In one corner: Albert Einstein, physicist. Best known for the theory of relativity, his crazy hairstyle, “God doesn’t play dice with the universe,” and Marilyn Monroe’s crush on him.
In the other corner: William Shakespeare, playwright. Best known for being the Bard of Avon, fronting for Sir Francis Bacon, “To be or not to be,” and guest starring in a couple of issues of Sandman.
The question: who do you think is the greater genius?
One winner, one loser. All the marbles. No ties, no waffling, no invoking multiple kinds of genius and apportioning them between the two men, no tag teaming, and no invoking some guy or gal who’s a bigger genius than these two put together.
Me: I vote Shakespeare. Maybe it’s the English degree talking, but Bill came up with plays that people are still performing, analyzing, quoting, deconstructing and reading in 9th grade English classes over 400 years after he wrote them. Any given play added more turns of phrases to the English language than the entire oeuvres of lesser-but-still-mighty-talented authors. (I’m looking at you, Mr. Faulkner. You too, Ms. Austen.)
Einstein: talented guy. Good brain. A genius, no question. But the giants he stood on were taller, with broader shoulders.
Shakespeare’s 300 year head start and the depth and duration of his creative output give him the edge. 10 rounds, TKO.
I go with Einstein. All Shakespeare did was right some plays and sonnets. Really good plays and sonnets, but their influence on mankind has been minimal. However, Einstein improved our understanding of very universe, with General and Special Relativity; also, Shakespeare never won a Nobel Prize, while Einstein did with his work on the photoelectric effect, proving that light in quantatized in nature.
My vote has to go to Shakespeare for one key reason: even if Einstein hadn’t made the discoveries he did, it would have only been a matter of years before someone else did. Shakespeare’s contributions could never have hoped to be duplicated, and 500 years later nobody has even come close to matching his value to society. Shakey’s trimuphs were singular, and did not rely as much on the accomplishments of those before him as Albert did.
Sure when it comes to nuke power (controlled or uncontrolled), but much of what he did we are just proving now. He had an incomprenhensible (to us) understanding of the universe. Now eventually someone else might be able to come up w/ Einstiens theories BUT they would becasue they are fundememtal properties of the universe, they already are written (lets say by God), they exist and when we find them, it doesn’t matter who did it or when the laws of the universe will be the same.
I must abmit that I hated havign to read S. in school. I didn’t really find anything in his plays or sonnets. I know that others do but I question just how remarkable his works are, are the famos because they were that good or just preserved somehow so we still have them?
With that out of the way, I present the orange
No writer is exactly the same as another, in that sense each and every one can not hope to be duplicated. So I can’t say that is a sign of genius. Nor can I say that increasing value to society is a sign of genius (actually I would argue both increased the value to society - both are taught in 9th grade through and including college, but as that doesn’t have anything to do with geniusness I’m not going there.)
What S. did with words on paper, E did with the laws of the universe, both created & designed, both used simular methods (mind wise) both were masters of their craft but E’s pen was harder to use because he has to get it exactly correct, He could not subsitute a F for an E in E=mc^2 but S could have made many changes, came up with 100’s of ways to write Romeo and Juliete and all would be correct.
Interesting for discussion, ultimately apples vs. oranges.
Shakespeare - helped humanity (or at least, Western humanity) gain greater insight into the inner dialogue we all experience, but hadn’t been presented to us so clearly before. In this book - Shakespeare and the Invention of the Human, Harold Bloom states:
So, arguably, Shakespeare - while he gave us innovative use of language and theater - had his greatest impact as the revealer of our true selves.
Einstein, on the other hand, was externally focused - he put humanity in a cosmic context that had not been conceptualized before. He took Newton’s mechanical rules and showed the far greater complexity and magnitude of forces working underneath them. Einstein’s ability - whether it be with physics, quantum physics, the photoelectric effect, or other areas - re-cast our understanding of the universe and our place in it more than any person before or since.
Between the two, I am inclined to go with Einstein, simply because while his focus was scientifically external, it reached into all of us and has influenced how we look at ourselves, others and our universe in a profound way, similar to how Shakespeare encouraged self-awareness. It would be hard to argue that Shakespeare had a similar effect on our external perception of ourselves.
Another thought - how about trumping both of them with someone like Lao Tzu? He wrote (or a collection of people who have come to be thought of as a single writer, just like Homer is suspected of being multiple contributors, and the Old Testament was written by several people) the Tao Te Ching thousands of years ago, yet focuses on self-awareness and inner dialogue, and presents concepts that only recently have been proven to have a scientific grounding at the cosmic level.
If Terry Pratchett were sent back in time to kill the Bard and take over his practice, we’d have had a slightly different, but equally satisfying collection of stories to heap praise upon. The ability to expound on the peculiarities of the human condition is not nearly so rare as deep insight into the nature of the physical world. For those that claim that Einstein was merely standing on the shoulders of others, recall that Shakespeare wasn’t exactly working in a vacuum either.
My tongue is, if not firmly planted, at least lightly rooted in my cheek. It’s a fun question (and not original to me), but I do realize that a definitive answer is impossible.
That said, Shakespeare “just wrote a few really good plays and poems”? Ouch!
Well, Shakespeare took a lot of his ideas from other sources.* Sure, he was able to spin them into witty, clever stories, but I don’t think he deserves total credit at all.
Einstein, on the other hand, was able to create very original stuff. He did “stand on the shoulders of giants” but he also was able to do something inconceivable to the minds of others.
Shakespeare had an unusually astute understanding of human personalities and interactions. His characters were distinct and unique, as were they ways in which they interacted with each other.
Einstein was brilliant in the manner that we typically associate with genius, but one shouldn’t underestimate Shakespeare’s unparalleled insights into the human condition.
Einstein was the greater thinker by far, so he was the greater genius. But the nature of science is that you do not create, mearly discover. So if Einstein had not existed it would only be a few more years (30 at most) before all the things he did discover would have been discovered by others. On the other hand had Shakespeare not existed then the same or even particularly similar works of prose would not have ever been created. Another writer of the time would now be lauded as the ultimate playwrite, but there would be no Hamlet no Mid Summer Night’s Dream and no Romeo and Juliet now or ever in the future.
So Einstein had the greatest mind, but Shakespeare had the greatest effect.
There is yet to be a Post-Shakespearean Age, but Einstein’s universe will be improved upon, just as sure as Newton’s, Kepler’s and Copernicus’s were. Shakespeare’s plays bespeak a deep, deep understanding of nature on all fronts, and incorporate Einstein’s theory of relativity, and string theory and a multitude of other scientific therories in their infinite permutations of form and funtion. Instead of being expressed mathematically, Shakespeare’s theories were expressed within the structure of his poetry and psychological insight nonpareil. To say that Einstein was more intelligent is not true.
I’d have to say that Shakespeare wins hands down.
Science ends at poetry’s launchpad, my friends.
S. gave us things to help us understand each other, and that’s great. E. gave us things that might help us understand not only our universe, but also other thinking things that might live in it. IOWs, if I were to meet an ET, I’d want to know, first off, what their understanding of the physical world was, how it compared to ours, how it stacked up against E’s and others of his ilk. That might give us some insight about whether there is a real REALITY out there or not. Later on, I’d ask about ET Shakespeare.
