Good Quiz. Got 15 out of 20. Hope i can get out of this rutt. 15 out of 20...on the last six (including this one) quizzes... no less...no more. Oh well.
What? Why? It would be Galileo (or Copernicus, depending on whether you're going with "theorized" or "proved") and heliocentrism, but relativity is pretty firmly Einstein.
Maybe they wanted to do away with the Greek name. The irony would be that Istanbul is also from a Greek etymology (it derives from a phrase that more or less means "this way to the city").
To be completely honest, I would have known that fact, but I had never heard of Bligh or his ship, and baselessly assumed that "Bligh" was a nautical term and therefore I had no chance whatsoever of getting the question correct.
Read Mutiny on the Bounty or watch the film sometime - I like the 1960s remake with Marlon Brando and Trevor Howard, but the old one with Clark Gable is great, too.
I don't know why, but I first thought of Woodes Rogers for the Endeavour. But now I have no idea whether or not he actually captained a ship of that name. Why did I think of him ?
As a person who studies fallacies, can I just mention how much I absolutely loath this argument?
Here's an example.
Politician #1: "Martin Luther King had a dream that one day people wouldn't be judged by their race. I'd like to help make that dream a reality."
Politician #2: "I can't believe my opponent is comparing himself to Martin Luther King."
It doesn't take a genius level IQ to realize that politician #2 is being a dishonest jerk by employing a strawman argument. I hereby call this particular variant the "comparison strawman". Once you see it, you'll see it everywhere.
Thatcher was a very polarising and controversial neoliberal and authoritarian right-wing politician, while Shakespeare is often regarded as the world's most important playwright. To link the two just because they have a nickname and are from England is, to me, strange and anachronistic. So I agree with Alex Thirkell. Besides, ding dong the witch is dead!
@gandalf: Shakespeare is the most widely performed dramatist of all time and the one most often adapted to film (by some of the greatest directors including Kurosawa, Welles, and Zeffirelli). It is hard to find a noteworthy author who does not praise him. Goethe would agree enthusiastically that Shakespeare is not only the most important playwright, but author in general (and perhaps one of the most important thinkers even); German literature from at least as early as Sturm and Drang is inconceivable without Shakespeare. Marx and Freud cite him, feminists still refer back to him. Numerous quotes from his plays now exist as idioms in foreign languages, a feat that was not achieved by fellow greats such as Molière, Chekhov and Ibsen. Native english speakers sometimes overstate the total significance of some of their authors (as everyone else), but in this case they are dead right. Also note that the user wrote "is often regarded as...", which no one in their right mind can argue against.
I'm not saying that Shakespeare isn't an important author. I just think that it's weird to consider that there is such a thing as a single most important author. That's like saying that there is a "best painting".
Shakespeare has become iconic, as a shorthand for literature, in the same way the Mona Lisa has become a shorthand for painting.
There is no Shakespeare without countless others before him. The plot for Romeo and Juliet he (brilliantly) adapted from Ovid. The use of blank verse he got from Marlowe. Theater was invented by Greeks.
That's not knocking Shakespeare in any way: every author is influenced by other, borrows, adapts, makes his own, and, if he's good, adds to it and inspires others in turn.
It also seems like a rather ethnocentric view. How significant is Shakespeare really to Chinese literature? To Japanese literature? To any of the African literatures?
But hardly anyone outside of China (perhaps except for a few neighboring countries) will name a Chinese playwright as the most important one. The thing about Shakespeare is that he is considered extremely important outside of the territory of his mother tongue, more so than any other playwright. That doesn't necessarily mean that he is the best or that there can be an objective best. And again, vomitingdiamonds' statement was not that absolute anyway.
As for Thatcher, our views on her really have nothing to do with whether she should be in this quiz.
As for Shakespeare, the fact that many people might say something does not make it true. His perceived uniqueness today has probably more to do with Hollywood hegemony than with what he actually wrote. I'm willing to bet that there's a higher percentage of people who think he's the "most important of all time" among those who haven't read a single line he wrote than among those who did.
