Who is the greatest human being ever?

[Bomzaway]

Much to my surprise, a cursory search shows that this question has never been posed to the SDMB. So let's have at it. Who is/was the greatest human being to have ever lived? Your answer should also include an explanation as to why you think so. What contributions to humanity has he/she made? How does this person qualify for greatness?

In order to keep this from turning into a religious debate, I'd like to suggest the ground rule that Jesus Christ is not a viable candidate. Also, to keep the brown-nosing to a minimum, Cecil must also be disqualified.


Allow me to begin:

As an American, I'm probably a bit biased, but my candidate for greatest human being ever is Benjamin Franklin.

Why?

1. He was THE key figure in the American Revolution and in forming our new government.

2. His work in the discovery and application of electricity has proved instrumental to both technology and civilization. Electricity was a parlor trick before Franklin got into it. Franklin even coined the terms Positive, Negative, Charge, Conductor, and Battery.

3. Although it wouldn't surprise me if one did exist before, as far as the Western world is concerned, Franklin started the first Fire Department.

4. He also started the first Fire insurance company.

5. He invented bifocals, the odometer, the catheter, the Franklin stove, and probably his most important contribution, the lightning rod. Furthermore, when he invented the lightning rod, rather than manufacture and sell them, he published how-to instructions for making them so that the benefits for his invention could be widespread.

6. He promoted the health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables.

7. In his many publications, particularly Poor Richards Alamanack, Franklin consistently strove to enlighten the common man. His use of easy-to-remember snippets of wisdom are still used today, such as "early to bed...", "An apple a day...", "A penny saved..", etc.


In general, Franklin's contributions to humanity were sparks that set fire to other great accomplishments later on. His enlightened views on religion, society, invention, health, science, nutrition, mass media, government, and humanity were ahead of his time. The results of his thoughts and deeds, the lives saved, the inventions spawned, and ideas conceived, are incalculable.

[Lemur866]

Well, I could tell you but....modesty forbids.

[SkipMagic]

Well then, hell, I vote for Lemur866! :)

[Guinastasia]

The Greatest Human Being Ever is.....

ME!!!!!

:D


No wait-it's Cecil Adams.


Nope. No, no, it's me, it's me.

;)

[etv78]

If you're DQ Jesus (a legit move IMO) why allow Buddha or Muhammed?

[Pantone Swatchbook]

Originally posted by erictelevision
If you're DQ Jesus (a legit move IMO) why allow Buddha or Muhammed?
Because Muhammed and Siddharta actually existed, whereas Jesus is a fictional character with no legitimate factual evidence whatsoever.

I would like to vote for John Locke and Immanuel Kant.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by Pantone Swatchbook
Because Muhammed and Siddharta actually existed, whereas Jesus is a fictional character with no legitimate factual evidence whatsoever.


Boy, talk about a wild leap. . . . or maybe you're just rolling?


As for the OP, I think this question is so completely subjective that it's meaningless. It's like saying "Is blue the best color for the sky?" How do you define greatness? Is a person great if half the planet worships him like God (like Jesus) and the other half is indifferent (like most of Asia)? Does fame alone make a person great? In that case, Adolf Hitler would be almost as great as anyone else you could mention. It's a pointless debate.

[Lizard]

Excuse me, that should've been "trolling" above.

[Guinastasia]

Actually, Jesus as a man most likely DID exist.

Whether or not he is the Son of God and all is what is up to debate.

[Pantone Swatchbook]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
Actually, Jesus as a man most likely DID exist.

Whether or not he is the Son of God and all is what is up to debate.
I myself have looked for evidence of his existence for over five years and have come up with nothing. The more I dig, the more obvious it is that Jesus is a Frankenstein monster of sorts, built together with bits and pieces of older (and a few contemporary) myths.

The true significant person in Christianity is Saul/Paul.

[astorian]

Well, if we must skip over Jesus (who, even non-Christians must admit was a mighty important character in world history!), fine. I'll stay secular.

The two men who did the most to change the world for the better are, in my opinion:

1) Sir Isaac Newton (nobody else has done so much to advance human understanding of the universe and how it works).

2) George Washington. Without George Washington, there's no United States (he was more responsible for American independence than anyone else, and held the new nation together through the force of his personality), and without the United States, the history of the world is radically altered (MOSTLY for the worse).

[Bomzaway]

I knew this was going to come up.

How about if we define "greatness" as ones positive impact on humanity?

[Bomzaway]

Oh, and I didn't include Mohammed or Buddha because neither are considered the son of God. Jesus' resurrection, ascent into heaven and other biblical events would suggest super-human status. I dunno, I guess if one could argue the case as if Jesus was just a man, then perhaps he could be included, but I have serious doubts that this can be done by someone who believes in the aforementioned miracles.

I mean no offense to Christians on this board, I'm just trying to minimize the possiblity of yet another religious thread cropping up. There are enough already.

So for that sake alone, Jesus is disqualified.

[CyberPundit]

Actually I had started this same thread in IMHO (where this one belongs as well). The question, IMO, is too broad for a real debate; it's really a matter of opinion.

My choice was the Buddha though that might be disallowed in this thread. Why Buddha? I think that he was more rational and humane than the other great religious leaders and showed a path to happiness that is valuable even to those (like me) who don't practice Buddhism as a religion. So even if you ignore the more supernatural/religious aspects of Buddhism, Buddha remains important as an incredibly acute analyst of human pshychology and an inspiring teacher whose teachings have endured for thousands of years.

If you want to strictly ignore all religious leaders maybe my vote would go to Newton.

[Epimetheus]

Originally posted by astorian
2) George Washington. Without George Washington, there's no United States (he was more responsible for American independence than anyone else, and held the new nation together through the force of his personality), and without the United States, the history of the world is radically altered (MOSTLY for the worse).

cite?

[Liberal]

Originally posted by Pantone Swatchbook
I myself have looked for evidence of his existence for over five years and have come up with nothing. The more I dig, the more obvious it is that Jesus is a Frankenstein monster of sorts, built together with bits and pieces of older (and a few contemporary) myths.You must have thought this was IMHO, where you can throw out as much hyperbole, conjecture, and malinformed opinion without citation as you like. This isn't. That you have failed in five years — if that is in fact true — to find any evidence whatsoever says nothing about the evidence, but volumes about your capabilities to do research.

[aahala]

Socrates.

If a man's reputation lives for 2,400 years, having never written a book nor great accomplishment, that's pure greatest!

