Why is the world they way it is?

The options are little too modern in selection and bit too eurocentric.

I didnt have the 150 options I would have needed, so have fun with it anyway

Chap who invented agriculture. Don't remember his name.
It was a while back, but I think he was very hairy.

Mohammad. Not only founded a major religion but united the Arabs and prepared them to conquer most of the Middle East.

None.

..

none of those guys, and if you had to choose a religious figure, it would in theory either be amenhotep, Abraham (of ancient Judean tradition) or the Zoroaster diviner who name I wont attempt to spell.

Adam would be the obvious religious choice... ;)

Out of the people on the list I'd chose Charmange, ONLY because he's the most ancient person. There are tons of other people that could compete for that position though...(Attila the Hun??)

Adam would be the obvious religious choice... ;)

Don't you mean Eve? lol, she did a lot more then Adam...haha...

I'd have thought the obvious answer is Confucius, but I'd still say Plato, or perhaps even Pythagoras. As for Abraham, it's hardly certain that he even existed.

The poll is far too skewed to recent people. How could anyone from the twentieth century be considered the most influential person in history?

Possibly Martin Luther or John Calvin. They completely created a long-lasting religious conflict all over Europe, and gave rise to more enlightened religious followers.

After crunching the numbers for three centauries on a planet sized supercompiter, the human with the maximal history divergence score was Ernst Moro a fairly well known Austrian physician.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Moro

I will say Socrates, Plato or maybe Jesus or St Peter. This guys has the most inpact although Confucious has mega influence in East Asia.

For the recent i will say Marx on Class struggle.

I will say Socrates, Plato or maybe Jesus or St Peter. This guys has the most inpact although Confucious has mega influence in East Asia.

For the recent i will say Marx on Class struggle.
And what about the rest of the world?

sydhe nails it. Someone actually wrote a book trying to list the 100 most influential in history (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0806513500/103-3150565-1095028?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance), and Mohammad was #1, Isaac Newton #2, Jesus #3 (St. Paul was #6)

Mohammad. Not only founded a major religion but united the Arabs and prepared them to conquer most of the Middle East.

I agree, the birth of Islam changed the course of history completely.

It would be very hard to imagine the world without it.

From a religious point of view - Adam
From a realist point of view - that man who first said: "Why should I work, when my neighbour can do the job twice as good?"

What the other gripers said.

To play along, I think Muhammad has had a notable, almost immediate and significant impact on global power relations as we know them today. Confucius is also a good one. These characters, in contributing religious doctrines and philiosophical tools for living your life, made serious political contributions to the world they left behind.

Aristotle is another one to throw into the mix.

If university historians were polled, I think Charlemagne would win.
But I voted for Cortez because I think that toppling the largest city in the world was the single event that 'changed everything'. Two continents worth of people got exterminated or enslaved; all in a few decades. Every other influential persons accomplishments-good or bad- helped shape modern times and eventually blended in to the other mix of events. There was no mixing with Cortez; It was a sudden catastrophic event with far-reaching permanent conclusions.

Abraham, fouded the Abrahamic tradition. If both Mohammed and Jesus deserve first on some lists, then how about giving it to the man who started it all? Christianity's numbers far out way those of Confucianism, and Islam isthe next runner up. Islam is also the fastest growing religion in the world. Together, they make up over half of the population, 52.74% to be exact. Together, their acomplishments outshine anything else, but alone they are outshined. Abraham founded the Arabrahamic tradition of Monotheism and thsu deserves the spot of being the most influential person in history, with Mohammed in second, Jesus third, the Buddha fourth, and Confucious fifth.

The guy who invented fire. Or the one who invented agriculture. Or writing.

All of these people are massievly influential in their own right. There is no one most influential person.

Jesus and Mohammed. They founded the two largest religons in the world. Both influenced history greatly so they definely deserve to be the most important people in history.

Founding a religion is one thing, it takes more than 1 person to spread it wide. :)

Some more choices:

Agrippina
Dekanawidah
Edward de Vere
Leondardo Da Vinci
Rosa Parks

Obviously, in every aspect, not just religion, the religious founders BY FAR outclass the others in historical importance. For political reasons, religious reasons and just shaping the history of the world for many centuries the top people should be Jesus, Abraham and Muhammed. After Jesus Christianity spread rapidly and grew beyond belief in Europe and the Middle East, and thus spread by those nations to Africa, India, the Pacific and America, basically all over the world.

Obviously, political and religious leaders have had a much greater impact on the world than scientists. Science has had a humongeous impact on the world, but no one scientist can compare to the great political and religious leaders.

Founding a religion is one thing, it takes more than 1 person to spread it wide. :)

Some more choices:

Agrippina
Dekanawidah
Edward de Vere
Leondardo Da Vinci
Rosa Parks

Rosa Parks? I don't think a public transport user in America comes close to influencing an entire planet. If we were voting for blips on the cultural landscape I would agree with you.

I am going with the supporters of early man and inventor of tools myself. Without that hairy guy we would still be eating leaves and the occassional bit of raw meat.

I am going with the supporters of early man and inventor of tools myself. Without that hairy guy we would still be eating leaves and the occassional bit of raw meat.
But I thought we were talking about historical people, not hypotetical people. Most likely, no single individual invented agriculture, tools, how to make fire etc...There was probably dozens of people in all the regions of the world who figured it out about the same time period. I think the OP is looking for a specific person. And why does OP mean Thread Starter? Shouldn't it be TS?

But I thought we were talking about historical people, not hypotetical people. Most likely, no single individual invented agriculture, tools, how to make fire etc...There was probably dozens of people in all the regions of the world who figured it out about the same time period. I think the OP is looking for a specific person. And why does OP mean Thread Starter? Shouldn't it be TS?

Yep if pressed to point to the single most influential historic figure then I will stay on my theme and point to a scientist. The inventor of explosives gets my vote. Since the Chinese perfected explosives without crediting a single individual it is difficult to name that person. The west now points to Nobel as the inventor of dynamite so I would point to him as having had the biggest influence. Without him we would still be firing low velocity projectiles at each other.

But if he wouldn't have invented it, someone else would.

my vote goes to Sid Meier, because we wouldn't have civilization with out him. clearly the inventor of civilization it the most influential person.

But if he wouldn't have invented it, someone else would.

Sure I agree it was inevitable ... but using that rationale you say that about Mohamed or Jesus or Buddha or L Ron Hubbard etc. someone else would have come up with similar ideas eventually.

my vote goes to Sid Meier, because we wouldn't have civilization with out him. clearly the inventor of civilization it the most influential person.
What about Francis Tresham?

From the list I would say Marx. But i'm focusing on the past 200 years.

I list him because he influenced the likes of Lenin, Mao and so on, which of course led to communist governments in Russia, China and many other countries. And then he also influenced people like Hitler, in his opposistion to communism, which was vital in him becoming the leader of Germany. And also others who opposed communism, not just fascists.

You could say Marx's infleuence has been directly felt in World War 1, World War 2 and the cold war, and those are some of the most important occurances in recent human history.

Karl Marx? Sheesh, why don't you include Ptolemy while you're at it...

If you are going to say Jesus or Mohammed, then you have to put Abraham first. I said it once and i will say it agian. He started it all, so he should get the credit for the 52.97% of the population that follows Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.

Nah, Jesus and Mohammed hands down.

Karl Marx? Sheesh, why don't you include Ptolemy while you're at it...
So, you are choosing to ignore 2 world wars and the cold war then? Communist Russia wasn't important was it? The Nazi's are just a footnote in history?

I did specifically point out that I am focusing on the past 200 years. And given that Marx's writings had direct influence on figures such as Lenin, Mao, Stalin (those 3 on the pro-Marx side) and Hitler, Reagen, Thatcher (3 examples of anti-Marxists) I would say thats pretty damn influencial. In fact the whole entire 20th Century was directly influenced by Marx's writings.

I am by no means saying he is the most infleuncial person in human history, but of those listed in the poll he certainally has had the most impact, especially when you consider that 2 of them are Communists and another a very radical anti-communist.

Nah, Jesus and Mohammed hands down.
That's two people, not one. Abraham developed the Abrahamic tradition of which both Islam and Jesus perscribe. If either Jesus or Mohammed can be given credit for being the most influential person in history, then Abraham should take that credit right off the bat.

Actually I'd say Maximillian Rospierre. He may have gone nutty, but his work helped form individual prestige in our world. That would have never ending results.

