>>12827569The division of labour allowed for certain people to dedicate themselves to intellectual pursuits. Of all the intelligent people who walked the earth, certain among them were curious, predispositioned and privileged enough to commit themselves to 'fields' of study, rather than tending to the soil or animals. Usually, the smartest people provided utility of knowledge to the people. Sometimes they sprung from religious sects who provided psychological comfort and the ability to organize people onto society's leaders.
Where would Hippocrates be if he didn't rebel against charlatans who promised divine health from ancient gods, having tried to identify cures and organize ancient medicine in an ethical way? Where would would Archimedes be if he didn't provide great tools or knowledge to the people or their highest leaders were contruction managers would insist on doing things the same old way? Where would Socrates, Plato and Aristotle be, if their philosophy didn't provide a useful means for organizing Greek life and creating schools of thought?
Today, we are testing the limits of human knowledge or understanding. Whole crops of human beings are skillfully trained in various fields where fruits return increasingly little, but maintenance of old ideas or piddly discoveries. Whilst from Eratosthene to Einstein great discoveries may have been made by great minds, equally great minds dedicate themselves to piddly returns. A) They the ancients were smart, but if you sufficiently trained a child to learn what they learned, then they'd be comparative genius' by the time they turn 18 and many 18 year olds are. B) Personal needs, Individual ability, Society and Economic factors prevent the right people being sorted into the right places(Where would Marilyn vos Savant be if she were made a STEM major vs an advice columnist? Where would Garry Kasparov be if his mind were tooled towards useful scientific or mathematical endeavors, rather than chess?)
