The Great People of Real Life

[Kyriakos]

Well if you are christian you should at least believe that the acts of the apostles (the books named that) are real, and therefore some people supposedly died (suffering massive heart failures it seems) due to not giving enough money to an apostle, ie being not sincere with him in relation to their faith. Naturally that was another fairy tale, but still it shows right there what the new religion was made of: base fear and intimidation, and ofcourse the brotherhood of the pariah.

Also if constantine hadnt turned christianity into the state religion, it would have remained just another one in a billion other religions, and could have dissappeared.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

No, the elements of fear and intimidation didn't really become part of Christianity until the Romans took over. It had been doing fine up to its legalization and probably wouldn't have disappeared (after all, there were Christians outside the Roman Empire as well) without it; but becoming so closely allied with the state had a very bad effect.

 

[GenocideBringer]

I find it funny that religious prophets get more reverence than inventors and scientist that really changed the world.I mean the real world,not abstract nonsense.

Mhmm...

So the Crusades were nonsense? The huge role religion had on the development of the world is nonsense? The governments of the world were in no way affected by Christianity?

 

[aneeshm]

This is a fantastically eurocentric list .

 

[GoodSarmatian]

This is a fantastically eurocentric list .

Then add some non-europeans.
Mohammed, , Confucius, Buddha...

 

[aneeshm]

No - this is eurocentric not because the people are European , but because the non-Europeans added are the ones the Europeans think are important .

 

[Souron]

Here's what I think of your list.

#10: Martin Luther
He was a great public speaker, fought for equality and all, but I believe the level of equality we have today would only be delayed by a few decades without him.

#9: Mao Tse-tung
Maybe, simmply because of china's large population. Not sure about it because I never really studied him.

#8: Confucius
He put a nation's collective beliefs on paper. He didn't found counfuisionism like buddha founded Buddhism. I don't think china and the east would be very different without him. The again, I may be misinformed.

#7: Louis Pasteur
I think Alexander Fleming was more influencial in this feild than Louis Pasteur. Antibiotics have a very strong and direct impact on the world today. I'm curious why you picked Pasteur though.

#6: Buddha
I agree here. 6th is about right.

#5: St. Paul (Saul)
I agree here. Above Buddha, but bellow Muhammad.

#4: Muhammad
About right as well.

#3: Issac Newton
He is certaintly the number 1 physisist I would name. I would put him lower in the list though. It is my impression that his theories were not imediatly made opplicable, and it is machanics, not physics that revolutionized the world.

#2: Aristotle
I would not put him so high up.

#1: Jesus Christ
I agree here.

Other Candidates:

Moses
I would not put him on the list. Although you could argue if it weren't for Moses there would be no Jewdaism or christianity, he did not found either of them.

Johann Gutenberg
He is a great candidate for the list.

Albert Einstein
Disagree. His contributions have yet to yeald great practical application. His contributions to physics were great, but his popular legasy is being a genius, which is not an influentcial trait.

Karl Marx
I would put him in the list. I would certaintly put him higher than Mao.

Shih Huang Ti (uniter of China and builder of Great Wall)
The great wall is not an influential feat, but the unification of china is. A unified china is in some ways a natural occurance (it would have happened anyway), but it is significant that it was united under him. If it were united under someone else china could have been very different. I'm not sure about him.

Augustus Caesar
Augustus is credited with astablishing the Pax Romana, which was great in it's turn. However his influence is hampered by the fact that the so much was lost when roman fell. The influence of rome did not survive. I would keep him off the list.

Christopher Columbus
Disagree. I think Henry the Navigator is responsible for the bignning of colinisation, and Columbus's trip was the result of other nations compeating for what Henry started.

Constantine the Great
I think I agree that he should be left out dispite his contributions to christianity. His Influence was not as great as St. Paul's

Alexander the Great
I agree he should be left out. His empire did not last long enough to have too great an impact on conquered lands.

Charles Darwin
This is a person that struck me as belonging on your list above Louis Pasteur or Alexander Fleming. His contributions were not only to science, but to part of a new world view that was developing, that essencially though theology out the window. Why copernicus was first (relitively) to stand up to the church, Darwin helped pave a much clearer way forward in that direction.