As for other cultures. Are you sure that the Italians would agree that Shakespeare is more important than Dante? That the French would agree he's more important than Molière or Hugo? That the Germans would put him above Goethe or Schiller? That the Greeks would put him above Homer? That the Russians value him above Tolstoi or Dostoievsky? Those are just some cultures I happen to know about.
I think the whole idea of "ranking" authors according to significance is flawed, and has some unpalatable undertones of colonialism to it (not that you meant it that way).
Dante is, in fact, more important than Shakespeare. Dante's Comedy represents the entire european medieval culture and has had a huge influence on the entirety of european literature
Does important mean objectively influential, or perceived as such, and is there even a clear difference? What you say about people who haven't even read his lines might be true but I would bet that his works are also the most discussed in uni lectures. What I meant was that Shakespeare is considered the most important playwright in most countries outside of their own national treasures. Although I think that he'd stand a good chance to trump Schiller and even Goethe in the perception of many Germans. And to be true to the argument, Hugo, Tolstoi and Dostoyevsky were not playwrights. :) But yeah, of course I agree that Shakespeare's... importance, or popularity, or whatever you may call it, owes much to cultural colonialism. And that definite, objective rankings of such things as best playwrights are impossible to achieve. And vomitingdiamonds didn't write a treatise pompously claiming any such thing. It was a passing remark that means as much as 'an important author'.
Self-correction: Tolstoy and Hugo did also write plays. However, those didn't contribute much to their status as national poets, at least as far as I know.
Hugo's plays were actually pretty influential - one in particular, Hernani, sparked a huge debate still known as the "Bataille d'Hernani", and is considered the epitome of the literary opposition between classics and modernists in France, but that's beside the point.
I think we more or less agree on a lot of points. In any case, it's been very interesting!
I will fully admit that I don't so much object to Shakespeare than to this idea that whole fields of art can be reduced to just one icon that is both the epitome and embodiement of the whole field, as if they could have existed without everyone else before and after them. The reduction of art to icons, where "Shakespeare" is often used as a shorthand for all literature, just as the Mona Lisa is used to signify "all art".
Neither you nor vomitingdiamonds have done this - but I've seen it often enough that I sometimes react to people who aren't even there ;-).
I disagree, and it points out (in addition to what @Quizmaster has pointed out), why @twained complaint is so invalid.
There is no necessary or even desirable relationship between the sources of each limb of an analogy of this kind. What is being compared are the relationships, not each individual member. Shakespeare : The Bard :: New York City : The Big Apple is a totally valid analogy, because the puzzle being solved is really identifying the mapping between Shakespeare and The Bard, and calculating the same mapping for New York City. The relationship between Shakespeare and New York City matters not at all.
In fact, in my opinion, having dissimilar sources or dissimilar targets sometimes makes for a more entertaining analogy, because more wit is required to apply the mapping.
I personally find the closer analogies more satisfying. The further away they are the more ambiguous they become and it gets frustrating (for me). QM seems to go along with that, since the Shakespeare/Thatcher one contains probably the biggest difference between the members of each analogy in this quiz, and it's not even that huge of a difference - they're both influential historical British figures after all.
It's all IMO, and I can totally understand someone preferring to navigate a series of more stretched or varied analogies.
I had the same thought as Pitzikat. It made sense because it compares administration to administration--VP to VP, President to President. I eventually got to Truman but that's only after I retyped Kennedy a few times.
It kind of is, though. Tons of presidents were VPs first. They also were both senators before they were VPs, as was Kennedy actually. Usually, though, we start with the biggest office and work our way down, not the reverse.
But the main issue with this line of reasoning is that it fails to understand how the basic analogy works, as Rob pointed out already.
