With the exception of philosophy.

people remembered ancient philosophers because they were considered correct for so long. sometimes from the bc era to the renaissance

(here is Kamikizzle's post with my response piece by piece in red)
now let me counter the relevant ones
(1 is relative caz u dissed my major dumb ass)

2. youre proving my point. hawking cannot communicate with people on his own. therefore by your rational (since you seem to think understanding language is the MOST important thing ever) he would be an idiot. OBVIOUSLY he one of the most intelligent people to have ever lived.
(already covered this and this one was my bad, i miss read)

you made my point here
(Hellz ya i did)

4. you said chimps had a greater memory for some sad attempt to display their intelligence, however children learn alot more than chimps, much quicker than chimps (or apes if you prefer)
(hows about you go spend 10 years learning a chimps language, got ya there dont i)

5. conjecture
(same as 4)

6. thats because ive been too busy shooting down your faulty assumptions and logic. i have not put forward any positive statement and therefor am not the one who needs to put forth the evidence.
(i have put forth evidence that you disregarded, what you need to understand as you called it "faulty assumptions and logic" is common sense)

7. learning is perhaps the MOST important skill we have. thats why we went from sticks and stones to what we have now. if we didnt learn at all we would never have progressed from sticks. this is why primates are still using them and we are not
(learning is important, so learn to learn something that no one else knows, or learn to uncover a truth where others believe something that is untrue)

7.1 you are correct in saying the people that challenge current accepted truth are remember. but you only remember the CORRECT ones. how many people were forgotten because their model of the nucleus was wrong? how many people forgotten because they put forth incorrect shapes of dna? history remembers the correct individuals. not the ones who use nothing more than conjecture, and opinion
("not the ones who use nothing more than conjecture" I believe i listed evidence to support my opinion and i believe that that is the basics of something called science)

well some people are animals, the others are pretty nice

some animals are nice, ant ya ever had a pet?

Yes, but there have been philosophers since then that aren't considered correct. Just insightful... or unique.

4. again, conjecture.
5. i dont even see how this pertains to number 4
6. more ranting and usage of opinion as common sense
7.1 youve been using conjecture and opinion as evidence and fact.
you cant just make a statement or scenario youve made up and call it evidence.

your entire arguement is summed up using scenarios youve created and your own opinions (conjecture) and claiming that they are fact, or evidence.

the only ones i know of were alive during an era well before there was such a thing as a "scientist"

If your insightful i would say you would have to be correct, if your unique then i dont think ur remembered.

I think philosophers tell us pointless stuff like the meaning of life and other non science related stuff (correct me if im wrong, its not rlly my ball park)

"i would say"
"i dont think"

Your opinion doesn't really mean anything in this situation. No offense intended.