That's two people, not one.
I dont care. Choose whatever you want.
Abraham developed the Abrahamic tradition of which both Islam and Jesus perscribe. If either Jesus or Mohammed can be given credit for being the most influential person in history, then Abraham should take that credit right off the bat.
Nope. That is not a valid argument here. Without Jesus and later Mohammed very few people would know anything about Abraham today. We have speaking of the most relevant person, not the first. That is like attributing Julius Caesar or August´s relevance to Romulo becuase he founded rome. Or Newton relevance to Galileo or Einstein´s to Newton becuase without Newton there would no be Einstein.

The options are little too modern in selection and bit too eurocentric.
Yeah, way too many Germans. :p

I will say Socrates, Plato or maybe Jesus or St Peter. This guys has the most inpact although Confucious has mega influence in East Asia.

I don't think St Peter did all that much. Paul would surely be a more obvious choice than him.

Still, Confucius still wins, for the simple reason that although he's not very influential outside Asia, his influence remains immense within it. How many modern Europeans follow the teachings of Jesus or the method of Socrates? Even most of those who call themselves Christians completely ignore the Sermon on the Mount. Yet Confucius' ideals are absolutely central to most of Asia even today. I've had to try to teach Asian undergraduates philosophy this term, and if I hear the phrase "filial piety" - meaningless to me - one more time I will kill one of them!

If you are going to say Jesus or Mohammed, then you have to put Abraham first. I said it once and i will say it agian. He started it all, so he should get the credit for the 52.97% of the population that follows Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.

And I've said it once and I'll say it again: Abraham is a figure of legend about whom virtually nothing is known, and who probably never existed at all. Jesus and Muhammad both existed and what they did is fairly well attested. If you're going to argue that Abraham is the most influential man for discovering monotheism, you might as well argue that Noah is the most influential man for saving the human race!

my vote still goes to sid. but regadless, you know this debate is going no where, when people start saying "I've said it before, and I'll say it again..."

Jesus of Nazareth.

I can see some of the names up there too, but Mao? He doesn't even have any influence in the country he controlled for 25-odd years. The only places where Mao matters are in the minds of a few kooks in Nepal, Peru, and UC Berkeley.

I think to say that Mao has no influence in China is pretty daft - even now, Mao is still enormously respected and revered by very many Chinese. They attribute the disasters of his rule to those around him, such as his wife, rather than say anything bad about the Chairman himself.

I'd agree, though, that describing someone who died only thirty years ago as the most influential person in history would be pretty peculiar, no matter what they achieved.

Matt Groening - Can you honestly imagine a world without 'The Simpsons'?

Do me for spamming if you want but it's equally as stupid as naming any other 'one' person who changed the whole course of history.

I don't think St Peter did all that much. Paul would surely be a more obvious choice than him.

Still, Confucius still wins, for the simple reason that although he's not very influential outside Asia, his influence remains immense within it. How many modern Europeans follow the teachings of Jesus or the method of Socrates? Even most of those who call themselves Christians completely ignore the Sermon on the Mount. Yet Confucius' ideals are absolutely central to most of Asia even today. I've had to try to teach Asian undergraduates philosophy this term, and if I hear the phrase "filial piety" - meaningless to me - one more time I will kill one of them!


yes, what am i thinking, i often confuse peter as the one the invent christianity...

Matt Groening - Can you honestly imagine a world without 'The Simpsons'?

:lol:Good choice:goodjob:

I'd have thought the obvious answer is Confucius, but I'd still say Plato, or perhaps even Pythagoras. As for Abraham, it's hardly certain that he even existed.

The poll is far too skewed to recent people. How could anyone from the twentieth century be considered the most influential person in history?

It is obviously some religious/philosophic figure who is most influential. Any other option besides Colombus perhaps, is just silly (Newton is especially silly and I'm glad no one voted for it).

But your last comment assumes that influence can only be uni-directional (i.e. from present to future) and not bi-directional (i.e. from both present to past as well as present to future). I am pretty sure influence is bi-directional. The present can influence not only future but also past. If you think about it hard, it makes sense, especially since you brought up Ancient Greek philsophers with their idea of multiple kinds of causation

The problem with the pick of "Jesus" is that all eveidnce found so far points to the fact no such person ever existed. The myth of the 'son of god was here' didn't surface until a few hundred years later.

The problem with the pick of "Jesus" is that all eveidnce found so far points to the fact no such person ever existed. The myth of the 'son of god was here' didn't surface until a few hundred years later.

I'm afraid that's completely untrue. Jesus is quite well attested. One of the main pieces of evidence in his favour is the fact that the teaching of Jesus often doesn't square with what the church taught (such as the emphasis on the coming Kingdom) and the fact that he died the death of a Roman criminal when the early church was more keen to blame the Jews for this. That suggests that the Christians didn't make up those things, and indeed all the evidence points to the early church manipulating or developing (or indeed simply preserving) pre-existing traditions about Jesus, not making them all up out of thin air. I'm not sure what you mean by "the myth of the son of god was here" - "son of God" in the first century simply meant somebody whom God approved of, and that is what it means in the New Testament. If you mean the Gnostic redeemer myth, that was something different. The doctrine of the incarnation obviously postdates Jesus, but that is neither here nor there. People's interpretation of Jesus is not the same thing as Jesus himself.

Cierdan - how can the present possibly influence the past? The most someone can do is influence our view of the past (something that no doubt Mao, among others, was good at), but that is not the same thing.

Possible candidates -

Kung Fu-tze (Confucius)

Gautama Buddha (originator of Buddhism)

Manuel Labor (inventor of work)

The problem with the pick of "Jesus" is that all eveidnce found so far points to the fact no such person ever existed.
I disagree, but how does that make him any less influential in the history of the world?

Why is the world they way it is?

Because Genghis Khan died 2 early.

Well, I fyou are going to go with people who we know beyond any possible doubts, and Abraham is a pretty historical firgure BTW, although he just isn't the best documented one, then I would go with Mohammed. Foinder of the third largest religion currently, formerly second largest and at one time first, fastest growing relgiong. He also united the Arabs who saved Greek and Roman learning, along with the Irish, and created a unifying political force from Portugal and Morroco Indonesia, from Mozambique to Hungary. After him, Jesus followed by the Budha, Zoroaster, and Ghenghis Khan.

The problem with the pick of "Jesus" is that all eveidnce found so far points to the fact no such person ever existed. The myth of the 'son of god was here' didn't surface until a few hundred years later.

Yes I agree .... it is difficult to find actual proof of a guy with all sorts of mysterious powers who was related to a diety.
There probably was a successful public speaker guy who had a really good PR agent though.

Well, I fyou are going to go with people who we know beyond any possible doubts, and Abraham is a pretty historical firgure BTW, although he just isn't the best documented one, then I would go with Mohammed. Foinder of the third largest religion currently, formerly second largest and at one time first, fastest growing relgiong. He also united the Arabs who saved Greek and Roman learning, along with the Irish, and created a unifying political force from Portugal and Morroco Indonesia, from Mozambique to Hungary. After him, Jesus followed by the Budha, Zoroaster, and Ghenghis Khan.
The third largest religion? It's atleast the second largest according to encyclopedias, and probably in actuality it is the largest, because usually the entire Western world is counted as Christian, whcih obviously is false. And you said that it was third largest, formerly second and at one time first, what??? Islam has been growing continuosly since its conception, somtimes fast, sometimes not as fast, but it has never decreased as you seem to indicate.


Yes I agree .... it is difficult to find actual proof of a guy with all sorts of mysterious powers who was related to a diety.
There probably was a successful public speaker guy who had a really good PR agent though.Wow, this "argument" is getting old.

Though I am not a believer, I would have to say Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha. Because religion has shaped the world, whether we like it or not.

I'm afraid that's completely untrue. Jesus is quite well attested.

I agree and anyone who disagrees is just being silly. Non-Christian historians of that time period refer to him.

Cierdan - how can the present possibly influence the past? The most someone can do is influence our view of the past (something that no doubt Mao, among others, was good at), but that is not the same thing.

You brought up Ancient Greek philosophers. Some of them had concept of multiple kinds of causes, including the idea of final cause. Final cause can be in the future, meaning that once it is present it will be final cause of something that is in the past relative to it. If there can be final causation from present to past, then surely there is influence from present to past. As for how this could be? Well you are right it is hard to imagine when dealing only with beings bound by our space of time. But if there exist beings outside our space of time, then it could most certainly be seen how it could be. For instance if a being outside our space of time saw something that was present in the year 2040 and BASED ON WHAT he saw chose to do something in 1880 then that would be a case of the present (2040) influencing the past (1880) VIA a being who exists outside our space of time. Just one example of how this could happen. OF course also just because we can't SEE how it could happen, doesn't mean it can't happen.

