Thread: Greatest Person of All Time

1. Christ Jesus our Lord
2. Our President of the United States the Honorable Mr. Bush
3. Our Vice-President of the United States the Honorable Mr. Cheney
4. Our Secretary of Defense the Honorable Mr. Rumsfeld

I would measure greatness as the increase in a person's power from one point in his life to another, and the ammount of help a person had along the way. The less help(given freely and generously) the greater a person would be. The greatest then would definitely be someone from the past century, because there is so much more power to wield these days. I think Hitler would have to be one of the greatest, Mao and Lenin might compete, but the socialist movements were almost inevitable.

And I don't think defining greatness differently than you means I'm stupid and retarded, that's a rather stupid and retarded sentiment.

Originally posted by bochen4
1. Christ Jesus our Lord
2. Our President of the United States the Honorable Mr. Bush
3. Our Vice-President of the United States *the Honorable Mr. Cheney
4. Our Secretary of Defense *the Honorable Mr. Rumsfeld

Wait, this is sarcasm right?

Originally posted by bochen4+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bochen4)</div>

1. Christ Jesus our Lord
2. Our President of the United States the Honorable Mr. Bush
3. Our Vice-President of the United States *the Honorable Mr. Cheney
4. Our Secretary of Defense *the Honorable Mr. Rumsfeld[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-Blisarius
Wait, this is sarcasm right?

unfortunaly, no.

bochen, I can pass jesus, but the other three may go as the dumbest/unhumane people in history. (notice I said dumbest)

I don't know if he was serious or what, but he was banned anyway for being just generally a scheißtard

Originally posted by Sortilegio

bochen, I can pass jesus, but the other three may go as the dumbest/unhumane people in history. (notice I said dumbest)

my thought's exactly. "scheißtard" lol, Ilike it

How do you type that strosse character? It's so friggin awesome.

alt + 0223

and it's called an ess-zett

<< -- deutsch geek

ß...kewl.

Yeah, I don't remember much of anything from my language classes back in seventh grade.

Wait, except for a German saying for "I don't get it."

Ich haben ein brecht vorn mein kopf, if I remember right. The literal translation is "I've got a board in front of my head.

haha yeah they have weird -isms

a "katzenjammer" is literally "a wailing cat" and means hangover

Charles Darwin for coming up with a theory that not only has tremendous explanatory power and widespread impact in the sciences and in culture, but also puts humans back into nature on a continuum with animals -- to my mind, a necessary insight (necessary for our survival) that hasn't had nearly pervasive enough influence in the world yet.

[quote]

I agree. It really is not a good word for this scenario that can play out.
Although most of us realize it is not one dimensional issue, you could point out the worlds strongest man. This being entirely out of context, like Hitler, to what I think the post was not intending.
A better word would have been magnanomous.
If we were to measure greatness by one’s influence on the world, as most people in this topic have, it would be insanity to say that Hitler was not “great”. The day that his name will be lost to history is a distant one indeed. Personally I feel that moral aptitude is so subjective that I would not even think of placing it into the definition of greatness. Dictionary definitions of great are:

Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent: a great crisis.
Of outstanding significance or importance: a great work of art.
As I stated before, Hitler was extremely influential.

Superior in quality or character; noble: “For he was great, ere fortune made him so” (John Dryden).
This would be the one thats up for a large amount of debate though as also stated before, morals are subjective. It should also be noted that "quality" is often used in terms of ability. Hitler had quite a great ability when it came to charisma.

Powerful; influential: one of the great nations of the West.
Eminent; distinguished: a great leader.
I think that we could all agree Hitler was both powerful and eminent.

Out of these five definitions, it's notable that only one of them subscribes to morality. I can't say I'm a fan of the terms "good" and "evil"; to me they are but words used to justify the worst of wars and offenses.

As for the most influential person, I too will choose Jesus. Though Constantine was the one to legalize the religion, therefore raising its popularity, it was still Jesus who gave him the materials in the first place.