[Liberal]

And by the way, for the poll, I vote for Jesus Christ.

[Guinastasia]

Plato, the Father of Philosophy, perhaps?

[erislover]

Eh, I'd go with Aristotle. I think his impact on existence is largest.

[Bomzaway]

Originally posted by astorian
2) George Washington. Without George Washington, there's no United States (he was more responsible for American independence than anyone else, and held the new nation together through the force of his personality), and without the United States, the history of the world is radically altered (MOSTLY for the worse).

While I do not deny Washington's importance (especially after the war for independence), I do question your statement about he being more responsible for American independence than anyone else. During the second session of the continental congress, it was Franklin that had the most persuasive arguments for declaring independence from England. Prior to Franklin's arrival, a New York representative (I forget his name) lead a significant number of loyalists/Tories that believed that we could repair the damage done to our relationship with King George. Franklin, having first hand knowledge of the futile nature of trying to do so, enlightened the congress of the negative attitude in the English Parliment towards colonists.

He also supplied those letters (I can't remember what they were called) that also exhibited the English attitude towards the colonists. Those letters were published in all the 13 and enraged the public, drawing more support for independence.

Finally, Franklin, with his infectious charm, was instrumental in establishing an alliance with France, and many would consider that alliance as being the one thing that led to the American victory.

Again, Washington definitely was great (and I understand that he was one badass mo-fo) but I still maintain that Franklin was more instrumental in the fight for American independence.

[Liberal]

I suppose. If by that you mean that more people have disagreed with him than anyone else about it.

[Soup_du_jour]

Wellll...there are many a religious personality that would have to be included, if it were a non-secular only poll.

Noah/Adam/Eve- (From a religious stand,) without these guys, there would be no human history.

Abraham- Father of three major world religions, and all that this entails.

JC- Duh.

But I digress.

If we're going by the criteria that they have had the greatest secular impact on humanity, than I would have to say Christopher Columbus. I know, some of y'all are going to say that, if it weren't him, than someone else would have come along and done the same. But if we use those criteria, than almost nobody would be viable.

Mr Columbus "discovered" the New World. Without this discovery, there is no Westernization of the area of the United States. If someone from China, for instance, started doing what Mr Columbus would have done, than the Americas would be completely different. And remember, "The East" didn't have much contact with "The West" during this period, so any major discovery would be kept to one or the other. Altering the very fabric of two continents is a big enough feat in of itself. But, without the Westernized Americas, there would be no United States, and all that this entails. Languages around the globe would be different. Balance of power would be radically different.

The fact that the Europeans "discovered" the Americas makes one hell of an impact in the grand scheme of things. Who was the first one to do so (besides the Vikings, who didn't really exploit the opportunity)?

Christopher Columbus.

He's my nominee, although he wasn't such a great dude in of himself, he certainly had a huge impact.

[Liberal]

Soup wrote:

Without this discovery, there is no Westernization of the area of the United States.I, for one, hardly see how said Westernization merits a description of "greatest". The plagues, pestilences, and diseases brought here by the conquerors, along with their unbridled tyrannical massacres in pursuit of their manifest destiny, are not in my opinion mitigated by the fact that there arose from it all a mighty military and industrial power.

[epolo]

Originally posted by Bomzaway
As an American, I'm probably a bit biased, but my candidate for greatest human being ever is Benjamin Franklin.

Why?

8. He is fresh in the mind, as he was the subject of last night's PBS special (http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/).

;)

[dalovindj]

Einstein. What he did for understanding and perspective has changed the world more than any other knowledge ever. Unlike religious leaders the things he has given us are testable & tangible. No religion ever put a man on the moon.

DaLovin' Dj

[Liberal]

Yes. Now that we have a footprint on the moon, nothing can stop us from feeding the poor.

[foolsguinea]

Originally posted by Pantone Swatchbook
Because Muhammed and Siddharta actually existed, whereas Jesus is a fictional character with no legitimate factual evidence whatsoever.

I would like to vote for John Locke and Immanuel Kant. You think Siddharta actually existed? Now, he's pretty freakin' mythic! Gee, I vote for Hercules....

Seriously, though, what can you expect from a Kantian?

The greatest human being ever must be someone who achieved a great level of development of his human animal form. An incredible athlete, a revolutionary thinker, an extremely beautiful model, a artisan of godlike skill, or a great Renaissance man with elements of most of these.

All of the answers so far have focused on the intellectual. I would prefer to nominate some who was not only athletic, but could sing.

[Liberal]

Marky Mark?

[clairobscur]

Originally posted by Pantone Swatchbook
Because Muhammed and Siddharta actually existed, whereas Jesus is a fictional character with no legitimate factual evidence whatsoever.



Well...Perhaps I'm not very well informed, so I'm going to ask : What are the evidences proving the existence of Siddharta (and proving it in a more convincing way than the evidences in favor of Jesus...in other words, religious documents are ruled out)?




As for the OP, it seems to me to be an obvious IMO question. And the responses will be (and already are) biased by the range of knowledge and nationality of the posters (Plato is much more likely to be cited than Confucius, and an american or america-related character much more likely to be cited than a Russian one), like in my recent argument with a poster stating that the battle of Hastings was the single most important event in world's history.

[akrako1]

I vote for Jack LaLanne.

I've never heard of Jesus or Washington pulling 60 boats filled with 60 people on their 60th birthdays!

[Bomzaway]

epolo - thanks for the link, but I didn't even know about that special. I'll be sure to watch it tonight. However, he was fresh in my mind because I just finished the book Rise to Rebellion.

dalovindj - I was seriously considering Alfred, but I thought Franklin's contributions had a broader impact.

soup_du_jour - Can't agree, not in the least. The guy did a lot of harm to a lot of innocents. Enough so that I think it negates any good that he did.

[vanilla]

I've read all of his books, and he seems to be fair, hoenst, and wise.
I can't convince you just by my saying that.
Reading any of his books might, though.
One that leaps to my mind is The Shadow That Scares Me.

[Ben]

I vote for Magnus Magnusson. I don't care if Jouko Ahola beat him! If I were assembling a superhero team, I would definitely include Magnus.

[japatlgt]

My Dad.

[TVAA]

Matt Groening.

[Gerome]

Originally posted by The Vorlon Ambassador's Aide
Matt Groening.

I second that motion.

