Are there any people from our generation who will be immortalized like the great masters from ages past? Or have all the greatest heights of literature already been climbed and there remains nothing for the lateborn but aspiring to become pale imitations of their long deceased betters?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Impossible to know.
Our DEI/ESG culture won't exactly lead to geniuses, but we never know if there is some genius in Vietnam or whatever.
>Are there any people from our generation who will be immortalized like the great masters from ages past?
Maybe but it would take another 20 years to be fairly sure. There were no works of true genius since the the 00s onward. Meaning those entries were written by 70s born people.
There are no confirmed millennial genius works.
Idiot
...who gets to confirm that, exactly? Is there a committee?
My cousin, Juanito san Burgermuncher.
His wisdom is undeniable.
Yo you're cousin to Juanito? That guy is going places.
His dissertation on leather belts, dice, rings, and noses was the most amazing four thousand pages i read in a long time. I thought the tangent story about veganas was a bit odd but when he pulled it back around, i couldn't help but gasp at his brilliance.
No. Mass media and technology is now at a such level that a true genius will not ever emerge again as a character, there will be specialized geniuses but by and large the further advancement of human generation is by committee, same reason why there are no art geniuses anymore. The production quantity is such that geniuses can only emerge in very specific niches, which is really just a really good specialist, not a genius as traditionally understood. Nobody born after 1950 could realistically be considered a genius and certainly nobody born after 1970 will be.
please no pseud 120 iq takes, homosexual
none of these are millennials you idiot.
none of them are geniuses either except for wozniak (obvious) and putin (genius spy who climbed the top of the extremely competitive russian spy field).
>none of these are millennials you idiot.
>none of them are geniuses either except for wozniak (obvious) and putin (genius spy who climbed the top of the extremely competitive russian spy field).
Genius and millenial birth year was not pertinent to the question AS ASKED. If you are OP, learn to write questions asking for the information you are looking for before calling me an idiot for answering the question as it was ASKED pathetic little flea.
this is a millennial and onward board. get with the times old homosexual.
its obvious wozniak is a genius, and so are other boomers so your post doesnt say anything useful, and most of it moronic garbage. lmao, stupid homosexual.
terence tao is a better choice. so is tbl. but theyre not even gen x.
These names will be remembered in history.
I don't even know who Terence Tao is. Looked him up and he's some sort of mathematical sweat shop for problem solving. Like Euler's little factory of calculator elves in Berlin. Great choice you imbecile.
You are posting the equivalent of saying that i'm a great fan of this obscure hentai anime and therefore my hentai anime will be remembered by everyone in 20,000,000 years. ^_^
Yeah, that guy is moronic. The question is at least ambiguous, since ''generation'' there could be understood as the generation born in, in the case ''our generation'' (but even here it would make no sense for we would have to know OP's generation which I guess would be one if he is in his 20s and another if he is in his mid-late 30s and yet another if he is 18), and here I could think of, for instance, Magnus Carlsen holding a high position in chess history, or it could be understood as in the generation of flourishing, but then would it encompass figures flourishing since a specific period, but what period specifically?
Really old generations don't count you additional homosexual. You know why? Because the question about their geniuses is obvious, they do have geniuses. Terence Tao, Bobby Fischer, TBL. It's hardly worth a mention. That means OP's question is about recently born geniuses, because that's a question worth asking.
You'd realize this if you weren't moronic.
The predicate ''our'' modifies the subject of generation, you utter moron. How are we supposed to give the very specific replies your pampered little ass demands if you work on such loose terms? Look at your examples, it is a proof you are moronic. How is Bobby Fischer, who flourished in the 70s, the same generation as Terence Tao, who was fricking born in the fricking 70s.
This is one of the very issues I addressed in my post but you are too moronic to even consider them.
Our generation is the generation after boomers. Boomers have household name geniuses, and they're so obvious the question obviously doesn't concern them. We don't. Ergo OP's question.
Again, the ''our'' is a specific modifier which implies that the generation in question is some specific one. Are there more than one generation? Yes. Thus the question is at least equivocal. How am I supposed to know what generation OP belongs to? The intuitive exit is to go by the path the other anon followed by understanding generation in the sense of flourishing time, which was what your examples tried to convey (although erroneously), but now you are resorting to the sense of a specific demographic group.
>How am I supposed to know what generation OP belongs to?
By not being an autistic homosexual hell bent on being exact on an anonymous Tibetan pottery forum.
>Again, the ''our'' is a specific modifier which implies that the generation in question is some specific one.
Low IQ. The question could be asked as pertains a varied group, which would extend the group's generation from individuals to the ages of the collective, and what I stated is the predominant age range of this board. They're for sure the ages of people with worthwhile things to say.