Summary list:

#12: Alexander Fleming
#11: Mao Tse-tung
#10: Charles Darwin
#9: Issac Newton
#8: Karl Marx
#7: Aristotle
#6: Henry the Navigator
#5: Johann Gutenberg
#4: Buddha
#3: St. Paul (Saul)
#2: Muhammad
#1: Jesus Christ

Out of list:
- Moses
- Albert Einstein
- Christopher Columbus
- Constantine the Great
- Alexander the Great
- Shih Huang Ti (uniter of China and builder of Great Wall)
- Augustus Caesar
- Louis Pasteur
- Confucius
- Martin Luther

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You confused Martin Luther with Martin Luther King, I think.

 

[cairo140]

No - this is eurocentric not because the people are European , but because the non-Europeans added are the ones the Europeans think are important .

Aneeshm, I'd be interested to hear about exactly which non-europeans you would choose. Further, if you look at the list, five out of ten of the top ten are non-european. I would find it hard pressed to consider European individuals less important considering it was the site of the renaissance, and essentially the root of colonization of the rest of the world.

 

[SoCalian]

Edison anybody? why no love for the wizard of Menlo Park? I mean come on, not even so much as a mention? I magine the modernworld without everything edison did. You can't, he pretty much invented the moden world. As far asthe effect on everyday life for the average person in the world today, then Edison is hard to beat.

also, someone mentioned a Hellenistic steam engine. I've never heard of that, got any more info?

 

[Abaddon]

I wouldnt put any religious figure on at all... i dont think what they have given us compares to others

 

[Millman]

Weren't there a lot of common people ahead of their time in philosophy but killed because of that, simply because they were not royal or part of a class system. Too bad more people don't emphasize equality. Many more great leaders and scientists might have been known.

 

[pholkhero]

It's also unfortunate that Jesus of Nazareth fails to satsify your own Criteria:

2. The person and his credentials must be indisputably REAL.

Actually, far from indisputable ~

 

[unscratchedfoot]

Politics and religion are just for controlling people so I don't think they are great at all. Why be a slave to them? I think Tori Amos far bests those on those lists posted above. Be oddly cool and unique with a mix of sadness, charisma, poetic intrigue and rare talent. Another great is Arnold Schwarzeneggar. How could anyone be greater than the Terminator?

 

[unscratchedfoot]

Another great person is Matt Hughes for beating down Hoyce Gracie finally and proving there is more to life than just jumping on people like a monkey and choking them out.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, pholkhero, with that requirement I am not sure how we can guarantee the credentials of anyone from long enough ago. That doesn't mean that being great is a modern invention.

 

[Masquerouge]

#7: Louis Pasteur
I think Alexander Fleming was more influencial in this feild than Louis Pasteur. Antibiotics have a very strong and direct impact on the world today. I'm curious why you picked Pasteur though.

I think I can answer that. Louis Pasteur validated that germs are what caused disease, putting to rest the "spontaneous generation" theory. He was one of the founder of bacteriology, and his work had a tremendous impact on worlwide health - through antiseptics, vaccination, immunology and better hygiene.

http://www.life.com/Life/millennium/events/06.html

EDIT: on a side note, I find it rather silly to argue if someone should be #5 or #6. There's no way to have objective measurements for that.

 

[Souron]

You confused Martin Luther with Martin Luther King, I think.

Good catch. Why do two compleatly different historical figures have to share the same. name.

I would still keep him off the list though.

 

[Masquerouge]

Good catch. Why do two compleatly different historical figures have to share the same. name.

Probably because one was named in honor of the other

 

[Souron]

I think I can answer that. Louis Pasteur validated that germs are what caused disease, putting to rest the "spontaneous generation" theory. He was one of the founder of bacteriology, and his work had a tremendous impact on worlwide health - through antiseptics, vaccination, immunology and better hygiene.

http://www.life.com/Life/millennium/events/06.html

Makes sence, I stand corrected.

EDIT: on a side note, I find it rather silly to argue if someone should be #5 or #6. There's no way to have objective measurements for that.

I think it is very possible to debate who was more influencial in a given feild. When you start compairing different feilds it becomes subjective, because there is no standard measure. Who was more influencial Aristotle or Henry the Navigator? One fathered western phylosophy and reason, the other opened the west to the rest of the world. How do these things compair. But debating who is more influencial, Louis Pasteur or Alexander Fleming is not hard.