Well, it's going wildly off-topic, but "final cause" in the Aristotelian sense isn't really reverse causation. It simply means what something aims at. So the "final cause" of my typing this is having a post appear on the thread. Clearly that's in the future, but it doesn't follow from that that the future existence of a post is causing my behaviour now - rather, what has effective power now is my *plan* to make a post, irrespective of whether it actually happens or not. So final causation doesn't imply influence from future to past, it simply means that things are done now with an eye to what the future may hold.

Most philosophers have considered true reverse causation - that is, what Aristotle called "efficient causation" where the cause comes temporally after its effect - to be not merely impossible but incoherent. You can't even imagine it, leaving aside examples such as an atemporal entity like the one you suggest. Although there are pretty good arguments for such an entity being incoherent in itself.

Leaving all of which aside, and returning vaguely to the topic, I think it's a fairly safe bet that, as a rule, people don't influence the past. I don't think Mao had access to any bizarre trans-temporal entities whom he could persuade to alter the past, and I don't think that anyone living before Mao behaved differently because they knew Mao was on the way. Although I bet you could write an interesting SF story on this basis...

Well, it's going wildly off-topic, but "final cause" in the Aristotelian sense isn't really reverse causation. It simply means what something aims at. So the "final cause" of my typing this is having a post appear on the thread. Clearly that's in the future, but it doesn't follow from that that the future existence of a post is causing my behaviour now - rather, what has effective power now is my *plan* to make a post, irrespective of whether it actually happens or not. So final causation doesn't imply influence from future to past, it simply means that things are done now with an eye to what the future may hold.

Most philosophers have considered true reverse causation - that is, what Aristotle called "efficient causation" where the cause comes temporally after its effect - to be not merely impossible but incoherent. You can't even imagine it, leaving aside examples such as an atemporal entity like the one you suggest. Although there are pretty good arguments for such an entity being incoherent in itself.

Leaving all of which aside, and returning vaguely to the topic, I think it's a fairly safe bet that, as a rule, people don't influence the past. I don't think Mao had access to any bizarre trans-temporal entities whom he could persuade to alter the past, and I don't think that anyone living before Mao behaved differently because they knew Mao was on the way. Although I bet you could write an interesting SF story on this basis...

Well God and the angels would be these trans-temporal entities and everyone has access to them through prayer and whether anyone has access to them, THEY certainly have access to us since if they ARE trans-temporal, then they certainly could have access to us, even without our having access to them.

BTW this kind of thing was part of the plot of some SF shows. But not just SF, also part of just how God and possibly angels are conceived of as trans-temporal.

Final cause would be reverse causation if the final cause were the BASIS for a trans-temporal entity influencing events in the past for that purpose.

non Religous ..I dunno but it will prolly pan out to be the guys who worked on the manhatten project
as for anyone saying Jesus of nazerith didn't exisit where did you pull that put of? :confused: :confused: there is not a world history teacher at a college any where in the americas or europe that would argue that he wasn't real
as for being the son of God and all that ...a matter of faith no?

Leaving aside the four official gospels plus the +20 apocryphal ones, there are several historical references to Jesus from "neutral" historians: Pliny the Younger, Seutonius and Tacitus and the jew flavius josephus. The Talmud speaks about him too IIRC. However all the these references are from 30-70 years after Jesus´s death.

OTOH about Mohammed for instance we have not "neutral references". We have only the Qu´ran. It was indeed written 25-30 years afte Mohammed´s death and it was surrounded by politics interests (ask to the shiies). We have the Sira too, written 100 years after Mohammed´s death. Of course nobody (me either) doubt about Mohammed existence, but in fact there are more references to Jesus (and some from neutral sources too).

To show why Plotinus' logic is right assuming only uni-directional causation (which probably most here assume), look at Civ games. In Civ 3 what is the most influential part of the game? The early game? Mid game? or Late game? Things in the late game are rarely that influential. So Plotinus is absolutely right in that case.

OTOH about Mohammed for instance we have not "neutral references". We have only the Qu´ran. It was indeed written 25-30 years afte Mohammed´s death and it was surrounded by politics interests (ask to the shiies). We have the Sira too, written 100 years after Mohammed´s death. Of course nobody (me either) doubt about Mohammed existence, but in fact there are more references to Jesus (and some from neutral sources too).
Definately. I think people who don't believe Jesus existed, does not do so because there are not enough documents about Him, they do so because many of the documents says He did miracles. People believe many other historical figures who are far less documented simply because they do not claim to be the Son of God.

Definately. I think people who don't believe Jesus existed, does not do so because there are not enough documents about Him, they do so because many of the documents says He did miracles. People believe many other historical figures who are far less documented simply because they do not claim to be the Son of God.

Or perhaps they choose to believe that the actual Jesus is more of a mythical composite of many people. Other so called historic figures such as Robin Hood, King Arthur etc have in recent times been accepted as a composite that was built upon over time and not acutal singular individuals. Why not Jesus?

Why not Jesus?

Because certain christians get very uppity when you try and claim he wasn't exactly what the bible (or more accurately their interpretation of it) said he was ;)

and the jew flavius josephus.

I've seen many sites where it is claimed that his writings were altered to include Jesus. Even on wikipedia it describes his reference to Jesus as 'brief and highly disputed'.

Or perhaps they choose to believe that the actual Jesus is more of a mythical composite of many people. Other so called historic figures such as Robin Hood, King Arthur etc have in recent times been accepted as a composite that was built upon over time and not acutal singular individuals. Why not Jesus?
So if the gospels and other references of Jesus were void of miracles would you still doubt he existed?

Everything I said in the former post still stands. Why will you believe someone less documented than Jesus. It is because you cannot accept the supernatural that follows with the person (Jesus), so you dismiss Him altogether as false/mythical.

King Arthur cant be compared to jesus since a historical point of view. Arthur is only a fictional character that appears in the book of the french writer Chretien de Troyes "Legend of the saint Grail" written in the 12th century or so. Maybe the writer based his book in celt legends maybe not. His relation with reality is only speculative.
About Robin Hood It seems that Robin was indeed a real person. A delincuent that inspired the famous book.
Jesus is at other level of historical accuracy. There are dates, real characters and palces and a lot of different sources talking the same history. It is impossible all that is based on air.

About miracles I dont believe in it. But i think it has nothing to do with Jesus existence. There are about three millions of saints with "official" miracles in his curriculum and all that people certainy existed.

Most scholars believe exactly the same thing about Jesus that they do about Socrates: he was a historical figure, probably quite a lot like the way he is portrayed in the documents that claim to represent him, but not exactly. For example, Socrates probably didn't teach such "Platonic" doctrines as the immortality of the soul and the eternity of the Forms, but as a person he was pretty similar to how Plato represents him. Similarly, Jesus may not have said or done all the things the Gospels attribute to him, but their basic picture is probably not far off. The Synoptic Gospels are undoubtedly closer to the historical Jesus - John's Gospel seems to be much more of a "construct". And the non-canonical Gospels, while useful as information about the beliefs of the early church, are almost completely useless as information about the real Jesus.

As for Josephus, his paragraph about Jesus has certainly been altered, presumably by Christians (it states that Jesus was the Messiah, something Josephus would hardly have endorsed). However, it is very likely that Josephus did write *something* about Jesus here, and that it got altered, rather than that he never mentioned Jesus and the Christians just invented the paragraph from scratch. However, the issue hardly turns on this. Even if Josephus had never mentioned Jesus, there would still be no reasonable doubt about his existence.

Hornblower, the reason "why not Jesus" is that the evidence for Jesus' existence is much better and clearer than any evidence for the existence of Arthur and Robin. They really are figures of legend, but Jesus really was a real person.

By the way, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia on many subjects, and certainly not on this one.

Plotinus,

I can accept what you have said here. It is good to evoke thoughtful argument rather than blind acceptance on topics such as this.

With this in mind I think that we should all take Wikipedia articles with a liberal pinch of salt.

Im surprised by the number of people who chose a religious figure! I would agree then that Abraham would be the only chice under that direction: The father of Judeaism, Christianity, Mormonism, Islam.
But: Was there an Abraham or was that another biblical myth?

ps-if you do an Amazon search the are several books which offer evidence that Jesus never existed. While nobody knows, there is no evidence.

But: Was there an Abraham or was that another biblical myth?

I don't see why He would be mythical and not a real person. Reading the Biblical account He seems like a God-fearing man, but not like some superhero with supernatural powers, like one would expect an invented figure.


ps-if you do an Amazon search there are several books which offer evidence that Jesus never existed
Well, I guess that covers it, case closed, Amazon has spoken.