Actual boomers stick out because like zoomers their grammar is wacky.
Please don't talk to me after this, you're not smart.
>The question could be asked as pertains a varied group
A generation is precisely not a varied group, it is a specific demographic group you braindead moron.
>would extend the group's generation from individuals to the ages of the collective
This doesn't even make sense, are you even literate? Seems like you know neither reading nor writing. A generation is a specific range of individuals' ages.
>what I stated is the predominant age range of this board
Which not necessarily implicates a single generation, that is what I meant by my second point in my first post by clarifying that a specific generation could imply the flourishing of figures which people on this board has been aware of (through sundry media).
Learn the basics of the language before engaging here.
>A generation is precisely not a varied group, it is a specific demographic group you braindead moron.
Double digit IQ
Here's a dictionary definition:
>all of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively.
My phrasing of it matches this definition. It's also finely tuned to OP. You know why? Boomer geniuses are a settled matter. Boomers aren't worth talking about. The era after is.
I'm getting tired of exchanging with a literal moron.
Generation as understood in the demographic sense is a specific group comprising of a specific age range, Generation X, Generation Y form two different generations, two different age groups. You literally said ''The question could be asked as pertains a varied group'', what the frick does a varied group have to do with a specific group, which forms the definition of a generation? You seem to be evading to the second option I set forth, but keep ignoring the difficulties. You gave as example Bobby Fischer and Terence Tao who flourished in different generations, they do not belong to the same flourishing generation (Bobby Fischer flourished in the 70s, would belong to the generation of Generation X, whereas Terence Tao flourished later, belonging to later generations). If you don't understand this I give up.
Why is American propaganda "generation" the only correct definition you low IQ monkey?
My definition of generation has literally nothing to do with “American propaganda”, whatever the frick you mean by this with regard to these demographic groups comprising generations.
Yeah because American elites and the CIA never tried to exploit their populations, define them for them, and manipulate their life and economic habits to fleece them, right? Especially not by defunding public schools and teaching children that cutting your dick off can make you a real woman.
>Social generations are cohorts of people born in the same date range and who share similar cultural experiences.[11] The idea of a social generation has a long history and can be found in ancient literature,[12] but did not gain currency in the sense that it is used today until the 19th century.
Anyhow, you are insane
The greentext says I'm legit you illiterate.
It literally doesn't. It attests that the concept was being employed way before the creation of CIA and American propaganda.
No, you misread. Terms like Generation X, Millennial, and Generation Z were CIA plants. Alphabet agencies try to control everything we do. The NSA surveils all our internet and communication traffic, and as much of our daily actions as possible. The FBI won't let anyone scrupulous investigate Epstein's "suicide" or lists of pedophile politicians.
You don't think labels that lead to divisiveness between generations and influence them to fight aren't useful to them? Could they be possibly be planned and manipulated? Only an idiot would say point blank "no".
If I'm not getting to you, because you're a stubborn midwit, someone ITT will be.
First, my employing these terms X, Y, Millennial, etc. were just examples to give you a notion of how restricted each generation. Second, you yourself vouched for this specific terminology you moron:
Third, some of these terms were not even coined by Americans. Example: On Generation X:
>the term Generation X has been used at various times to describe alienated youth. In the early 1950s, Hungarian photographer Robert Capa first used Generation X as the title for a photo-essay about young men and women growing up immediately following World War II.
>You don't think labels that lead to divisiveness between generations
The concept of generation is already a division you utter dumbfrick, holy shit. This has been noted since fricking Ancient Greece.
Leave this board.
All I'm seeing from you is you're obviously not very bright.
>yourself vouched for this specific terminology
I didn't use it in a hostile way, it's a term used in the culture, you dummy xD
>>the term Generation X has been used at various times to describe alienated youth. In the early 1950s, Hungarian photographer Robert Capa first used Generation X as the title for a photo-essay about young men and women growing up immediately following World War II.
See
>In 1947, for his work recording World War II in pictures, U.S. general Dwight D. Eisenhower awarded Capa the Medal of Freedom.
Yeah there's no way anyone in history was ever an intelligence asset for foreign powers, nor could coinages ever be coopted by intelligence.
You dense homosexual.
>I didn't use it in a hostile way, it's a term used in the culture
>there's no way anyone in history was ever an intelligence asset for foreign powers, nor could coinages ever be coopted by intelligence.
can we use those terms or it will mean nothing but some manipulated notion (that somehow has nothing to do with the meaning of generation)?
you are obviously just baiting, moving the goalposts and baiting more at this point, but I'm having fun
Thank you for speaking everyone's mind to that literal moron anon, comfy
Don't samegay. No one intelligent would consider Spears a genius.
