Famous names of the past are figured based on their influence, not on their intellectual superiority

[romanstock]

Do not be fooled into thinking a 'great thinker' of the past is necessarily an intellectual titan. Obviously they must possess enough intelligence to output any such works, but for every one of them there is countless men who produce similar or superior works who have been lost to time and never regarded. What separates the known name from the unknown is their ability to gain influence amongst men wielding power. Neitszche may never have gained such notoriety if certain Nazis did not like and promote his work, Saint Augustine would be unknown if elements of the Church did not find his City of God material useful. How many similar monks were there over the centuries constantly scribing higher iq philosophies that never gained any traction? A lot. Only a few of them are famous. And literally all of them were wrong at the end of the day, merely promoting their brainwashing. While they may have been 'great at thinking' compared to the common morass, their thoughts began on a false premise and were plain wrong. And so great names of the past can not only be not as great as deemed, they may have ended up a negative influence on society, thus worse than a fool.