I had to vote for Washington.

-the Wolf

this is post #275

ps-if you do an Amazon search the are several books which offer evidence that Jesus never existed. While nobody knows, there is no evidence.

You can also search Amazon and find books claiming that the Merovingians were descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene, that Loch Ness contains a large reptile hitherto unrecognised by science, that JFK was assassinated by Marilyn Monroe and that Elvis was an alien sent by heaven to heal the world (probably).

The fact that some extremist has a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it's rational. David Icke thinks the world is being run by alien lizards posing as human beings, but the mere fact that he thinks this and has written a surprising number of books asserting it doesn't in itself mean that we should say "Nobody knows whether there are giant alien lizards running our lives or not." Yeah, technically, no-one knows, but how likely is it really?

Similarly, the fact that there are people who deny Jesus' existence doesn't mean it's an open question, and far less does it mean there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence. If some people are just constitutionally incapable of weighing it rationally, that is their problem.

By the way, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia on many subjects, and certainly not on this one.
I did say 'even on'. This being because for every person saying that Jesus didn't exist there seems to be 100 fanatical christians who claim he did.

Well, that's one of the few things that the fanatical Christians are right about!

Really, though, it does worry me how much Wikipedia seems to be taken as an infallible authority in some quarters. I've seen plenty of articles in it that are just completely wrong.

The fact that many people take the historical articles (among others) on Wiki as gospel concerns me. What are the criteria for Wikipedia articles? Does the writer have to have a properly referenced article for it to be accepted or does it just get published and only removed or altered if there are complaints?
The lizard people want to know....

No, absolutely anyone can edit any entry to their heart's content. You click on the "edit" button and make your changes, and it is instantly changed - just like making a post here. So there is no control whatsoever. That is kind of the point of a "wiki" thing in the first place - it makes it completely free and accessible. And in theory it means that every article is as good as it can be, because anyone who spots an error can simply correct it there and then. In practice, it does seem to work fairly well. But of course it also means that you can never really trust it, because there is nothing to stop some nutcase going through everything and changing it to fit their views.

For example, I looked at the page on "Pope Joan" to find that the article as it then was insisted that Pope Joan was a real person who had been airbrushed out of history. Of course I couldn't let that stand, so I altered the article to match something approaching reality. In fact most of the article as it currently stands is now by me. I suppose you could say that that is an example of the "wiki" system working, in that someone improves a poor article. But it is also an example of why you can't trust Wikipedia, because until I did that, the article was completely unreliable. And of course, there is nothing to stop some extremist feminist revisionist historian from altering the article again to insist that Pope Joan did exist and has been scrubbed from the pages of history by sexist cardinals, or some such.

And that's just a minor sort of subject, of course. I wouldn't like even to look at the Wikipedia pages on subjects such as the historical Jesus, US party politics, or other subjects that are minefields of extremist views. For all I know they're probably pretty good, but you just can't assume that they are.

This is stupid how do you rank their influence? Number of people who have heard of them?

This is stupid how do you rank their influence? Number of people who have heard of them?
You do a time adjusted historical influence score. You use a planetary sized supercomputer (Ideally something considerbly larger than Jupiter) to calculculate the quantum deviation of the Earth (with some factroing for extraterrastrial circumstance) in the instance of the smallest change of the universe that renders thier existance null. Then you weight it for how long ago they lived. After using a planetary computer for every human on earth ever to exist we find that Ernst Moro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Moro). Is the most influental person in history.

I shall now look up your Pope Joan article and make sure that she is not a lizard.

Don't worry - being a lizard myself I naturally suppress any mention of them. Until the revolution, that is!

You rank it according to value of sphere of influence.

Wikipedia is written by the general populace, such as you and me and anyone with a computer. I have helped write many definitions. And yes, this is far from official, in fact it is highly biased and inaccurate. facts are invented daily on there.

You have Mao and Cortez, but you don't have Bessemer or Marconi. and what of Edison, Faraday, Otto, Diesel, Bell, and the other very important inventors of the industrial period.

Aristotle, by a very significant margine; mind you, he very easilyl beats out both christ and muhammed as both of those religions used philophy based on Arsitotle in thier methods of explaining the world, never mind the huge impact he had on antiquity in the west directlly.

he very easilyl beats out both christ and muhammed as both of those religions used philophy based on Arsitotle in thier methods of explaining the world
HA! :lol: I very much doubt that Christ or Muhammed had access to any of Aristotle's writings.

I'm still the only one who voted for Gutenberg. Now thats :sad: :lol:

Gelion
I think the most important invention was the printing press, by far. However, if Gutenberg hadnt done it, someone else would have and relatively soon. A wise choice though none-the-less.

While Gutenberg's invention of the printing press (and there is still controversy over this), for the modern world, I think a far more important invention was the Bessemer Converter, because without it, there would still be very little durable metal in circulation. (The Bessemer Converter was invented in 1856, dropping the price per ton of steel from £50-£60 to £7)

Aristotle, by a very significant margine; mind you, he very easilyl beats out both christ and muhammed as both of those religions used philophy based on Arsitotle in thier methods of explaining the world, never mind the huge impact he had on antiquity in the west directlly.

Saying that Aristotle is more influential than Jesus because, for a period, the Catholic Church used Aristotle's terminology to explain its doctrines is ridiculous. It's like saying Richard Dawkins is more influential than Darwin because more people today read Dawkins' books explaining Darwinism than they read Darwin himself. Besides, Aristotle was influential on Christianity only at a relatively late stage (the Church Fathers universally hated him), and then only in the west; and even then, Protestantism shook off most of his influence by the seventeenth century. Aristotle's influence on Orthodoxy was brief, primarily in the sixth and seventh centuries.

I agree that Aristotle is extremely influential - arguably the most influential scientist and philosopher of all time. But there are better justifications for that claim than medieval Islam or late medieval Catholicism.

I'd have thought the obvious answer is Confucius, but I'd still say Plato, or perhaps even Pythagoras. As for Abraham, it's hardly certain that he even existed.
Right. Julius Caesar was a myth as well. You can quibble about his history, but his existence is pretty much carved in stone.

Back to the point, Buddha and Confucius seem obvious candidates, but you need someone that forced cultures to mix. Hence Genghis Khan.

J

Mine is Max Planck. If he didn't use quantum numbers, then we would have no basis for completely understanding everything at the subatomic level.

Mohammed's teachings were Abrahamic primarily to convert the Jews and Christians of the region.

Fun debate, ultimately pointless, but fun nonetheless...

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned my choice, Galileo Galilei, the man who sparked what is arguably the most important movement in the whole of recorded history: The Scientific Revolution. Isaac Newton, along with many others, only furthered what Galileo began. The man completely overthrew the Aristotelian (sp?) tradition of the West, no small feat. He did so in spite of enormous opposition from the dominant (Western) cultural institution of the time, the Catholic Church.

While the teachings of Confucious or Mohammed have little direct impact on me (as the teachings of Jesus have little direct impact on non-Christians) the spirit of inquiry which Galileo began impacts nearly everyone, everywhere. Anyone who uses a computer (which I assume are most posters on this forum :crazyeye: ) or has sat under an electronic light has felt the impact of the scientific revolution. The whole idea of Hypotheses - Experiment - Revise, which has become so commonplace in everyday human thought that we often don't even recognize that it's ocurring, was a radical break from Aristotle's idea of science (at least in physics), a break that Galileo was the first to forcefully push.

But that's just my two cents. For the record, I don't think the Scientific Revolution was necessarily a good thing, but influential, no doubt. Have at it!

Ah, but Galileo didn't bring about the scientific revolution single-handedly, did he? He was just one of a number of people. He did a lot of important work applying the scientific method to astronomy and physics, but he hardly invented the method in the first place. If it's the method that you think is so important, you should be praising Roger Bacon, or indeed Aristotle himself, not Galileo. See the discussion we're having in the thread on monotheism... Also, I don't see that he completely overthrew Aristotelianism. There were plenty of Aristotelians for a long time, and in some spheres, such as ethics, Aristotelianism has come back in a big way in more recent years. As far as science goes, it was really Descartes and (much more) Newton who exorcised the shade of the Stagyrite.

Besides which, of course, Galileo got a lot of things wrong. He thought he could prove heliocentrism definitively by his theory of the tides (he said the tides must be caused by the earth whirling about, making the seas slosh backwards and forwards), which was obviously wrong. More importantly, he believed that scientific theories are accounts of how things actually are, rather than models to predict phenomena. Strikingly, the church in Galileo's day held the latter position, which was exactly the same as most modern scientists.