Not to jump back on this three years later, but that's also not how analogies work. In an analogy "A is to B as C is to D," then A has to have the same relationship to B as C has to D. In order for the answer to be "Kennedy," the analogy would have to be "Nixon was the VP before Johnson, like Eisenhower was the President before Kennedy," which are two different relationships.
Not sure if the mythology question is where the gods live - since Zeus lived in Olympus, but Odin definitely did not live in Valhalla, or if it just a place in that given mythology.
Really, comparing slavery to prohibition? I really think that is an AWFUL analogy. You could talk about 13th amendment and 18th amendment, but the way it is...
Here's an example.
Politician #1: "Martin Luther King had a dream that one day people wouldn't be judged by their race. I'd like to help make that dream a reality."
Politician #2: "I can't believe my opponent is comparing himself to Martin Luther King."
It doesn't take a genius level IQ to realize that politician #2 is being a dishonest jerk by employing a strawman argument. I hereby call this particular variant the "comparison strawman". Once you see it, you'll see it everywhere.
e.g. "Mutti" is to Merkel as "Iron Lady" is to ______
Shakespeare has become iconic, as a shorthand for literature, in the same way the Mona Lisa has become a shorthand for painting.
There is no Shakespeare without countless others before him. The plot for Romeo and Juliet he (brilliantly) adapted from Ovid. The use of blank verse he got from Marlowe. Theater was invented by Greeks.
That's not knocking Shakespeare in any way: every author is influenced by other, borrows, adapts, makes his own, and, if he's good, adds to it and inspires others in turn.
As for Thatcher, our views on her really have nothing to do with whether she should be in this quiz.
As for Shakespeare, the fact that many people might say something does not make it true. His perceived uniqueness today has probably more to do with Hollywood hegemony than with what he actually wrote. I'm willing to bet that there's a higher percentage of people who think he's the "most important of all time" among those who haven't read a single line he wrote than among those who did.
As for other cultures. Are you sure that the Italians would agree that Shakespeare is more important than Dante? That the French would agree he's more important than Molière or Hugo? That the Germans would put him above Goethe or Schiller? That the Greeks would put him above Homer? That the Russians value him above Tolstoi or Dostoievsky? Those are just some cultures I happen to know about.
I think the whole idea of "ranking" authors according to significance is flawed, and has some unpalatable undertones of colonialism to it (not that you meant it that way).
I think we more or less agree on a lot of points. In any case, it's been very interesting!
I will fully admit that I don't so much object to Shakespeare than to this idea that whole fields of art can be reduced to just one icon that is both the epitome and embodiement of the whole field, as if they could have existed without everyone else before and after them. The reduction of art to icons, where "Shakespeare" is often used as a shorthand for all literature, just as the Mona Lisa is used to signify "all art".
Neither you nor vomitingdiamonds have done this - but I've seen it often enough that I sometimes react to people who aren't even there ;-).
I disagree, and it points out (in addition to what @Quizmaster has pointed out), why @twained complaint is so invalid.
There is no necessary or even desirable relationship between the sources of each limb of an analogy of this kind. What is being compared are the relationships, not each individual member. Shakespeare : The Bard :: New York City : The Big Apple is a totally valid analogy, because the puzzle being solved is really identifying the mapping between Shakespeare and The Bard, and calculating the same mapping for New York City. The relationship between Shakespeare and New York City matters not at all.
In fact, in my opinion, having dissimilar sources or dissimilar targets sometimes makes for a more entertaining analogy, because more wit is required to apply the mapping.
It's all IMO, and I can totally understand someone preferring to navigate a series of more stretched or varied analogies.
But the main issue with this line of reasoning is that it fails to understand how the basic analogy works, as Rob pointed out already.
Odin would be to Asgard as Zeus to Olympus.
Elysian Fields are the equivalent to Valhalla.
Really, comparing chalk to cheese is awful. They are the complete opposite!
Prohibition = making alcohol illegal
Here is the analogy