[sleestak]

Well, as Erislover said Aristotle is probably the man. His writings influenced the basics of science as we know it.

Otherwise I'd have to go with Newton.

Slee

[Apos]

Thomas Paine was probably more instrumental to inflaming public sentiment into revolution than Franklin. His phamplets, like Common Sense, were the key to getting large numbers of people POed.

[Apos]

---If someone from China, for instance, started doing what Mr Columbus would have done, than the Americas would be completely different.---

So? Is that better, or worse? If we're talking simply in terms of what person's action had the most impact on history, for all we know it could have been Joe Schmoe in Potstown England who killed a pig and set off a massive chain of events. If we're talking actual laudable accomplishments a person actually got done within their lifetime, under their own power, that's something very different.

[JerseyDiamond]

Who else has affected world history like JESUS CHRIST.
He has my vote.

[ITR champion]

I would vote for Shakespeare, or to be perfectly precise, whichever human being wrote the plays and poetry now attributed to Shakespeare.

He obviously had had the biggest effect on literature of any human ever, and probably the biggest effect on art in general. But above and beyond that, he has influenced countless people's views on the difference between right and wrong and all kinds of philosophical and religious questions.

[litost]

The responses seem to consider the western hemisphere only. On the other side of the aisle of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Kant we have Siddhartha, Confucious, Lao Tzu, Adi Shankara, Al-Ghazali, Averreos(sp?)... It is impossible to quantify greatness and influence in this domain. Is it merely numbers influenced? Shakespeare? I'd offer Kalidasa.
I'd say we can get a better result if we focus on quantifiable scientific contributions to society (though even this is subjective at some level).

[Super Gnat]

How Eurocentric we all are.

Jesus Christ not in the running, I vote for Gandhi.

[Sam Stone]

Way back, a long time ago, the first proto-humans were developing and taking form. Somewhere along the way, some little chunk of human mutated and decided that we should reproduce through sexual reproduction.

That's the greatest guy. Right there. You have your winner. Thanks, g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-granddad. Smooth move.

[ExTank]

Nicolo Machiavelli. His work The Prince probably had more influence on western politics than at least most others (even if people read it it and went "Gah!")

[Kirkland1244]

Originally posted by JerseyDiamond
Who else has affected world history like JESUS CHRIST.

Hmmm... Mohammed, Buddah, Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan....

[Kirkland1244]

I'd have to vote for me. Since, I know I exist, but for all I know, you all are just a bunch of figments of my imagination!

But if other people do exist, I'd have to say my mom. :)

Kirk

[cainxinth]

Personally, I agree that all religious figures should be excluded. Yeah, Jesus, Buddah, and Mohammad all probably existed, but their stories have become so distorted by millennia of religious aggrandizement who knows what the straight dope with any of them is. It’s like “Whisper Down the Lane” to the tenth power.

I think the measure of the greatest person ever should be both their internal achievements in self actualization and their positive external achievements for the betterment of humanity in the long or short term.

In that spirit I vote for either Socrates, Newton, or Einstein. Before Socrates it’s shocking how little we knew about anything. He and his colleagues and followers discovered a dozen sciences purely with their powers of perception; no one had ever made such an organized investigation of reality before them, and few have been as monumentally successful since. But, Newton and Einstein are also men that unraveled secrets of existence and the universe seemingly out of thin air and forever changed humanity. Lock those three in a room, let Mozart provide musical stimulation, and I very much doubt you'll get something that looks like this (http://www.segway.com). ;)

[Pythagras]

Originally posted by Kirkland1244
Hmmm... Mohammed, Buddah, Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan....

Actually without Paul, Jesus's name might not be heard much these days.

[Andy]

How about if we define "greatness" as ones positive impact on humanity?

By this definition, Johann Gutenberg.

[Liberal]

*cough*Mein Kampf*cough*

[lynn73]

Originally posted by Pantone Swatchbook
Because Muhammed and Siddharta actually existed, whereas Jesus is a fictional character with no legitimate factual evidence whatsoever.

I would like to vote for John Locke and Immanuel Kant.

I beg to differ with that. Jesus is not a fictional character. Sorry you've been deluded into thinking so.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by Kirkland1244
Hmmm... Mohammed, Buddah, Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan....

Not to be argumentative, but the Roman, Mongol, and Alexandrian Empires all fell, but Christianity is still here. It predates Islam by hundreds of years, although Buddha did live well before Jesus Christ. Believers in Christ (i.e. Christians) have travelled to EVERY country in the world as missionaries, a record of fervor that neither Buddhism nor Islam can match, and Christianity is more far-flung geographically than either of those religions as a result.

I even looked up "Jesus Christ" in my old World Book Encyclopedias, and it flatly stated that "probably no person has had more impact upon world history."


So there. :p

[lynn73]

Originally posted by JerseyDiamond
Who else has affected world history like JESUS CHRIST.
He has my vote.

Mine also.

[Justhink]

With any luck, the greatest person in history has yet to be born.
I vote for the first person to figure out suicide. I have no clue who they are, but I assume it was someone - and let's face it; every since then, we've been able to abstract living life with a purpose.

-Justhink

[Aro]

I'm not a bible scholar, but I'll throw this in the mire anyway:

Jesus is said to have referred to John the Baptist as the greatest human ever born... (Matthew 11:11)

"Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Maybe Jesus was just being modest.

[vanilla]

I'd thought we were talking about human beings.
Regular ONLY-human beings.

[CyberPundit]

"probably no person has had more impact upon world history"
That is highly debateable to put it mildly. For one thing Jesus, while he lived, was only the leader of a tiny Jewish sect. It was Paul who really set Christianity off into becoming a world religion. Without Paul Christianity might have easily fizzled out.

Whereas Muhammad and Buddha were instrumental in spreading their religion thus combining the roles of Jesus and Paul. Muhammad was important as a secular leader as well unlike Jesus. The Buddha was an important philosopher unlike Jesus.

So even if you believe that Christianity is the most important religion that doesn't translate into Jesus being the most important person.

Also IMO there is a distinction between the "greatest" and the "most important".

[astorian]

I mean no disrespect to Ben Franklin, nor do I want to overstate the importance of any one man in most endeavors. Still, I want to re-state the importance of George Washington.

Washington himself would have acknowledged that he was hardly alone in his efforts to creat a new nation, and that the success of the American Revolution depended on key contributions from many people (certainly, if Ben Franklin hadn't won the support of France, the American Revolution would have failed).

