebniz was a peer of his. Einstein and Oppenheimer, etc.
Those are ones you can argue, though. Nobody would ever seriously argue that Kaczynski was anywhere near the top of his generation. There is no informed list of the greatest mathematicians that has Kaczynski on it.
Let’s imagine that, instead of being caught, Kaczynski simply stopped bombing things and was never caught, and lived out the remainder of his life in that shack. In that case, he’d be an obscure genius mathematician who wrote a few exceptional papers. There are a lot of people like that.
I suspect that while right now, you think it’s “a common phrase for an exceptional mind,” if you really looked into its usage, you’d find that it’s generally used for somebody who actually is uniquely exceptional for their time.
I disagree. Each generation is 20 years long. With a global birthrate of 140 milllion/year, that means each generation contains 2.8 billlon people.
If there is literally only one person per 2.8 billion that can fit that bill, then the world would never be able to agree on who it is. Who and by what standard is this literal “greatest mind of a generation” selected?
If the phrase is meant literally, it should be “the greatest mind in a generation that people in a paticular society are largely aware of” because otherwise its just unverifiable puffery.
No idea, but if that number is what youre fixated on, feel free to cut it down to 1/10 the size if that makes it easier. I think we can agree that even in Einstein’s time more than 280 million people were born on earth in 20 years, right?
If a generation is hypothetically 280 million people, who gets to decied and what are the criteria for the literal “greatest mind of a generation?”
Im glad we both think the statement is puffery, but the person I was replying to was saying this was a literal statement, not exaggeration. I really want to know their take on the above, as I cant find a way to square the math.
Its a common phrase for an exceptional mind. Its not meant to be taken purely literally becsuse its untestable, but generally remarked upon in hindsight.
You can argue Newton fit the bill even though Liebniz was a peer of his. Einstein and Oppenheimer, etc.
Those are ones you can argue, though. Nobody would ever seriously argue that Kaczynski was anywhere near the top of his generation. There is no informed list of the greatest mathematicians that has Kaczynski on it.
Let’s imagine that, instead of being caught, Kaczynski simply stopped bombing things and was never caught, and lived out the remainder of his life in that shack. In that case, he’d be an obscure genius mathematician who wrote a few exceptional papers. There are a lot of people like that.
I suspect that while right now, you think it’s “a common phrase for an exceptional mind,” if you really looked into its usage, you’d find that it’s generally used for somebody who actually is uniquely exceptional for their time.
No, that’s you learning it from context without thinking about what the actual words mean. It’s meant to be taken literally.
You are being overly literal without regard to what words actually mean.
“War” just means was, just look at a German English dictionary.
I disagree. Each generation is 20 years long. With a global birthrate of 140 milllion/year, that means each generation contains 2.8 billlon people.
If there is literally only one person per 2.8 billion that can fit that bill, then the world would never be able to agree on who it is. Who and by what standard is this literal “greatest mind of a generation” selected?
If the phrase is meant literally, it should be “the greatest mind in a generation that people in a paticular society are largely aware of” because otherwise its just unverifiable puffery.
How long has the global birthrate been 140M/yr? More than a generation?
Maybe the current “generation” contains 2.8 billion people. Not convinced that bears much relationship to an average generation throughout history
I also believe the term is typically used as exaggeration/puffery
No idea, but if that number is what youre fixated on, feel free to cut it down to 1/10 the size if that makes it easier. I think we can agree that even in Einstein’s time more than 280 million people were born on earth in 20 years, right?
If a generation is hypothetically 280 million people, who gets to decied and what are the criteria for the literal “greatest mind of a generation?”
Im glad we both think the statement is puffery, but the person I was replying to was saying this was a literal statement, not exaggeration. I really want to know their take on the above, as I cant find a way to square the math.