Naturally, Galileo didn't bring about the scientific revolution singlehandedly. He, as Newton would say later, "stood on the shoulders of giants." And while he may not have seen his equations as models of the world, it was certainly implicit. Galileo was the first (or perhaps the most influential) to bring mathematics to the forefront in the study of both earthly motion and heavenly motion. Bacon, though empiricist, was still Aristoltelian.

Furthermore, in his diaologues Galileo explicity states that his intention is to bring down Aristotelianism. "Salviati: 'Is it possible for you to doubt that if Aristotle should see the new discoveries in the sky he would change his opinions and correct his books and embrace the most sensible doctrines, casting away from himself those people so weak-minded as to be induced to to go on abjectly maintaining everything he had ever said?'" To cast aside a doctrine which had held so much sway for over 1500 years is no small intellectual feat. (Note I speak only of Aristotelian physics and astronomy).

As to Galileo being ultimately incorrect, well, so was Newton. And Einstein worked the last 30 years of his life trying to disprove quantam mechanics.

Yes, Galileo was outstanding and without him there might be no Newton or Einstein or Bohrs.
Perhaps this list should be broken down by specific science rather than overall, such as:
top 5 'most influential scientists'
1- Einstein
2- Galileo
3- Newton
4- Neils Bohr
5 -Planck

top 5 explorers:
1- Cortez
2- Columbus
3- DeSoto
4- Magellan
5- Pizarro

Top 5 politicians:
1- hitler
2- lenin
3- stalin'
4- marx
5- thomas Jefferson

Furthermore, in his diaologues Galileo explicity states that his intention is to bring down Aristotelianism. "Salviati: 'Is it possible for you to doubt that if Aristotle should see the new discoveries in the sky he would change his opinions and correct his books and embrace the most sensible doctrines, casting away from himself those people so weak-minded as to be induced to to go on abjectly maintaining everything he had ever said?'" To cast aside a doctrine which had held so much sway for over 1500 years is no small intellectual feat. (Note I speak only of Aristotelian physics and astronomy).

But Aristotelian physics had not held sway for over 1500 years. On the contrary, it had held sway for only about 300 years when Galileo was around. Aristotelian logic had been extremely important for the whole of the Middle Ages, but Aristotle's physics, ethics and metaphysics had only been rediscovered in the West in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and it was not until after the work of Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas that he was generally accepted as an authority. Before that time, most churchmen had despised him (Tertullian had looked forward to watching Aristotle burn in hell, whilst even Gregory of Nyssa called him an evil genius!).

Besides which, Galileo was hardly the first to want to overturn Aristotle. Paracelsus was quite clear that his intention was to overturn not just Aristotle but every other medieval authority, especially Galen. There's nothing remarkable about rejecting the views of an established authority - students do it in every generation - what is remarkable is successfully showing them to be wrong. Galileo did do that to a considerable extent, overturning Aristotle's physics with his famous experiments, but he didn't succeed in wrecking Aristotelianism to the degree that he hoped to. That really would be left to Newton (Descartes didn't manage it either).

Saying that Aristotle is more influential than Jesus because, for a period, the Catholic Church used Aristotle's terminology to explain its doctrines is ridiculous. It's like saying Richard Dawkins is more influential than Darwin because more people today read Dawkins' books explaining Darwinism than they read Darwin himself. Besides, Aristotle was influential on Christianity only at a relatively late stage (the Church Fathers universally hated him), and then only in the west; and even then, Protestantism shook off most of his influence by the seventeenth century. Aristotle's influence on Orthodoxy was brief, primarily in the sixth and seventh centuries.

I agree that Aristotle is extremely influential - arguably the most influential scientist and philosopher of all time. But there are better justifications for that claim than medieval Islam or late medieval Catholicism.

Isnt it true that Islam kept Aristotle works and somehow gave it back to christianity during the dark ages?Isnt Thomas Aquinas the one who was influenced by many muslim from Cordova,which was the New York of that time.

But Aristotelian physics had not held sway for over 1500 years. On the contrary, it had held sway for only about 300 years when Galileo was around. Aristotelian logic had been extremely important for the whole of the Middle Ages, but Aristotle's physics, ethics and metaphysics had only been rediscovered in the West in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and it was not until after the work of Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas that he was generally accepted as an authority. Before that time, most churchmen had despised him (Tertullian had looked forward to watching Aristotle burn in hell, whilst even Gregory of Nyssa called him an evil genius!).

Besides which, Galileo was hardly the first to want to overturn Aristotle. Paracelsus was quite clear that his intention was to overturn not just Aristotle but every other medieval authority, especially Galen. There's nothing remarkable about rejecting the views of an established authority - students do it in every generation - what is remarkable is successfully showing them to be wrong. Galileo did do that to a considerable extent, overturning Aristotle's physics with his famous experiments, but he didn't succeed in wrecking Aristotelianism to the degree that he hoped to. That really would be left to Newton (Descartes didn't manage it either).

Arent u really only quoting Thomas Khun,especially the book "the Structure of the Scientific Revolutions?

Isnt it true that Islam kept Aristotle works and somehow gave it back to christianity during the dark ages?

Kind of, but the Muslims only had Aristotle's works because Christians in the Middle East had preserved and translated them. Western Europe (not Christianity in general) regained Aristotle's works in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, not the Dark Ages.

Isnt Thomas Aquinas the one who was influenced by many muslim from Cordova,which was the New York of that time.

Aquinas was influenced by figures such as Averroes, but he did not go nearly so far as Averroes in his enthusiasm for Aristotle. Aquinas was happy to rely on Aristotle where he didn't conflict with Augustine and other church authorities, but his first loyalty was always to the latter.

But why do you call Cordova the New York of the thirteenth century?

Arent u really only quoting Thomas Khun,especially the book "the Structure of the Scientific Revolutions?

I've never read it. All of what I said is from my own reading of the figures mentioned. But if Khun says the same thing independently of me then it must be true!

top 5 'most influential scientists'
1- Einstein
2- Galileo
3- Newton
4- Neils Bohr
5 -Planck

You do know that there are sciences that aren't physics (cram the Rutherford quote), don't you?

Most influential scientists:
(1) Newton: At or near the top in physics, astronomy, optics and mathematics
(2) Darwin
(3) Galileo
(4) Pasteur
(5) Einstein
(6) Faraday
(7) Descartes
(8) Maxwell
(9) Euclid
(10) Euler
(11) Lavoisier
(12) Planck
(13) Ernest Rutherford
(14) Leeuwenhook
(15) Gauss
I'm not counting Aristotle here. If I did, he'd be #6

I'm not sure I'd count mathematicians as "scientists".

Sydhe
Any top 15 scientists need to have Linus Pauling in it

As for influential scientists, I think Sigmund Freud should probably be somewhere on that list.

Freund was a scientist? In any case, physichiatry has been pretty uninfluential. The likes of Galen would be far more important to western health.

As for influential scientists, I think Sigmund Freud should probably be somewhere on that list.

Actually a huge criticism of Freud is that his ideas weren't scientific.

Freud was not influential or a scientist. But he would make my list of top 5 Nutballs!

Haven't Freud's theories recently been discredited or at least there is a new wave of "revisionist" psych's who are rejecting his ideas?

Freud was not influential or a scientist. But he would make my list of top 5 Nutballs!

Doesn't the fact that we're debating (well, perhaps I'm the only one debating it...) whether or not Freud was influential prove that he was, in some way, influential? I agree that one can make a persuasive argument that Freud was more philosopher than scientist, but that doesn't diminish his looming presence o'er the young field of psychology. His ideas of id, ego, and and the power of the subconscious (sp?) are ones which (many) people think about on a daily basis. His controversial methods push the boundaries of what we consider proper science... But that doesn't mean he was wrong! And as I mentioned before, being right or wrong has little to do with influence. Ask most people on the street whom they picture when they think of psychology, and I guarantee more people will say Freud than William James. I think one could make a favorable comparison between Freud and Darwin in their attempts to make a comprehensive yet ultimately flawed theory encompassing their respective fields.

PS - Someone in this thread mentioned Galen, and I agree that he should most definitely be on a list of the most influential scientists. I would also add that Da Vinci, the father of anatomy and a brilliant engineer, should be considered for this list.

Galen, DaVinci, Gengis kahn, Galileo, all good picks!