But even once American independence was won, the success of the new republic was far from a sure thing. I don't believe any other man in the new nation commanded as much respect from as many quarters as George Washington did. I can't imagine who else would have been trusted with an office as powerful as that of the Presidency. Who else could have won the allegiance of both the Federalists and the Jeffersonians?

And even then, the new Republic could still have evolved into a dictatorship or neo-monarchy, or could have descended into anarchy. That the new Constitution and new government worked as well as it did (however imperfectly) is due primarily to the esteem in which Washington was held, which was due in large part to his personal sense of honor.

Moreover, by VOLUNTARILY giving up power after 8 years, Washington set an important precedent, one that no President dared to challenge until 1940.

*

I guess I'm still inclined to name Sir Isaac Newton as the greatest individual who ever lived, simply because most of his accomplishments were his and his alone, and because they were so groundbreaking. In many cases, it's fair to argue that "if this-or-that great man hadn't done what he did, somebody else probably would certainly have done it in a few years." But Newton was waaaay ahead of his time.

George Washington's accomplishments weren't due to him alone- but I don't see the United States becoming or STAYING a functioning republic without him. And without a successful United States, serving as a model for a democratic republic, the history of the world changes drastically.

[jonpluc]

I vote for Betty Crocker. What one ummm..."lady" has done to feed sweets and cereals to billions and spread happiness to every sugar hyped kid in the land is truely incalculable.

[etv78]

CyberPundit, I dispute your claim that Jesus wasn't a philosopher.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Lizard

Believers in Christ (i.e. Christians) have travelled to EVERY country in the world as missionaries, a record of fervor that neither Buddhism nor Islam can match, and Christianity is more far-flung geographically than either of those religions as a result.


First of all, it is highly dubious to define evangelical "fervor" as positive influence on humanity.

Second of all (just so you know) the fastest growing religion in the world right now is Islam.

[CyberPundit]

"I dispute your claim that Jesus wasn't a philosopher"
So how would you characterize Jesus's contributions to philosphy? Certainly other Christians like Augustine and Aquinas are considered important philosophers but I have not heard of Jesus himself mentioned as one.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by CyberPundit
The Buddha was an important philosopher unlike Jesus.


well CyberPundit, I was reading your post with some interests (since you were debating what I had said), and then I read the above sentence. :eek: Eek! Apparently, you have never read the Bible and know zilch about Christianity, if you think Jesus was not an "important" philosopher. The entire religion is based on the philosophy that he espoused, along with his contention that he was the Son of God.
From one of Cecil's columns on the subject: "Christianity, in brilliant contrast, offered the following propositions: God is good, God is universal, God wants you to live forever with him in paradise provided you ... well, exactly what you had to do to be saved was a matter of dispute. But the point was you could be saved."
Where did these propositions come from? The air? No, Jesus espoused them as part of his philosphy.

Your statement that Paul was the real driving force and reason Christianity survived is a red herring, even though Cecil himself gives Pauls some credit. All religious leaders have their acolytes, and Jesus was no different. Paul wasn't the only Christian missionary plying the Mediterranean; in fact, he may not even have been the most well-travelled. He's the most famous only because he wrote letters which survived and were incorporated into the New Testament. But the survival of his writings do not translate into major importance during his own lifetime.
Saying that Jesus wasn't important because during his lifetime he only led a small Jewish sect is like saying Van Gogh must not have been much of a painter, because he wasn't very popular while he was alive.
The fact is that people become wealthy, famous, or powerful as much for their affect on others than for anything they do themselves. Would Hitler have been a threat if nobody followed him? How about Gandhi? Or Muhammed and Buddha? Or Martin Luther King Jr.?

Jesus was important because, like all the above men, people believed in him and his philosophy. Paul was only the mouthpiece for that philosophy; that's we call followers of Christ "Christians" and not "Paulians."

[Liberal]

Aro wrote:

Jesus is said to have referred to John the Baptist as the greatest human ever born... (Matthew 11:11)Yeah, but John deferred:

"I baptize with water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie." — John 1:26-27

[CyberPundit]

Well I guess it depends on what you characterize as "philosophy". I wouldn't characterize "God is good, God is universal, God wants you to live forever with him in paradise provided you ... " as philosopy. How much space does Jesus,himself, get in standard history of Western philosophy? Very little AFAIK. ( I might be wrong on this)

About Paul and Christianity that's not my own opinion but that of other historians like JM Roberts in his History of the World. In any case I am not saying that Jesus is not importnat, just that he is not necessarily the most important person in history. It's pretty clear that Christianity at the time of Jesus's death was much less well established than either Islam or Buddhism at the time of their founder's deaths. So the followers had a greater role in shaping Christianity than they did in the other two.

[Pantone Swatchbook]

Originally posted by His4ever
I beg to differ with that. Jesus is not a fictional character. Sorry you've been deluded into thinking so.
The gospels were all written well after the supposed ~30 CE crucifixion date - the first historian to mention Jesus was not a contemporary. There is no corraborating Roman data to substantiate the rumors of a Hebrew rabble rouser that the Bible calls Jesus.

As I have said before, the true hero of Christianity is Paul, not Jesus.

Go read up on the Mithras cult.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
First of all, it is highly dubious to define evangelical "fervor" as positive influence on humanity.

Oh? I guess you're entitled to your opinion, although I know plenty of educated people who would disagree with you. But then, I never said evangelical fervor was positive. Something doesn not have to be "positive" to be important.
Religious fervor is something that can definitely be negative, but that is certainly NOT universal. The Puritans who settled New England moved there because of religious fervor. All over the Third World, missionaries are feeding people, building homes, and distributing medicines because of their evangelical fervor. Even in big American cities, thousands of charitable people volunteer their time and energy to feed the homeless at soup kitchens, care for the elderly, etc. because of their religious fervor. Did you even consider all the work religious organizations do and have done to help the needy before you wrote what you did about evangelical fervor?


Second of all (just so you know) the fastest growing religion in the world right now is Islam.

So? This statement is so vague it's meaningless. Here's an equally pointless example: I am worth $1 million, and I'm in a room full of men each worth $999,999. I can start bragging, because I'm the richest man in the room!

Not to mention how uncertain the various measures are for calculating the speed of a religion's growth, what exactly constitutes "growth," etc.