Why aren't you a fan of good/evil? Just out of curiosity, mind you, I'm an athiest, so I'm not particularly fond of religious-based morality.

It's just that Hitler-from an athiest or thiest standpoint, was still an 'evil' man. His slaughtering of millions of innocents goes against both religious morality and scientific morality.

Originally posted by Tsen
Why aren't you a fan of good/evil? *Just out of curiosity, mind you, I'm an athiest, so I'm not particularly fond of religious-based morality.

It's just that Hitler-from an athiest or thiest standpoint, was still an 'evil' man. *His slaughtering of millions of innocents goes against both religious morality and scientific morality.

I'm against such things due to the fact that "good" and "evil" attempt to place an objective reading on a subjective subject (morality). This in turn is used to cause everything from propoganda to religious wars. As stated before, there is no thing as "scientific morality" as morality is completely subjective. Science never concerns itself with such things as "good" and "evil" and at the most, the terms would fall into the subject of philosophy. Suicide was an evil act in the West yet any honorable one in the East. Other than the development of these cultural norms studied by sociology, this has little to do with science. Afterall, nuclear fusion does not discriminate towards religious groups.

I beg to differ.

Science offers a quite clear view on morality, though some areas are a shade of gray, such as suicide.

Human beings are social creatures. We are evolutionarily viable not because we are strong or fast. Intelligence plays a large role, but our social tendencies play an even larger role. To succeed as a species, we work together to hunt, farm, clothe and shelter eachother. Alone, most human beings wouldn't survive. This goes into something Brady Baker has repeatedly noted on the forums: That standardized moral yes-and-no's, good-and-evils, must exist to allow humans to cooperate. Thus societies develop moral codes, though they may be different than the moral codes of other societies. These moral codes are vital in the cooperation and success of the human race.

On good and evil.
Simply put, my good is evil for someone else, and someone elses good is my evil.
Frame of reference.

On great people.
Jesus did not write the bible, if you are basing his influence on the world based on the bible, I am sorry. Then again I suppose Jesus influences tons of millions of christians every day, even though they are only influenced by the bibles concept of what he was. For there is little "factual" information on the man.

My opinon the influential.
Herodotus, for he created the basis by which our society is able to delve into the facts of the past, and make assumptions for their futures. Our own classic conditioner.

Socrates, for his extraodinary philosophies that would shape the world as we know it.
Socrates leads to Plato, Plato to Aristotle, Aristotle to Alexander. --- Alot of influences.

Thales of Miletus, allowed for the rest of greek philosophers to come into their conditionings . ALOT of influence.


And my answer to the greatest person of all time.
C.G. Jung ... and ... Dr. Suess?

[quote]

I agree. It really is not a good word for this scenario that can play out.
Although most of us realize it is not one dimensional issue, you could point out the worlds strongest man. This being entirely out of context, like Hitler, to what I think the post was not intending.
A better word would have been magnanomous.
If we were to measure greatness by one’s influence on the world, as most people in this topic have, it would be insanity to say that Hitler was not “great”. The day that his name will be lost to history is a distant one indeed. Personally I feel that moral aptitude is so subjective that I would not even think of placing it into the definition of greatness. Dictionary definitions of great are:

Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent: a great crisis.
Of outstanding significance or importance: a great work of art.
As I stated before, Hitler was extremely influential.

Superior in quality or character; noble: “For he was great, ere fortune made him so” (John Dryden).
This would be the one thats up for a large amount of debate though as also stated before, morals are subjective. It should also be noted that "quality" is often used in terms of ability. Hitler had quite a great ability when it came to charisma.

Powerful; influential: one of the great nations of the West.
Eminent; distinguished: a great leader.
I think that we could all agree Hitler was both powerful and eminent.

Out of these five definitions, it's notable that only one of them subscribes to morality. I can't say I'm a fan of the terms "good" and "evil"; to me they are but words used to justify the worst of wars and offenses.

As for the most influential person, I too will choose Jesus. Though Constantine was the one to legalize the religion, therefore raising its popularity, it was still Jesus who gave him the materials in the first place.