Quit getting hung up on my post and disrupting the thread, I am not samegayging. Britney Spears oratory will be remembered for at least 1,000 years and it has nothing to do with her intelligence. Sweatshop geniuses like Tao will be forgotten in 50 years. Persnickety little trolls like you will be forgotten after a good night's sleep.
I know man I don't really care for Britney, you're just too repulsive. You could say whatever and your general demeanor would still betray the fact that you're a dumb moron.
I'm the only genius ITT, that's why I have correct views on the matter. The rest of you are humanities homosexuals who don't know the first thing about intelligence.
And what genius you have put on display by misreading the question so badly!
Oh so that's how you've rationalized being unlovable and mentally ill, you're a genius. Real troony move anon, I'm not going to use your pronouns.
I'm the only anon discerning the actual heights (usually genius) of the post-boomer era. The closest anyone else has come was the Yud shill, and it turned out that anon's a pseud with no answers.
What do you even mean by genius? You might be arguing speaking in another language from your audience. Most of the people mentioned can be considered geniuses by sheer scale of influence. If that isn't genius but you, a literal who, are, then OP question would be irrelevant.
Sorry I don't debate with morons.
I am a Literal Who but that doesn't remove the fact I am the most intelligent anon ITT. Think about that you talentless nobody.
The "fact" is that you say that you are? Again, I think you might be a troony.
Your an idiot who derails threads to brag about yourself in the most bland way possible. You aren't even intelligent enough to properly emulate the tripgays who set the example for you.
>Your
>the tripgays
Every tripgay I've seen was a nobody pseud.
Plagiarist, read this whole thread.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LetsTalkMusic/comments/wnemp6/did_nirvana_plagiarize_their_instrumentals/
The problem with most of lit is that they're pseuds who don't read and don't understand the processes that create the heights of culture. Most of the anons against me are failed normals with normal homosexual views of culture.
I can think of a few off the top of my head.
1. Donald Trump
2. Steve Wozniak
3. Sal Vulcano
4. Britney Spears
5. J. K. Rowling
6. Vladimir Putin
7. Narendra Modi
Probably more, I am just confident everyone will know these people well and their writings (oratory) in roughly 1,000 years.
>3. Sal Vulcano
>4. Britney Spears
>5. J. K. Rowling
kek
Dawkins will go down in history as Newton or Galileo for biology due to his Gene Selection stuff. He's the most recent person to single handedly completely change the course and conception of a field of science.
No he won't. His ideas are debunked. Church and Jiankui probably will be remembered, but I'm not sure if at the greatests levels that would include Lavoisier.
>His ideas are debunked
Literally every geneticist and biologist on the planet professes Gene Selection and none of them profess Species Selection, anon. I get that you're an edgy contrarian and that means that you have to roleplay as an Evangelical Christian, but LARPing isn't going to convince anyone of anything.
No they don't pseud homosexual.
>In The Social Conquest of Earth (2012), the entomologist E. O. Wilson contends that although the selfish-gene approach was accepted "until 2010 [when] Martin Nowak, Corina Tarnita, and I demonstrated that inclusive fitness theory, often called kin selection theory, is both mathematically and biologically incorrect."[36] Chapter 18 of The Social Conquest of Earth describes the deficiencies of kin selection and outlines group selection, which Wilson argues is a more realistic model of social evolution. He criticises earlier approaches to social evolution, saying: "...unwarranted faith in the central role of kinship in social evolution has led to the reversal of the usual order in which biological research is conducted. The proven best way in evolutionary biology, as in most of science, is to define a problem arising during empirical research, then select or devise the theory that is needed to solve it. Almost all research in inclusive-fitness theory has been the opposite: hypothesize the key roles of kinship and kin selection, then look for evidence to test that hypothesis." According to Wilson: "People must have a tribe...Experiments conducted over many years by social psychologists have revealed how swiftly and decisively people divide into groups, and then discriminate in favor of the one to which they belong." (pp. 57, 59) According to Wilson: "Different parts of the brain have evolved by group selection to create groupishness." (p. 61)
Only 1 way to know: keep writing until you've reached that level.
George R.R. Martin became immortalized as the American Tolkien in recent memory. "Game of Thrones" has become a byword for political intrigue and the Song of Ice and Fire is the watermark against which every other author in the field is measured.
Not a genius, copied a mid hisfic series.