[CyberPundit]

About Jesus not considered a philospher:here for example is a web-site on world philosophy. There is a section on Buddhist philosophy including the teachings of the Buddha himself. But AFAI can see there is nothing on Jesus himself.
http://www.friesian.com/history.htm#late

A small correction: I said "that of other historians like JM Roberts" which makes it sound as if I am a historian which I am not. It should have been "that of historians like"

[Lizard]

Originally posted by CyberPundit
Well I guess it depends on what you characterize as "philosophy". I wouldn't characterize "God is good, God is universal, God wants you to live forever with him in paradise provided you ... " as philosopy. How much space does Jesus,himself, get in standard history of Western philosophy? Very little AFAIK. ( I might be wrong on this)

About Paul and Christianity that's not my own opinion but that of other historians like JM Roberts in his History of the World. In any case I am not saying that Jesus is not importnat, just that he is not necessarily the most important person in history. It's pretty clear that Christianity at the time of Jesus's death was much less well established than either Islam or Buddhism at the time of their founder's deaths. So the followers had a greater role in shaping Christianity than they did in the other two.

Sure, I'll concede that. But as you said, Mohammed and Buddha were secular leaders, with the power to enforce their ideals on others. A major reason Islam spread in the Middle Ages was because of Islamic armies that gave conquered people the choice to convert or die. (I know less about Buddhism).

This also answers your implied question about why Jesus isn't mentioned in histories of Western philosphy. If we lived in a theocracy like most of the Middle East, he certainly would be. But a distinction has been made between religious philosophy and secular philosophy in Western thought for a long time now.
But this is an artificial distinction, since much of the principles on which the United States was founded are drawn from Biblical teachings.
In the Declaration of Independence it says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...."
"All men are created equal" is analogous to "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Some may argue that the D of I. draws heavily on John Locke, but the Bible predates him too.
All men being created equal, and deserving "equal protection under the law" are ideas with roots in Christian teaching.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well don't forget the crusades, the inquisition, pogroms in eastern Europe, the genocide of the American Indian were also fueled by Christian "fervor."

All the missionary work that you speak of would would be fine if all they did was feed people, build homes, etc. without proselytizing those whom they are helping. It is arrogant, presumtuous, ethnocentric, paternalistic and insulting to travel to another part of the world simply to inform the people who live there that their culture and religion is "wrong" and that they really should stop worshipping their own magic fairy in the sky and start worshipping yours.

I spent two years in west Africa watching sanctimonious missionaries trying to forbid people from practicing their own tribal religions, and threatening to withhold services if someone wanted to consult a witch doctor or a fortune teller. It was my experience that many people pretended to go along with the missionaries to their faces because they needed the sevices, but in the privacy of their own homes they still practiced the "magic" that the Christians despised so much. The missionaries were also constantly insinuating themselves into various tribal rituals and celebrations, making judgemental pests of themselves and whining about "false" gods. I can't see how any of this was postive.

I threw in the statement about islam just to show that, if fervor is your barometer of greatness, then the Muslims are currently greater than the Christians.

[Liberal]

Jesus' greatest contribution to philosophy was His moral imperative: "Be perfect."

-----

Originally posted by Pantone Swatchbook
The gospels were all written well after the supposed ~30 CE crucifixion date - the first historian to mention Jesus was not a contemporary. There is no corraborating Roman data to substantiate the rumors of a Hebrew rabble rouser that the Bible calls Jesus.

As I have said before, the true hero of Christianity is Paul, not Jesus.

Go read up on the Mithras cult. Setting aside for moment the stark differences between Mithras and Christ — *cough* the Tauroctony *cough* — I think you need to read a little more. Especially about such things as Non Causa Pro Causa fallacies.

[CyberPundit]

"But as you said, Mohammed and Buddha were secular leaders, with the power to enforce their ideals on others"
Buddha was not a secular leader btw. Muhammad was but that's part of the reason why he is more important than Jesus. Remember we are talking about historical importance not just religious importance.

"This also answers your implied question about why Jesus isn't mentioned in histories of Western philosphy. If we lived in a theocracy like most of the Middle East, he certainly would be"
That doesn't explain why Augustine and Aquinas are considered important philophers. And India has had a long tradition of non-religious materialistic philosophy.

"But this is an artificial distinction, since much of the principles on which the United States was founded are drawn from Biblical teachings"
This is needless to say a highly dubious statement but it's another debate. The important point, here, is that the Bible is much than Jesus and we are talking about the personal influence of Jesus. A very large part of what we know as Christianity was developed by the followers of Jesus and not Jesus himself. This is true of most religions but it is especially true of Christianity since it was so tiny and underdeveloped at the time of Jesus's death.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Libertarian

Setting aside for moment the stark differences between Mithras and Christ — *cough* the Tauroctony *cough*


Let's look at some similarities first, shall we.

Mithra was a Sun God who was, originally a Persian god who was later adopted by the Romans who:

*born of a virgin

*on December 25th

*This birth was witnessed by shepherds who...

*followed a star to get there.

*he was called the "light of the world."

*He was called the "savior" of the world.

*He was part of a "trinity" (as a mediator between heaven and earth)

*Before he died he and his followers had a "last supper" with bread and wine.

*After he had been dead for three days, his tomb was found empty.

*Mithraists had a "eucharist" during which they drank wine (which was said to be Mithra's blood) and bread (which was his body)

*They also practiced a ritual baptism after which one was said to have been "born again."

*All of this happened at least 200 BCE


There are also many disimilarities. Lib mentioned the taurocteny, the ritual sacrifice of a bull which was a major part of the Roman version of Mithraism, and is obviously no part of Christianity.

However, it is impossible to simply dismiss out of hand all of the other striking similarities, and Mithraism is not the only pre-Christian cult to share similarities. (look at Zoroastrianism for example)

Paul never met Jesus, and did not seem to have much interest in the actual teachings of Jesus (as far as I can tell, Paul never even quoted a single saying of Jesus) His agenda was to sell Christianity as a mystery cult and he succeeded. Paul's evangelism of gentiles was not shared by the early Christian movement in Jerusalem, and it was Pauline Christianity, specifically, which eventually became the religion of Rome, and thus the western world.

It was PAUL, not Jesus, who married Jesus to the trinity, who literalized the resurrection, who came up with the soteriological interpretations of the crucifixion, and, frankly, it was PAUL who said that Jesus was God.

Without Paul, Christianity would never have been anything other than an obscure and short-lived Jewish cult in a remote and unimportant part of the ancient world.