If the Greatest man would befall on someone infamous then so be it. That is not what I am saying.
Hitler had a nation that needed direction. He was in the right place a the right time. He was a very good speaker. When you add that to masses of people that are willing to follow anything that promises to get your nation out of the crutch that Germany was in at that point will no doubt be successful.
What acclimates did he have?
I would like to here them.
He handed over Military power and other responsabilties to friends rather than people that were qualifies. That proves two things. One, he was not capable himself of the task and two, and more sadly, he could not even appoint someone worthy of such tasks.

Jesus is such a bland and stereotypical answer. Depraved megalomaniac, he was.

Originally posted by Chainsaw Kitten
Jesus is such a bland and stereotypical answer. Depraved megalomaniac, he was.

Stereotypical maybe but there is no denying "its" impact


"ITS" whether or not the person of subject even really existed.
If a devil, god a jesus or a Jason exist in humanities head or any one persons head, that is all that is actually needed for that person to have existed. No?

It may have withstood the test of time, but that means nothing to me. The point is most people don't respect true genius. Something is not "good" merely because the majority thinks it to be. This is why democracy does not work.

Originally posted by Chainsaw Kitten
It may have withstood the test of time, but that means nothing to me. The point is most people don't respect true genius. Something is not "good" merely because the majority thinks it to be. This is why democracy does not work.

OK.
Then what does matter Chainsaw kitten?
What is true genius and who qualifies?

I apologizeif you have already stated this. I sifted through the seven pages & did not see anything.
I still stand behind Leonardo DaVinci. I know because of the movie that people are jumping on the ban wagon or are sick of hearing about him but I said this long before that sequence of events took place.

I will give you my definition of a genius.

Many people believe that a genius is someone who has made changes and influenced the world. Only this is a qualification for most

And also you see "child geniuses" who are "geniuses" merely for being able to memorize things. These children are not geniuses, they are talented and skilled maybe.

These things are irrelevant to me. In my view, a genius is not only talented and skilled, but knows how to use their skills for the appropriate cause. A genius knows his own intellect and recognises that he is a genius. Only when one knows one's own strengths and weaknesses can one know one's own limits, capacities; do's and dont's.

Jesus is only seen as a genius because everyone has heard of him. This is no reason to give him that title.

In example, I think Chuck Palaniuk and Terry Goodkind are true geniuses. Nietzsche aswell, and not because he is well known, but because of his glorious and confident art.

Originally posted by Chainsaw Kitten
I will give you my definition of a genius.

Many people believe that a genius is someone who has made changes and influenced the world. Only this is a qualification for most

And also you see "child geniuses" who are "geniuses" merely for being able to memorize things. These children are not geniuses, they are talented and skilled maybe.

These things are irrelevant to me. In my view, a genius is not only talented and skilled, but knows how to use their skills for the appropriate cause. A genius knows his own intellect and recognises that he is a genius. Only when one knows one's own strengths and weaknesses can one know one's own limits, capacities; do's and dont's.

Jesus is only seen as a genius because everyone has heard of him. This is no reason to give him that title.

In example, I think Chuck Palaniuk and Terry Goodkind are true geniuses. Nietzsche aswell, and not because he is well known, but because of his glorious and confident art.

Very good examples of some great minds.
I suppose this inevitably gets categorized to some extent from admiration of a persons particular field. Science, physics, writing, art, etc.
But I wholeheartedly agree with you that memorization is NO key to genius. Very misplaced in todays outlook. Many are praised for their ability to memorize trivial knowledge.
There are savants who surpass any of us in the memory category but can't button their shirt.
Depending on the level of genius I have to disagree that true genius do Not really recognize their significance and are often eccentric and detached. But there again you begin to loose something in one brain region where you gain considerable knowledge in another hemisphere.
Thanks for your input. I think it is fascinating to see how broad this topic has become.

Greatest and most influencial person of all time definitely Jesus... God on earth. 8)