Maybe i'm missing something here but i gots to vote for alexander. Helenization(sp) of the known world.... he predated all the religious figures and you could argue their existance would not have been possible without him. Of course you could argue their existance wouldn't have been possible without a rat called "bob" which ran accross a room at a particularly important time in history causing a woman to jump into the arms of a man, whom she promptly fell in love with and whose descendents were instrumental in the founding of every important event known to man. But i digress, no alex, no helenization(sp), no rome, no world as we know it.

The fella that came up with the numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 he was fairly important, as well as the person that came up with the 26 letters.

hitler nothing was the same after hitler arrived and caused the second world war

European wise I would say either Martin Luther or Gutenberg because The Protestant Reformation brought about literature to the masses. Information, Information, Information. Gotta love it.

Also the Roman who decided to conquer the european tribes and build european society was pretty important. I dont wanna say Julius Caesar but a succession of roman generals.

Guttenberg (well, out of this provided list)
why? as Zoso said, Inoformation. the quick spreading of ideas.
not on the list:
Zarathustra
Jesus
Mohammad
Budha
Cyrus
Constantine
George W. Bush (loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool )

John Logie Baird - Inventor of the Television

(Or whichever inventor of the Television you prefer since I know there will be a post accrediting it to someone else).

I have created an offshoot thread that is just about scientists. Who is the Most influential Scientist in history? So this will hopefully stop the threadjacking that has been done and keep this thread focused.

I voted for the last option because I believe Jesus has had the most influence on history. Whether you believe in what he existed or not, he has great influence on human history and that is a fact.

Without Genghis Khan the Mongols would never have been united and they would never had been able to invade the rest of Eurasia. Since about a tenth of the world population were killed during the mongol wars (no source) I say the world would have been the most different if this particular person had been removed from history.
The majority of the world population today would have a different origin, and thus be different people.

Endim
It is my opinion that the senseless destruction of innocent people does not qualify as important if other changes to the region are not made. Leaving a pile of bones does not influence future generations.


-craig

Endim
It is my opinion that the senseless destruction of innocent people does not qualify as important if other changes to the region are not made. Leaving a pile of bones does not influence future generations.


-craig

Of course it does. The mere fact you are discussing it means Genhis Khan has influenced you in some way.

Plus, it obviously influences the future generations who failed to be born because of all those people getting killed. Influence is no less real just because we don't know what the effects are.

Scipio Africanus, from Rome.
If the Punic Wars were won by Carthage then the world probably would have a Phoenician culture, instead of the Greek-Roman culture most people have today. Half the world uses the Roman alphabet, most major nations of the modern world (USA, Russia, Britain, Germany, France, Turkey, Italy, and so on) have a major Roman influence, the history of Christianity and with that Islam would have been very different, if existent at all, and so on.
I think the Punic Wars was the most crucial conflict of history and the one who was for a large part responsible for the outcome was Scipio Africanus.

A good post, although I must point out that when you say "the world" you mean "the western world". China, India, Indonesia, Japan, and so on don't have Greek-Roman culture or a major Roman influence.

Scipio Africanus, from Rome.
If the Punic Wars were won by Carthage then the world probably would have a Phoenician culture, instead of the Greek-Roman culture most people have today. Half the world uses the Roman alphabet, most major nations of the modern world (USA, Russia, Britain, Germany, France, Turkey, Italy, and so on) have a major Roman influence, the history of Christianity and with that Islam would have been very different, if existent at all, and so on.
I think the Punic Wars was the most crucial conflict of history and the one who was for a large part responsible for the outcome was Scipio Africanus.
He was a good general, but the guy who saved Romans in that war was Fabius Maximus. I agree on conclusion on the outcome of the war.

Plotinus - I knew upfront that this reaction would come soon. The countries/civs you name indeed aren't typical examples of Roman civilizations. But all of those were gigantically influenced by countries who do have a Roman culture. India was part of the British (and other European) Empire(s). Indonesia was part of the Dutch empire, and wouldn't even be Indonesia (but seperate countries) if it wasn't for the colonial history. The world economy is mostly a western economy. Not only that the western world has the largest part in it (like USA or Germany) but also the way it is organized. Even the clothing! Japanese or Chinese businessmen are dressed in western suits!
And also I think most historians agree the the Roman civ did have the largest impact/influence on the world. If China or India was the country that did all exploring and colonized the Americas then Roman influence was relatively less. It is a fact that most influental modern countries were all majorly influenced by Rome. USA even has a senate!

Gelion - Yes, you're right. But it really doesn't matter which person, but like you say the outcome of the war mattered. And any person responsible for that, be it a soldier or a politician, should rank high on most influental person in history.

Well if you look at who has influenced people's everyday life the most, I'd have to go with either Jesus or Mohammed.

Out of those 2 Jesus. Two billion people are Christian, one billion are Muslim. And Jesus is even considered a prophet in Islam, Muhammed not in Christianity.

Perhaps the most influential was Isaac Newton, but it took George Washington to help lead to the foundation of a society that could fully advance the implications of Newton's discoveries. Virtually everything up until the Quantum Age in the world today is a product of Newton's discoveries.

In today's world, scientific and cultural advances are made less by individuals and more by corporations of like-interested groups.

See. The problem with this type of thread is that no modern person or event can have any credibility. As such:

Without World War II, the world wouldn't be the same. Ah, but that only happened because of world war 1. See. That's good, but that only happened because of the industrail revolution.

Each event now has been influenced by a person before hand. So, in regards to that, no person has had the greatest effect. If I did have to say somebody, I would say Jesus, cause he really has had a great effect on the world. You can't deny that. If I wasn't counting religion, I would say Guttenberg, as his invention is probably the invention that changed the world the most.

Albert Einstein.

He helped build the one weapon which may one day end life on this planet.

Then Enrico Fermi would be more accurate.

Aristotle or Darwin or someone like that. People we still discuss and argue about long after their deaths.

First of all - of course the most influential was a religious figure but which one :hmm:
Jesus Christ of course - i mean he preached for 3 years (i think) and changed the world. True Mohammed and Buddha changed the world in the same way ... but Christ did this in only 3 years Mohammed and Buddha preached from their revelations to the end of their lives ...

EDIT: but now that i think about it ... it was either Moses or Abraham :) - they started the whole thing after all ...

No-one knows how long Jesus preached for.

No-one knows how long Jesus preached for.

Really ? :hmm: - you're right ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
Wiki says:
It is commonly thought that Jesus preached for a period of three years, but this is never mentioned explicitly in any of the four gospels, and some interpretations of the Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year. The generally believed view remains three years however.

Either way he did preach less than the other 2 ppl mentioned.

I would have to say Jesus was the most influential.

Jesus? Wasn't it his apostles who spread his word?

Regardless, I still think Bessemer plays more of a part in the modern world than Einstein or Washington, and Marconi more than Fermi or Columbus.

Jesus? Wasn't it his apostles who spread his word?

Regardless, I still think Bessemer plays more of a part in the modern world than Einstein or Washington, and Marconi more than Fermi or Columbus.

Yeah, If we're going the jesus route, I might have to say Saul/Paul of tarsus instead...

Well, yes, but without Jesus there wouldn't have been any apostles, would there? At least, not doing any apostling.

If we take on account that Paul's doctrine had nothing to do with Jesus teachings, he could have based that doctrine on anybody else, like John the Baptists, for instance. Oh, but I see you say apostles, and Paul wasn't an apostle, so it doesn't count.

Paul called himself an apostle and is normally regarded as one. And I don't think the oft-repeated claim that his teachings had nothing to do with those of Jesus is really quite true. Paul certainly didn't think that himself.
But whatever the truth, the fact is that no-one other than Jesus actually did inspire apostles and others to do quite what Jesus' apostles did. John the Baptist still had plenty of disciples after his death, but what did they do?

the fact is that no-one other than Jesus actually did inspire apostles and others to do quite what Jesus' apostles did.

That is a belief, not a fact, IMHO, for what respect to Paul. For the apostles that knew Jesus, problably is right.

That is a belief, not a fact, IMHO, for what respect to Paul. For the apostles that knew Jesus, problably is right.
Without Jesus there would be no Apostles, because that word simply means, sent one, so they had to be sent by someone and that someone obviously had to be very influential.

to change the topic slightly, what is the case for Mohammed? Besides the obvious impact that Islam has had on the world, I mean. I have heard more than once that he probably the most influenciual person in history (more so than Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc), so I was wondering what the rationale behind that is.

Where is the 'Other' button?

I chose Columbus, becuase he discovered America, which would add a nice chunk to our glorious British Empire!

Stalin only gets two votes? MAO ONE?! Are we western thinkers or what?!