[Bomzaway]

I also seem to recall something about a dream that Constantine had, in which he was told to put a cross on the sheilds of his soldiers. IIRC Christianity was a little known religion at the time and Constantine's "endorsement" popularized the religion like never before. I also recall that it was a bit of a mystery why Constantine associated the cross with Christianity when Mithraism was more popular (especially among soldiers) and also used a cross.

[Liberal]

Diogenese wrote:

However, it is impossible to simply dismiss out of hand all of the other striking similarities, and Mithraism is not the only pre-Christian cult to share similarities. (look at Zoroastrianism for example)Mithra (Zoroastrianism) and Mithras (Roman paganism) are not the same, although the latter was likely "borrowed" from the former.

But like I said, saying that Christ came from Mithras is a classic Non Causa Pro Causa fallacy. Roman Mithraism was begun by Emperor Diocletian about the time of Christ. Plus, you've fudged some of your "similarities" and others are irrelevant.

And your 200 BC date is flat out misleading. Keep in mind that there are many varieties of Mithraism that span a lot of time. You're mixing them all together.

You seem to be relying on retellings of conjectures by Acharya S, from her paranoid Christ Conspiracy.

There is no mention in scripture of Christ being born on December 25th. Emperor Constantine declared that date in 313 AD to appease the Roman Mithraists.

Mithra was not born of a virgin, but was born out of solid rock, leaving behind a cave. "[Mithra,] wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix." (Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975.)

Christ was an infant, born of a woman. Mithra's birth resembles that of Perseus. There is also no mention in Persian or Roman texts about any star.

It is more likely that the shepherds were borrowed by Roman Mithraists than the other way around, since the first mention of them in Mithraism is in the second century AD. (Franz Cumont. The Mysteries of Mithra. New York: Dover, 1950)

With respect to the 12 disciples, the Iranian Mithras had only a single companion (Varuna), and the Roman Mithra had two helpers, Cautes and Cautopatres. There is no documented evidence that Mithras had 12 disciples. (Roger Beck. Planetary Gods and Planetary Orders in the Mysteries of Mithras. London: Brill, 1988)

You won't find mention anywhere in the literature, outside Acharya's screed, that Mithras in any version was called "light of the world" or "savior". He was called a "mediator", but comparing mediation between heaven and earth to a three-fold single God is ridiculous.

Regarding the Last Supper comparison, the origin of that was from a medieval text, and was in fact about Zarathustra, and not Mithras. (M. J. Vermaseren, Mithras the Secret God. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1963) It was Freke and Gandy who first stretched out this invalid extrapolation only a few years ago. (Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? New York: Harmony Books, 1999)

And finally, there are no references anywhere in the Mithraic literature to Mithra being buried, or even dying. There was in fact "no death of Mithras". (Richard Gordon, Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World. Aldershot: Variorum, 1996.) It was Freke and Gandy who claimed that Mithraic initiates "enacted a similar resurrection scene" (Op. Cit.) but their only reference is to a comment made by the Roman Tertullian, who lived in the second and third centuries AD.

Wynne-Tyson has refered to a fourth century writer who says that the Mithraists mourn the image of a dead Mithras, but there's no mention of any resurrection. (Esme Wynne-Tyson, Mithras: The Fellow in the Cap. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1958.)

Many of those websites about Mithras are a lot like creationist websites. No attributions. No documentation. Except for occasional references to Acharya. Their crap just gets repeated on message boards like these. Again, with no citations.

[Liberal]

Originally posted by Bomzaway
I also seem to recall something about a dream that Constantine had, in which he was told to put a cross on the sheilds of his soldiers. IIRC Christianity was a little known religion at the time and Constantine's "endorsement" popularized the religion like never before. I also recall that it was a bit of a mystery why Constantine associated the cross with Christianity when Mithraism was more popular (especially among soldiers) and also used a cross. The story about Mithra's alleged crucifixiom comes by way of Acharya, who claimed to be quoting Dupuis. But Dupuis was talking about Attis of Phrygia.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Lib, I did not get my information from a website but in college as a religion major. Granted I was going from memory and I mixed up some of the Persian and Roman aspects of the story. Let me just say the following:

I was not trying to say that Jesus did not exist as a historical person. I was trying to show (and we can do this all day) that virtually every mystic aspect of Christian mythology existed well prior to historical Jesus. Virgin births were commonplace. The Persian version of Mithra was born of a virgin fertility goddess. Horus, Siddhartha, and Indra were all said to have been born of virgins. There are several other examples.

Trinities were also commonplace. They are found in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Rome. Many of them consisted of father/mother/child paradigms. Others were heaven/earth/man models (such as Mithra). They are not precisely analogous to Christian triunity, but they ARE trinities.

Resurrections were also plentiful. The death and resurrection of Mithra was symbolic of the winter solstice, when the sun "dies" and is reborn. Other resurrected deities include Osiris and Krishna.

Pagan eucharists definitely existed and definitely identified bread and wine as the body and blood of gods.

None of this stuff was particularly Jewish. It is not unreasonable to surmise that Paul infused his fledgling religion with the symbology of pre-existing or contemporary mystery cults. The virgin birth and the trinity are fairly late developments in Christianity. For example, Mark, the earliest gospel contains neither of these things. (nor, for that matter, the resurrection)

Regardless of the Mithras/Christ connection (or lack thereof, if you would rather) It was primarily Paul who was responsible for the establishment of Christianity as a powerful religion and not Jesus, per se, about which virtually nothing is known with any certainty.

[JThunder]

I can't believe nobody's mentioned Batman yet.

[Dragon Phoenix]

Johann Sebastian Bach.

[Apos]

---Jesus' greatest contribution to philosophy was His moral imperative: "Be perfect."---

I would argue that this idea is inherent in all moral imperatives. That is what makes them imperatives, after all: they are ideals. Indeed, I don't think it's right to say that Jesus' imperative was simply "be perfect" because such an imperative would be cognitively empty: a perfect what? Jesus had a particular form of perfection in mind, just as does anyone demanding perfection.

[Justhink]

Jesus is a non-topic, the guy didn't save humanity or add new insights to humanity; assuming he even lived as a single human being (rather than a collage of elitist ideas of how to control populations). On this planet, saviors aren't frauds until they're dead or unless they actually help save people. Jesus gets around this by telling everybody that he'll come back before he dies. Umm.. ok? And people wonder how fruad even occurs in the first place.

