History is a set of lies agreed upon.
History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.
-Napoleon Bonaparte
Wow.
Yes, I know—wow!
I agree with your sentiment: how the bejeezus does Tibbytoes create such consistent spot on analysis and erudite commentary!?! Sometimes I amaze even myself, but it’s what I do.
All right, you’ve twisted my arm and convinced me to continue…
I’ve no dog in this fight and no agenda for choosing Beethoven as the most important person in history:
[ul]
[li]I’m a man of science, not art.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]I’m as likely to listen to Classical Rock as Classical Period music.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Beethoven is not my favorite composer (close, but no cigar). Being a piano guy, I prefer composers who create for keyboard virtuosi, hence, Scriabin, Paderewski (virtuoso, composer and 3rd prime minister of Poland, how’s that for a three-fer!), Chopin, The Rach, my favorite, Franz Liszt (if you want to be awed and perhaps a little frightened, listen to his Transcendental Etude No.4, based on Victor Hugo’s poem, Mazeppa) and the speed demon, Charles-Valentin Alkan(purportedly the only person who’s presence during recitals made the incomparable Liszt nervous).[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]I’m more likely to listen to Beethoven’s sonatas and concertos (e.g. Emperor) as his symphonies.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]The 9th isn’t even my favorite of Beethoven’s symphonies (I prefer the sublime 7th. All the odd numbered symphonies are great, however; the even numbered ones, IMHO, are too Mozart-ish (i.e. sissified).[/li][/ul]
But, despite the forces leaning me away from the 9th symphony, I still must give it it’s due as the greatest artistic achievement of man—perhaps the greatest achievement of man, period.
Again, consider Daiku.
A *penniless, deaf and solitary *German composer creates a decidedly Western-themed musical masterpiece that 185 years later, inspires a well-represented cross section of a Far Eastern nation to devote an entire month of each year to—that’s a far reach in time, place and culture. This music only gets more significant with the progression of time and expansion of space.
What I find positively delightful on multiple levels, is that this creator of man’s finest achievement, this paragon of human excellence, this giant among giants was, for all intents and purposes…an asshole—a self absorbed boob*, who could barely tolerate members of the species of which he stands as the pinnacle. Perhaps this means our species may aspire to greatness, despite ourselves or, maybe it means it’s ok to be an asshole.
- Maybe I’m drawn to Beethoven because I’m a boob man.
For the record, I meant ‘wow’ as both applause for an excellent post, and disbelief that you could sincerely reach such a conclusion.
With regard to Beethoven, I see your argument, I think I understand it, but I certainly don’t agree with it. Maybe I’m a philistine - my appreciation for classical music is limited at best - but I just completely fail to see how one piece of music can be heralded as the greatest achievement ever. Its impact doesn’t seem to be all that gargantuan. The skill required, the artistry, the talent, whatever, doesn’t seem to be worthy of the number one spot in all of human achievement (compared to, say, Shakespeare, da Vinci, etc.). Also, it seems to me that the sole basis on which you dismiss your other two choices for ‘greatest artistic achievements’, Hamlet and David, is somewhat spurious. I don’t believe longevity comes into it, it’s either the greatest because of some (as yet unidentifiable, I believe) inherent greatness or it’s not. Whether it will be around for another billion years or not is beside the point.
I’ve read arguments Shakespeare didn’t write his plays and that the moon landings didn’t happen, which doesn’t make those things reasonably open to question. The documentation for Mohammed’s life having taken place is as good as for that of Julius Caesar.
Not really, considering we have documents that Julius Caesar wrote but not documents that Mohammed wrote.
My votes go to:
Guttenburg - printing press
Einstein - E + Mc2
Tesla - mad genius of electricty
And in a class all their own:
Elvis - The King
The Beatles - four lads that shook the world
didn’t read thread. said Bhuddha
and all the primary sources handed down of jack the ripper, atilla the hun, or even jesus christ?
I think I’d argue for Kurush of Anshan, better known as Cyrus the Great of Persia.
Alone among the great conquerors of history, he turned his small vassal state into a stable multinational empire – in fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that he invented the concept of empire, meaning a multi-ethnic state as opposed to a kingdom of one people having domination over other peoples (as long as they have the power to keep it). While he definitely hd his faults, he’s pretty clearly seen, in his own time and later, as someone with the breadth of mind and foresight to allow his subject peoples their own laws and cutoms, religion, etc. His empire stretched from modern Turkey and Israel to Tajikistan and Baluchistan.
It was in response to the threat posed by his successors Darius and Xerxes that the Greeks fought the Persoan Wars, leading to the short-lived by culture-disseminating empire of Alexander the Great. As Rome expanded beyond Italy, it adapted Persian governmental forms (some borrowed via the Hellenistic successor states) to structure its new empire. The survival of Jewish culture and hence the origins of Christianity can be tied to his actions re the Jews.
History has very few examples of a philosopher-king, but Cyrus comes remarkably close, and so early that many of the rivals he might have for most influential can be shown to have been influenced by his example, or the behavior of his successors.