It's not a matter of being western, simply one of thinking that no-one that recent can really be called the most influential person in world history. I mean, if you're talking about China, how can Mao be considered more influential than Confucius or Lao Tzu?

to change the topic slightly, what is the case for Mohammed? Besides the obvious impact that Islam has had on the world, I mean. I have heard more than once that he probably the most influenciual person in history (more so than Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc), so I was wondering what the rationale behind that is.
I think that while it is true that there are less muslims than christians, it is true that muslims are MUCH more influenced by his religion since Islam is not only a theology but a political system designed by Mohamed himself, so while christianism is only a belief system and in most christian countries social, philosophical, legal sytems are mostly based on the ones of Roman Empire and the Greeks, Islam countries are modeled in all aspects according to the Islam. So while Mohammed impact affected less people the impact was much stronger.

washington inspired colonies to become indepndent.

I would have to play ARISTOTLE at the top of the list, because he kinda invented reasoning (probably better reworded as "refined and made relevant to dozens of scholarly topics" because the actual inventors of knowledge and logic were Socrates and Plato, most figure). JESUS and MUHAMMED are also excellent choices.

Obviously Jesus Christ. No other man has had that much power over the way people think and act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100

Michael Hart wrote a book called, "The 100," which listed the 100 most influential people in history. Muhammad (PBUH) was number one, and this is why:

Read this for the whole entry: http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=104


How, then, is one to assess the overall impact of Muhammad on human history? Like all religions, Islam exerts an enormous influence upon the lives of its followers. It is for this reason that the founders of the world's great religions all figure prominently in this book . Since there are roughly twice as many Christians as Moslems in the world, it may initially seem strange that Muhammad has been ranked higher than Jesus. There are two principal reasons for that decision. First, Muhammad played a far more important role in the development of Islam than Jesus did in the development of Christianity. Although Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts of Christianity (insofar as these differed from Judaism), St. Paul was the main developer of Christian theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the New Testament. Muhammad, however, was responsible for both the theology of Islam and its main ethical and moral principles. In addition, he played the key role in proselytizing the new faith, and in establishing the religious practices of Islam. Moreover, he is the author of the Moslem holy scriptures, the Koran, a collection of certain of Muhammad's insights that he believed had been directly revealed to him by Allah. Most of these utterances were copied more or less faithfully during Muhammad's lifetime and were collected together in authoritative form not long after his death. The Koran therefore, closely represents Muhammad's ideas and teachings and to a considerable extent his exact words. No such detailed compilation of the teachings of Christ has survived. Since the Koran is at least as important to Moslems as the Bible is to Christians, the influence of Muhammed through the medium of the Koran has been enormous It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. On the purely religious level, then, it seems likely that Muhammad has been as influential in human history as Jesus. Furthermore, Muhammad (unlike Jesus) was a secular as well as a religious leader. In fact, as the driving force behind the Arab conquests, he may well rank as the most influential political leader of all time. Of many important historical events, one might say that they were inevitable and would have occurred even without the particular political leader who guided them. For example, the South American colonies would probably have won their independence from Spain even if Simon Bolivar had never lived. But this cannot be said of the Arab conquests. Nothing similar had occurred before Muhammad, and there is no reason to believe that the conquests would have been achieved without him. The only comparable conquests in human history are those of the Mongols in the thirteenth century, which were primarily due to the influence of Genghis Khan. These conquests, however, though more extensive than those of the Arabs, did not prove permanent, and today the only areas occupied by the Mongols are those that they held prior to the time of Genghis Khan. It is far different with the conquests of the Arabs. From Iraq to Morocco, there extends a whole chain of Arab nations united not merely by their faith in Islam, but also by their Arabic language, history, and culture. The centrality of the Koran in the Moslem religion and the fact that it is written in Arabic have probably prevented the Arab language from breaking up into mutually unintelligible dialects, which might otherwise have occurred in the intervening thirteen centuries. Differences and divisions between these Arab states exist, of course, and they are considerable, but the partial disunity should not blind us to the important elements of unity that have continued to exist. For instance, neither Iran nor Indonesia, both oil-producing states and both Islamic in religion, joined in the oil embargo of the winter of 1973-74. It is no coincidence that all of the Arab states, and only the Arab states, participated in the embargo. We see, then, that the Arab conquests of the seventh century have continued to play an important role in human history, down to the present day. It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in human history.

That's a reasonable argument. Although he obviously knows a lot more about Muhammad than he does about Paul.

He has Jesus at #3 and St. Paul at #6. St. Augustine and Constantine the Great are also on the list for their contributions to Christianity.

to change the topic slightly, what is the case for Mohammed? Besides the obvious impact that Islam has had on the world, I mean. I have heard more than once that he probably the most influenciual person in history (more so than Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc), so I was wondering what the rationale behind that is.
Mohammed also started the quest for Arab unification, which then expanded over quite a huge empire and had important contributions and roles in history since.

Edit: If you wanted it in a nutshell. See the article above for some more detail.

After I read Hart's list, I decided to come up with my own. I know that many of the entries are questionable and probably there a lot better entrants than these but oh well.


Mohammed
Aristotle
Tsai Lun (credited with the invention of paper)
Johann Gutenberg
Jesus of Nazareth
Paul of Tarsus
Shih Huang Ti
Louis Pasteur
Plato
Siddhartha Guatama
Confucius
Abraham (reportedly the founder of Judaism)
Isaac Newton
Euclid
Sri Krishna (since I included Abraham, I'm going to include him too, his historiocity wasn't challenged until Christian missionaries did so)
Tim Berners Lee (invented the world wide web (with help))
Adolf Hitler
James Watt / Matthew Boulton (Watt invented it, but Boulton manufactured it and made it into big business)
Constantine I (the Great)
Genghis Kahn
Thomas Edison
Karl Marx
Alexander the Great
Albert Einstein
# Nikolai Tesla (invented the radio as found by the Supreme Court & pioneered AC polyphase power distribution system)
# Christopher Columbus
# Hernan Cortes
# Nicolas Copernicus
# Socrates (just because of his reputation)
# Philo T. Farnsworth (invented electronic television that most closely resembles contemporary ones)
# Asoka (for turning Buddhism from a tiny sect into a world religion, brought Mauryan empire to largest land extent)
# Moses
# Gavrilo Princip (unwittingly, triggered the two World Wars and Cold War)
# Augustus Caesar
# Henry Bessemer
# Sui Wen Ti (reunified China)
# Martin Luther
# Umar (greatly expanded the Islamic empire outside of Saudi Arabia and most responsible for establishing the Islamic government of today, and most of his conquests have stayed Muslim)
# Pope Urban II (his speech ignited the Crusades)
# Galileo Galilei
# Sigmund Freud
# St. Thomas Aquinas
# Charles Darwin
# Alexander Graham Bell (telephone would have been invented anyways without him, but still beat Root to it)
# Charlemagne
# Nicolas von Otto (developed a car engine that most closely resembles contemporary ones)
# William the Conqueror
# Francisco Pizarro
# James Clerk Maxwell
# Adam Smith
# Saint Clement of Ohrid (traditionally, credited with the invention of the Cyrillic alphabet)
# Napoleon
# Vladimir Lenin
# Lao Tse
# Zoroaster
# Galen (his emphasis on investigation and observation influenced Arabic science and he was the leading medical authority in the west for around 1400 years)
# Ibn Al-Haytham ("Alhacen," I read a lecture on him that convinced me to put him on here.)
# Wilbur & Orville Wright (Wright brothers)
# Bardeen, Brattain, Shockley (invented the transistor)
# St. Augustine
# Cyrus I (the Great)
# Menes (started the dynastic tradition of Egypt)
# George Washington
# Steve Jobs / Steve Wozniak (invented the personal computer)
# Queen Isabella & Ferdinand
# William Shakespeare
# Michael Faraday
# Jack Kilby / Robert Noyce (for inventing the silicon chip)
# William T. G. Morton
# Mao Zedong
# John Locke
# Alan Turing
# Richard Arkwright
# Sir Alexander Fleming
# Muawiya I (of the Umayyad dynasty)
# Adi Sankara (revived Hinduism after Buddhism and Jainism were starting to take over Southeast Asia)
# Antoine Lavoisier (downgraded because I don't know how much of the credit goes to al-Biruni, etc.)
# Simon Bolivar
# Maharshi Veda Vyasa (I'm going to credit him with the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita or just only the BG)
# Mencius
# Werner Heisenberg
# Madhavira
# John Calvin
# Han Wu Ti ("martial emperor" not the other one)
# Leo Baekeland (invented the first "real" plastic)
# Julius Caesar
# Mani
# Edward Jenner / Lady Montagu
# Joseph Lister
# Al-Khwarizmi / Leonardo Fibonacci (for their parts in getting the West to adopt the Hindu-Arabic numeral system that is used by most countries in the world today (along with their other influences on math))
# Nagarjuna
# Louis Daguerre (would have happened anyways, but still beat Fox Talbot to it)
# Du Fu (poet influential in China and Japan)
# Alessandro Volta
# Enrico Fermi
# Johann Karl Frederich Gauss
# Homer (wrote Greece's national epic poems)
# Ferdowsi (wrote Persia's national epic poem)
# Zhu Xi
# Ibn Firnas / Salvino D'Armati (supposed inventors of reading stones and eyeglasses, respectively)

86. Julius Caesar

Way too low, imho.