-Justhink

[Critical1]

Originally posted by Lizard
Not to be argumentative, but the Roman, Mongol, and Alexandrian Empires all fell, but Christianity is still here. .


uh since when is the 4 dozen or so christian religeous groups make up an Empire?


and to get off the religeous debate like the op asked us to do

my vote Would go for Ghengis Khan, but he died before conquering europe, thus his over all affect on the world is quite a bit smaller than is could have been.

so I gotta go with Einstein. I mean where would we be without the gps system?

[Liberal]

Diogenes

I understand what you're saying. There are some patterns and commonalities among the various god myths, just as there are patterns among the Hebrew characters in the Torah and commonalities among the sun, a tennis ball, and Jupiter. But sometimes patterns don't really suggest anything, and sometimes commonalities are mere coincidence.

With respect to what you learned at university about Mithras and your memory of it, I would be the last to disparage either. A university is useful in that it can provide a context that makes it easy for a student to learn. He can avail himself of a wealth of information and learned viewpoints.

I'm not saying this happened in your case, but in many cases, the learning experience at university is limited to a relationship between student and professor. When a professor is biased and a student fails to take advantage of other resources and points of view, what the student learns can be severely limited.

I've run into economics majors right here at Straight Dope who have never read Human Action. I've encountered philosophy majors who have little or no understanding of objectivist epistemology and ethics. And I've even seen a cinematic arts major who had not once ever heard of Lois Weber, arguably the most important director in early Hollywood history.

Again, I'm not saying that that is the case with you, but unless you've read for yourself at least some of the books I listed in my prior post, aren't you basically just limited to what your professor wanted to teach?

-----

Apos wrote:

I would argue that this idea is inherent in all moral imperatives.Confucious spoke of perfect virtue. Kant spoke of the perfect ethic. Can you name someone before Jesus who commanded absolute perfection?

"Be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." — Jesus

[Estilicon]

Originally posted by astorian
2) George Washington. Without George Washington, there's no United States (he was more responsible for American independence than anyone else, and held the new nation together through the force of his personality), and without the United States, the history of the world is radically altered (MOSTLY for the worse). [/B]

With the same arugument, Julius Caesar, Dario I, Pericles, Napoleon, Charles The great, Alexander the great, Saint Gregory the Great, The catholics kings, etc. Will need a better argument

[CyberPundit]

"Confucious spoke of perfect virtue. Kant spoke of the perfect ethic. Can you name someone before Jesus who commanded absolute perfection?"
I hardly think that the one sentence that you supply amounts to a philosophy. Who says that the Biblical God is absolutely perfect anyway? That is a matter of religious dogma not philosophy. Of course the term "philosophy" means different things to different people but I think at the very least it should imply something in the way of systematic articulation of one's beliefs . Exhortations like "Be perfect" don't really count.

[Soup_du_jour]

From Libertarian
I, for one, hardly see how said Westernization merits a description of "greatest". The plagues, pestilences, and diseases brought here by the conquerors, along with their unbridled tyrannical massacres in pursuit of their manifest destiny, are not in my opinion mitigated by the fact that there arose from it all a mighty military and industrial power.
From Bomzaway
Can't agree, not in the least. The guy did a lot of harm to a lot of innocents. Enough so that I think it negates any good that he did.
From Apos
So? Is that better, or worse? If we're talking simply in terms of what person's action had the most impact on history, for all we know it could have been Joe Schmoe in Potstown England who killed a pig and set off a massive chain of events. If we're talking actual laudable accomplishments a person actually got done within their lifetime, under their own power, that's something very different.
Perhaps I didn't clarify enough, but my use of "greatest" was intended to be value-neutral. It was more of a "most influential" than "best" meaning.

I completely agree that Columbus set off many horrendous things into motion. If our criteria is that "greatest" implies "having the most positive impact," than I would retract my nomination. Otherwise, if "greatest" means "having the largest impact," I think Columbus is still a viable candidate.

But, apparently, the debate has gone in a different direction, so this is a digression.

[Liberal]

:D :D :D

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Libertarian,
I don't think I said (at least I didn't intend to) that proving the derivation of Christian mythos from mystery cults was a fait accompli, only that it was not unreasonable to consider it. There are some ornamental aspects of Christianity that are unequivocally pagan in origin. Christmas, of course, is the Roman Saturnalia. Many of the accouterments of Christmas (not just the date) are also of pagan origin. (e.g. feasting, gift giving, Christmas trees, holly, mistletoe) Easter was a spring celebration. Rabbits and eggs are fertlity symbols. Even the name Easter is derived from the name of a Goddess named Ostern, (or Ester).

The early Christian church often found it easier to translate and absorb pagan practices and beliefs into Christian symbology and practice than to eradicate them outright. Feast days and prayers devoted to pagan gods were redevoted to Christian saints. Prayers to Goddesses were redirected to Mary.

Is it impossible that the virgin birth motif arose from this milieu? The formalization of the eucharist? A "resurrected" god?

I am not restrained by faith from pondering it, and I hope you can forgive me if I look for natural explanations of history before I look for supernatural ones. I mean no disrespect to those of faith. It is a matter of personal taste.

[Liberal]

That's fair, Diogenese. Frankly, I believe in Him only because of my personal experience. The rest doesn't really matter. Borrowing from my friend, Phil, it's all just Nicene arguments over piddly shit. :)

[Longhorn49]

Dalovin'DJ, I agree totally with your angle. The scientists are really the ones who deserve recognition in this battle. Their contributions may not be as famous as religious leaders, but they have impacted our lives far more than say...Jesus or Buddah. But I think Newton deserves more credit than my man Einstein. His discoveries are the foundation of physics. Without his contributions to get it all started, would we have the knowledge to make the technology present in our everyday lives? Religious leaders can claim no such accomplishment.

Could we live without Shakespeare? I think so. His contributions are not tangible or helpful. So what if I got a better understanding of extreme human emotions? That has no value compared to scientific discoveries.

Ben Franklin is certainly a good candidate. His accomplishments, however, are somewhat irrelevant to people outside of America.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Y'll are prejudiced in favor of those whose names we know.

Myself, I vote for the person or persons who figured out how to tame fire.

[Scylla]

For me it can only be Sir Richard Francis Burton (http://vvv.com/home/rowena/srfb.html) .