I'd argue it was more of a fad at this point, especially if he doesn't finish the books. Look at Dune coming through and taking over the "american sci-fi" market with their amazing movies
GOT will be readapted in due time, just give it ten years or so. Dune just proves the point. These big name IPs keep getting resurrected for a reason. Same with Harry Potter. The original movie series was perfectly fine for what it was and arguably holds up perfectly well. But they are making another one anyway. Harry Potter has reached the status of Too Big To Die, and so has GOT.
you're crazy if you think anyone will give a single shit about got 100 years or 200 years later
If humanity surives the singularity, Eliezer Yudkowsky is going to be recognized as the most important thinker of the 21st century and as an equal of Plato and Aristotle.
Why
Please no room temp IQ posts.
Trump will be remembered, but he's not a genius. Wozniak's a genius, but won't be remembered.
Yudkowsky raised concerns about AI alignment long before anyone had heard of ChatGPT. Now even the normies have awoken to the fact that AI will radically transform the world. Yudkowsky is well established as a thought leader in the space of AI safety. His work might literally make the difference whether we get to live or all die within the next twenty years, give or take.
>Yudkowsky raised concerns about AI alignment long before anyone had heard of ChatGPT.
Turing did it foremost, idiot. So did a bunch of other theorists, and like Yud, they're mostly industry shills. What makes him so special?
What ideas did Yud have in particular? Why is he the AI theorist of choice by pseuds who don't read?
I can imagine Ronald Reagen, Alanis Morissette, Larry Kaufman, Larry Clemmons, Conan O'Brien, Stephen Wolfram, and Pierre Trudeau having gargantuan legacies when we step outside our contemporary perspective.
Reagan's influence trumps Trudeau's by a mile. Trudeau will only be remembered in Canada.
>Are there any people from our generation who will be immortalized like the great masters from ages past?
These great masters you praise are dead, moron. Everyone dies someday, so the answer to your question is obviously no.
I respect grandpappy more than the latter Kims, despite being communist. He was a strong leader.
Stephen Wolfram is the only actual genius.
kurt cobaine
t
Tt
Unfortunately not. We might get some in about 50 years if we break the cycle of selfishness and start giving the youth what we wish we had.
>Are there any people from our generation who will be immortalized like the great masters from ages past
Logo_Daedalus, Kantbot, Paul Town
I think Rowling might be immortalized in some sense only because the Harry Potter series was so enormously popular right before literature died forever.
The problem with imaging writers living on in some kind of glory is that literature is basically irrelevant now. The culture is dead, the civilization is dying, literature doesn’t matter to the popular masses and is now just a niche interest, and maybe more importantly a niche interest that isn’t interesting to the social, professional, or political elite. So yeah, this or that person might be known as great to an ever dwindling circle of literature autists but is that really greatness? Not really.
I desperately want to believe I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am. A radical sort of epochal shift for this civilization would have to take place and soon, but I don’t see that happening.
If there’s a silver lining here, it’s that as technological civilization inevitably undies over the next few centuries and ultimately culminates in collapse, we can expect things like theatre to increasingly take the place that was formerly occupied by movies and television. It just won’t be that great.
Are there even any “Great Masters” of the post-war era at all? If you look at contemporary literature from the perspective of its roots, you see a great trunk that grew and sprouted great branches up to and through the beginning of the 20th century, whereupon it immediately shed all its leaves. These modern writers appear like fleeting nobodies compared to the canon. It’s hard to imagine any of them being remembered as great. I actually cannot name even a single author since 1950 that really stands out.
Stephen Hawking. When he is proven right.
chomsky, not for his politics but for generativism and the minimalist program in linguistics
Chomspky has been laughed out of academia. He's irrelevant to modern Linguistics.
It takes about a century for academia to start labeling people as "important", because that's about how long it takes for them to no longer matter. Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy were literally-whos until they no longer had anything topical to say, for example. The 1920s are being pruned through, so we should see the 1950s in about 30 years or so.
This idea that academia is who decided who was canon is a lie. That’s a role academia took on in the late 20st century, and we now talk about the canon in academic terms. But a canon existed before that, formally and informally. And it was decided by academics. It was gatekept by clergy and aristocrats and landed gentry and simply literary circles, which had basically nothing at all to do with the universities.
The post WWII greats right up to the 80s are all already petty clear. Eg in theatre: Death of a Salesman, The Crucible, Streetcar, cat on a Hot Tin Roof, The Birthday Party, The Homecoming, The Caretaker, Betrayal, Endgame, Waiting for Godot, Happy Days, Accidental Death of an Anarchist, Long Days Journey into Night (only came out after the war.
Those are all canonical plays already
Nothing will ever be forgotten again. This post will live for a trillion years.
Elon Musk for re-starting humanity's space age