There’s no arguing that Aristotle coined an intriguing phrase or two, but to state that he taught us how to think is somewhat… absurd.
Tens of millions of people have never heard of Aristotle, or if they have, they’ve no idea what he thought, said, or wrote, etc., and yet their reasoning powers and ability to think is not impaired or compromised, and they manage to live moral, ethical lives. Human’s don’t have to be taught how to think, the ability is innate in us, as is our sense of morality and ethics - for the most part - there are exceptions to every rule.
I know I looked up at the stars and wondered long before I heard of Aristotle, and was thinking deeply about many subjects before I knew the meaning of the word ‘philosophy.’
Certainly great human thinkers, and those with great minds, and the visionaries among us have taught us valuable things, but humankind didn’t need any of them.
There is no one most important person in history, because for all of those special folk (of which there are literally legions in various spheres) there are also their mums and dads, uncles and sisters etc who helped shape and mould their intellectual and philosophical leanings.
History is a process, not an event that can lay claim to particular spectacles.
Haven’t made up my mind myself, so I’m just going to make a couple nominations.
Although I like this idea, I would have to put the most important advance in mathematics and science as the invention of zero. (Whoever did that, usually ascribed to India about 5th century.)
Very good point. Though I’m not sure just how quickly zero might have been invented otherwise. But, in the political realm…
Genghis Khan has a very good shot, since his Y chromosome is in 1 out of every 200 men on the planet. No one else has had that much influence on the make up of humanity that quickly or that recently. (And I don’t believe anyone else can actually be identified.)
But for the actual question, “Who was the most important person in history?” you might have to think of something without which history would be impossible.
i.e. language. The ability to communicate ideas to another being.
Although the answer, “the person who invented language,” has two problems with it.
They aren’t actually IN history. Existing before it, but being instrumental in it.
It can’t be only one person who invented it. Of necessity, at least two people had to agree on language.
Decades, yes, but it still would have happened. As soon as Europeans developed true ocean-going ships and advanced navigation devices, the discovery of the Americas was pretty much inevitable.
The question is, would there have been a difference if they had been discovered by some nation other than the Spanish? What if England, France or the Netherlands had first settled the Caribbean and conquered the Mesoamericans? I’d think the current map of the Western Hemisphere (and possibly the Eastern) would be very different.
Probably none that you would accept, but one third of the planet accepts it without question. My point is that there is no one anywhere making this sort of claim about Mohammed.
I have no wish to disparage Mohammed - I’m simply pointing out that a human being cannot be compared to a Divine Being.
:dubious: As someone raised Xtian, I don’t believe a full third of humanity accept it without question. There’s a lot of philosophy written to keep questioners in the Xtian fold.
Wait-- These miracles, that are happening by the millions-- 1/3 of the world accepts them on their face, without any question? Do you have any empirical evidence to support this claim?
Jesus may have personally been a nice guy (for his time and day) but he really didn’t add anything to the world. The morals he preached weren’t particularly new–see asceticism and karma–and his ideas on social responsibility and wealth worked about as well as Communism. You’re better to accept that humankind is flawed and work to find ways to deal with that problem than to tell people that they should be nice and cooperative with one another sheerly for goodness’ sake.
So while I can certainly appreciate the attempt, I’ll have to go with the guy who actually had an idea that worked.
He did not say this. At least, there is no passage in the Bible where this is attributed to him.
In Corinthians 15:19 he says something that might be paraphrased as “If all we (believers) have in this life is hope, but that it’s the case that there is nothing beyond the grave, the believer’s life is a (potentially) wretched one filled with self-denial and persecution, and we (believers in general) are to be pitied above others.”
This is quite a different nuance from singling himself out. (Li’l bit of trivia.)
And while I’m stamping out pedantry substituting for knowledge:
Gutenberg was probably given the name of his house as a surname well before his association with the printing press–perhaps as early as 1430. In any case, the notion that Gutenberg is not his “real name” is completely incorrect. It betrays a misunderstanding of how names were used at the time.
The SDMB will bite you in the a$$ for dropping incorrect “facts” casually, and it will gnaw off both cheeks if you are so bold as to correct someone else without checking the fact you are correcting.
To the thread in general: the whole notion of who was the most important person takes on a flavor of “My Dad can beat up your Dad,” does it not?
I didn’t think we were supposed to be taking this personally, but rather opining on who we thought contributed the most to humankind. That’s how it read to me. I’m sure all who were mentioned contributed a great deal.
Yes, Jesus’ ideas on social responsibility and wealth work about as well as Communism in the real world. Both of them would require a change in the attitudes and beliefs of people to work. I think the difference being Jesus told people they should change and act a certain way. Communism seemed to assume that if you imposed the system, the people would be happy in it, or could be forced to change to it. Jesus’ system is one designed for changed people, where communism is one to change people. Trying to change people doesn’t work. But I believe they can change themselves.
Communism is a human system that requires changed people. It’s not going to work. Jesus’ system doesn’t claim to be one for humans as they are in this world, it asked people to change to it.
But amonst people who have changed themselves to the system, it appears they can treat each other nicely and for mutual benefit.
I agree that people are flawed and we should deal in that world. If people were perfect there would be no need for laws and police.
But If people were just a little better, there would be less need for laws and police, etc. Why shouldn’t we strive for that? Why shouldn’t we tell people they can be better?
Per the OP, I’d ask, who’s history are we talking about?
Since many advances are built upon previous advances it’s difficult to decide who deserves credit for what.