That's a good list. I'd put Darwin and Marx a lot higher (surely Marx is more influential than Hitler). The same with Luther. I'd also put Augustine higher - certainly higher than Aquinas, who should probably be lower. If Cyril and Methodius are in there, you ought to have Ulfilas, the apostle to the Goths, since he did much the same thing for them. I think Homer should be higher (he was the basis for most classical eductation for about a thousand years), and I'd put Basilides in there too, fairly low down. Oh, also Philo and Origen of Alexandria, who should both be higher than Augustine, since he was really just dealing with their legacy.

That's a good list. I'd put Darwin and Marx a lot higher (surely Marx is more influential than Hitler).

Depends. Marx was, after all, merely an intellectual with untidy hair and a cramped apartment, and Hitler was the absolute leader of a massive empire.

Depends. Marx was, after all, merely an intellectual with untidy hair and a cramped apartment, and Hitler was the absolute leader of a massive empire.

But the pen can indeed be mightier than the sword... on the long run!

@mcpon: I don't know, but it is beyond me how anyone would put Gutenberg ahead of Jesus... I'm serious, I simply don't get it. That's... unthinkable for me. I mean... wow I don't even know how to explain this.

And I don't think Tsai Lun was really influential either. Paper would simply have been invented later. It's not like everyone saw him and then copied his way of making paper. He did not "invent" and then people copied him. Paper evolved during the centuries. I also think Caesar is way, way too low and Graham Bell is way more influential than... Napoleon??

The list is totally wrong in my opinion, but then again I also believe it is impossible to make one that is even close to the truth, because you cannot know something like this. :)

@mcpon: I don't know, but it is beyond me how anyone would put Gutenberg ahead of Jesus... I'm serious, I simply don't get it. That's... unthinkable for me. I mean... wow I don't even know how to explain this.

And I don't think Tsai Lun was really influential either. Paper would simply have been invented later. It's not like everyone saw him and then copied his way of making paper. He did not "invent" and then people copied him. Paper evolved during the centuries. I also think Caesar is way, way too low and Graham Bell is way more influential than... Napoleon??

The list is totally wrong in my opinion, but then again I also believe it is impossible to make one that is even close to the truth, because you cannot know something like this. :)

Well, I don't think that there is a true list at all. I think that all lists like this, like mine, are arbitrary and biased.

Tsai Lun gets the bulk of the credit for the impact of paper because the invention hasn't changed all that much, like with other inventions. And he brought it to the emperor, making it known in the kingdom, so he was largely responsible for spreading it.
Gutenberg gets the bulk of the credit for the printing press because he originated it in Europe (supposedly didn't know of Bi Sheng's) and spread it by creating the Gutenberg Bible.
Jesus did not spread the religion, but kind of got lucky (no offense) because Paul (mainly) took off with it (that is mainly why I downgraded him). And too much of Christianity's teachings are based off of what Paul, early church leaders, etc. said. And half of the Bible is the OT, around 1/4 is Paul's letters, etc.
And I think that how quickly the world has advanced technologically in the last 500 years has a lot to do with Gutenberg and is a phenomena that changed the world more drastically than how Christianity changed the world.

Depends. Marx was, after all, merely an intellectual with untidy hair and a cramped apartment, and Hitler was the absolute leader of a massive empire.

Hitler only ruled a massive empire (and it wasn't that massive) for a few years. Marx has been massively influential for a century and a half. Without Marx, there might never have been a Hitler, since the over-inflated fear of communism was one of the factors which allowed the rise of the fascist dictators. And Marx' ideas are still going today, whereas Hitler's are rather unfashionable.

Jesus did not spread the religion, but kind of got lucky (no offense) because Paul (mainly) took off with it (that is mainly why I downgraded him). And too much of Christianity's teachings are based off of what Paul, early church leaders, etc. said. And half of the Bible is the OT, around 1/4 is Paul's letters, etc.

Actually only seven of the letters traditionally attributed to Paul are considered uncontroversially authentic today, so that's a lot less than a quarter of the 66 books of the Bible, most of which are much longer than the epistles anyway. I think people greatly over-estimate Paul's importance as a missionary. He was simply one of many missionaries at the time. The idea that Christianity only took off because Paul re-invented it and spread it around is quite distorted, not least because Paul's teachings are probably more similar to those of Jesus than most people think. Also, Paul only seems more important in retrospect because his letters were preserved and became enormously influential on Christian theology later; they make it seem as though Paul was more significant within the Christian movement than he probably really was. The same is true of Acts, which was written by someone who obviously revered Paul a lot more than he understood him.

Well, I don't think that there is a true list at all. I think that all lists like this, like mine, are arbitrary and biased.

I totally agree. :) :) That was exactly my point:)

Hitler only ruled a massive empire (and it wasn't that massive) for a few years. Marx has been massively influential for a century and a half. Without Marx, there might never have been a Hitler, since the over-inflated fear of communism was one of the factors which allowed the rise of the fascist dictators. And Marx' ideas are still going today, whereas Hitler's are rather unfashionable.



Actually only seven of the letters traditionally attributed to Paul are considered uncontroversially authentic today, so that's a lot less than a quarter of the 66 books of the Bible, most of which are much longer than the epistles anyway. I think people greatly over-estimate Paul's importance as a missionary. He was simply one of many missionaries at the time. The idea that Christianity only took off because Paul re-invented it and spread it around is quite distorted, not least because Paul's teachings are probably more similar to those of Jesus than most people think. Also, Paul only seems more important in retrospect because his letters were preserved and became enormously influential on Christian theology later; they make it seem as though Paul was more significant within the Christian movement than he probably really was. The same is true of Acts, which was written by someone who obviously revered Paul a lot more than he understood him.

Interesting and informative . . .:)
So, who would you pick? You seem to know your stuff (It's a compliment!).

Well, I gave some ideas a few posts up... my knowledge probably isn't wide enough to be very reliable though...

# 100 Ibn Firnas / Salvino D'Armati (supposed inventors of reading stones and eyeglasses, respectively)

Way too low imho (I wear glasses so I should know :) )

I think Aristole is way to high, he deserves more like around 20 then his inevitable high rank. Napoleon should be much higher. His laws and reforms are used in many countries today. And why is Ze Dong on the list?

The very word "influential", used in this thread title, comes from scholastic philosophy, which comes from Aristotle.

You know way too much things :D (i am just jealous, as i appreciate knowledge so much).

The word "influential" in its non-literal meaning, comes from astrology, one of the fields Aristotle neglected.

I can't disagree with #1. :)

Where is Ibn Sina on that list? If you put Ibn al-Haytham on there you have to put Ibn Sina. Just with his book, The Canon of Medicine should earn him a spot, not counting his numerous other achievements. I also might exchange Jesus for Aristotle.

I vote (Steve) Gutenberg

http://images.broadwayworld.com/thumbs/34899.jpg

The word "influential" in its non-literal meaning, comes from astrology, one of the fields Aristotle neglected.

That is a subsidiary meaning, though. The word itself comes from the Latin for "flowing in", and reflects the scholastic belief that all changes occur as a result of a quality or qualities passing from one substance to another. Both the astrological use of the word and our modern vernacular use derive from this, which itself rests upon the Aristotelian metaphysics of substance and quality.

That dog won't hunt, Dr. P. "Influx stellarum" dates at least as far back as Firmicus (who was certainly no scholastic), long before any Latin version of Aristotle. Aristotles term for "influence" is usually some variant of dunamai; his Latin translators followed this "power" usage. E.g. vis, momentum,
potenta.

Well, I was thinking not of Aristotle's own concept of "influence", but of the scholastic one, which was based upon Aristotle's understanding of substance and quality rather than upon his notion of power. I'd also be wary of assuming no Aristotelian influence upon Firmicus. But thanks for the information. (And information is definitely peripatetic!)

Jesus Chist

YES Jesus Christ