The man was arguably the greatest swordsman of all time. He was a master linguist and spoke 40 languages fluently. He discovered the source of the White Nile, brought the Kama Sutra and Arabian Nights to the West, and was the first Anglo to enter the Forbidden City of Mecca and live to tell the tale. He was a secret agent, and a voracious scholar who explored and sought after knowledge on 5 continents.

He absorbed languages and the knowledge of entire cultures the way you might a read comic book. He was a Master Sufi and his knowledge was encyclopedic.

I would argue that no man in History accomplished so much across such a wide spectrum, and no man in History posessed such extraordinary talents across such a wide spectrum, physical, mental, artistic, mystical, scientific, linguistical, and literary.

[Justhink]

Originally posted by The Peyote Coyote
Y'll are prejudiced in favor of those whose names we know.

Myself, I vote for the person or persons who figured out how to tame fire.

The person who figured out suicide must have possessed an IQ of 1000 points higher compared to the fire-starter. The capacity to abstract meaning of life and self-recursive awareness is undoubtedly the most significant accomplishment that a human being made. To just sit there one day thinking and *poof* "then there was light" is astounding!

"I can actually throw myself off this cliff and die for a purpose; I can actually move myself in a manner of cause and effect for a purpose"

This person must have astounded human beings with their subsequent behavior.

-Justhink

[t-keela]

most influential person you say?......Bill Gates

[Buck The Diver]

Thomas Edison.

[t-keela]

anybody mention Chuck Darwin yet? seems like he shook it up some...

[yojimbo]

Originally posted by Scylla
[B]For me it can only be Sir Richard Francis Burton (http://vvv.com/home/rowena/srfb.html) .



Mountains of the Moon (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0100196) tells the story of Burton finding the source of the Nile. A very enjoyable movie.

A great man indeed.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Sir Richard Burton is also the main character in Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld series. :)

[Apos]

---Perhaps I didn't clarify enough, but my use of "greatest" was intended to be value-neutral. It was more of a "most influential" than "best" meaning.---

I think you missed my point. My concern isn't really "good" vs. "influential" but rather the problem of crediting a person simply for being influential in hindsight vs. crediting them for having some special character and insight that rose above other men and led them to do great deeds that THEY set out to do, as opposed to things that were results of their actions but unforseen by them.

[Apos]

---Confucious spoke of perfect virtue. Kant spoke of the perfect ethic. Can you name someone before Jesus who commanded absolute perfection?---

First, what does "absolute perfection" mean? To speak of perfection without specifying a perfect "what" is to speak in incomplete thoughts. It's like giving directions as: "proceed due..." Uh, which way? And for how long? The fact is, Jesus DOES give an answer to this question, far from simply asserting "be perfect" and having done with it. You've already related this answer: be perfect: like your heavenly father is perfect. Of course, that only adds another layer of confusion: our heavenly father is a perfect WHAT? If an absolute, is he a perfect example of himself? Of what import is that: ALL beings are perfect examples of themselves?

My point here is not really to argue with Jesus' statement (it would be philosophy whether or not it is right), but to point out that advocating perfection with some referent is not exactly new, nor is advocating emulating or embracing the idealized divine.

But secondly, where do you draw this idea out of Christ's teachings? Where does the concept of absolute, in the sense _you_ seem to use it, appear in his teachings?

You've made this case before, but not, in my opinion, without a fair bit of reading in what you think he _must_ be saying, when to me its quite ambiguous (especially since your case relies upon adding many layers of philosophical thought onto the conception of God and "absolute"). At the very least, whether he uttered statements like this that you interpret to mean what you say they do, it still becomes very hard to argue that Jesus advocated a philosophy in the sense of a core set of ideas explained in detail.

Confucious and Kant both did this at length: they let us know what their assumptions were, what they thought followed from them, what they actually meant, etc.
Jesus, on the other hand, is said to utter cryptic phrases of debatable coherence and interelation, many of which bear striking similarities to wisdom sayings of Greek Cynics and Jewish tradition (for instance, the golden rule), and almost none of which were explained or justified beyond simply references to authority and forceless analougy. Plenty of people debate whether major thinkers were really philosophers, lacking as they do complete systems of philosophy. If anything, the philosophers are those, like you, who develop philosophies based on extended and developed readings and justifications of Jesus' scattered assertions.

[TerryW]

Hideo Kojima for coming up with the Metal Gear series.

[litost]

Lakers and Angels are the world champions ;)
Seriously, the British Empire and Muhammed jointly get my vote as having the most impact (colonial and post-colonial) on modern cultures and nations worldwide. Humans only? Never mind!

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I'd like to give a nod to Louis Pasteur. His work with germ theory paved the way for for modern microbiology, and his vaccines revolutionized medicine, saved countless lives, and greatly reduced infant mortality rates.

Plus he figured out scientific fermentation for beer and wine.

[elelle]

I am just astounded that no one, of all the good minds here, has mentioned Leonardo DaVinci. OK, I will. DaVinci was an incredible mind; trained first as an artist, but also made immense contributions as an engineer, scientist, and anatomist. As much as I admire Benjamin Franklin as a complete thinker, he pales next to DaVinci. Perhaps that's not quite fair; he is DaVinci's American heir; a Brilliant mind questing in many directions, and making blueprints for those questions not solved in their lifetime.

DaVinci was an incredible artist, and that skill served to illustrate his explorations in engineering and architecture, as well as detailed anatomical description, done against the Catholic mores of the time. In wandering around the Internet looking for Davinci, I learned he most often wrote backwards-he was a leftie- but to avert problems with idiots. Quite a feat!

What I love most about DaVinci is his amazing attention to detail. His illustrations of machine or human parts are without equal, and to see his commentary, in beautiful handwriting next to the illustrations is pure joy! He foresaw the telescope, and manmade flight, and parachutes...and made the beatific smile of a Mona Lisa. A link (http://www.leonet.it/comuni/vincimus/invinmus.html) or two (http://library.thinkquest.org/3044/adv_main.html) to further wondering.

[Soup_du_jour]

From Apos
I think you missed my point. My concern isn't really "good" vs. "influential" but rather the problem of crediting a person simply for being influential in hindsight vs. crediting them for having some special character and insight that rose above other men and led them to do great deeds that THEY set out to do, as opposed to things that were results of their actions but unforseen by them.
Aha! I did miss your point.

Well, then. Actually, Mr Columbus managed to die, still believing that he found the East Indies. Apparently, he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. That would be Da Vinci! :)

Columbus did, however, have an obnoxiously large impact, though! No denying that.