Subscribe to Listverse
To help us reverse some of the negative comments in recent “your view” topics, we are going to do a positive your view – we are going to look at which one man or woman has contributed the most to the betterment of society throughout all history. You can pick anyone from anytime or any place.
What One Person Has Done Most Good For Society?
My answer: This is a very tough question for all of us – and me especially! I am torn between a number of different people for my answer, but finally, at a push, I have chosen Alexander Fleming. It was he who discovered penicillin, for which he won a shared Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. How many countless millions of people have had their lives saved by his discovery? How many numerous diseases have been wiped out? I was tempted to pick Louis Pasteur for his earlier work in microbiotics, but he lost out because his method of pasteurization prevents me from getting great unpasteurized cheese in New Zealand!
July 19th, 2008 at 5:17 am
This might create some arguments but I say Jesus.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:17 am
Oh wow, I have no idea what to say to this because all of the good in the world is a collective of the many efforts of many people.
I would have to say though, if I had to pick one person it would probably be Martin Luther King Jr. I think one of the most important things we have is a country (I am referring to the United States) where people are equal regardless of race and skin color, and I think that is largely due to Dr.King’s dreams and leadership
July 19th, 2008 at 5:20 am
Okay, first argument. I believe (not being a Christian myself) that Jesus, as a historical figure did a lot of good in terms of spreading a message of love and peace, and I give him credit for that, but I think, unfortunatly, there has been a lot of horrible things done in the name of Christianity. Whether or not it’s fair to blame any of that on Jesus it sort of irrelevant because despite the good things which I believe he tried to do, I sometimes wonder if the world might have been a better place without him.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:26 am
G-d
Don’t tell S_R.
Teasin’
July 19th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Jamie Frater!!!!
(Wait, let me think about that one!)
Hi, Vera. Take a look at “top posters” and get posting. Your LU family needs you.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Hitler!!
Just kiddin’. Aaron, don’t be dissin’ JC.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
I’m pretty sure nobody flew airplanes into the twin towers or goes around terrorizing other countries with suicide bombers, blowing up trains, etc in the name of Jesus Christ. Yeah, there have been a lot of wars based on religion but to say Christianity is the cause is just not accurate because religion, in general, was the cause.
I have a feeling these comments are going to get out of hand. For people like me, Alexander Fleming is no help…I’m allergic to penicillin.
Because I’m a huge baseball fan I’m gonna say Jackie Robinson. I don’t think any explanation is needed for what he did to the game and society.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Astraya I kicked off cuz of S_R. Do I really make a difference here? Why me? I’m just anyone, girlfriend.
Why does the site read so different? I’;m lost.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
for anyone having difficulty accessing the site, commenting or thinks the page looks kinda funky…there are site problems being addressed. so just be patient. and for more information check in forums.
sorry for any difficulties w/ site access or commenting. your patience and understanding are appreciated. thanx.
July 18th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
George W. Bush
July 18th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Sidharta Gaotama. His teachings are remarkable and I see things in a wiser perspective bcos of him.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:07 am
This is a tough question, but I will say Martin Luther King Jr.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Hulk Hogan. For 20 years he vanquished every nogoodnik in the world: Andre the Giant, the Iron Sheik, Sgt. Slaughter, King Kong Bundy and countless others. He was a tremendous role model to all the children and a real American who fought for the rights of every man.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:11 am
I would also say Jesus, he seemed like a good guy
July 19th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Hard to tell really, different people have done different amounts of good in different fields.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:30 am
i think its jesus(but im not christian) or to anybody else who gave the message of love and peace(in case jesus wasnt real)…..i just believed in his message of love, peace, and forgiveness which is far more better and positive than this so-called message of salvation(which started wars and other atrocities, which i think contradicts the message of peace and love) which i think some political and religious cretin made up after his death for the purpose of controlling people…
.his intentions were good, its just after his death…the world seemed to have forgotten this message and instead followed the message of salvation(which indicates self-interest) in order to get to heaven…i know this because i have seen these people and they just judge, hate, hold grudges, kill people, commit unnatural acts…all in the name of god and salvation
even though..i still think this message of love is never forgotten(even if it is seldomly followed)..there are still some people like us, that even if we do not go to church, read the bible or follow the ten commandments…we know the true message of love, peace, and forgiveness better than those who DO read the bible, go to church, and follow the ten commandments(who i presume, give more importance to the message of salvation than the other message)…..well thats how he impacted people’s lives until now
July 19th, 2008 at 12:38 am
I have no idea right now… let me think about it for a few days
jfrater – I suspect they’re quite hard to find but you can buy some unpasteurised cheeses in NZ. Depends what sort you want and how much it’s worth to you I guess.
http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/dairy/publications/information-pamphlets/rawmilk/rawmilk.htm
July 19th, 2008 at 12:39 am
This s a great topic and so wide open to so many individuals, plus it’s very subjective and will most likely be the opinion of ones own agenda except for myself because I’m above all of that (just kidding of course)
Anyway for my # 1 pick I’m going along with B_Rad.
Talk about a great first comment. B_Rad is thinking I’m allergic to that stuff (penicillin) so I’m going with Jackie Robinson. I have to admit I was thinking about him too and I’m not even allergic to penicillin so what does that say about me?
There are so many great people that have given so much so we can live the way we are living that it’s just impossible to commit to one person. So I would say Jackie Robinson is one of many.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:44 am
NOT JESUS, since the middle ages, most of the killed people were killed in the name of the lord, i’d say: GEORGE CARLIN, think think about it…
July 19th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Ok, i tried googleing the guy but i just couldn’t find him, he’s been in the news rescently. Aparently he donated 4billion dollars anonymously, and only admited doing so when he was found out [plans on giving 4more]:)
To me this has to be the most selfless philantropist today, and somehow givs me hope that will survive this millenia
)
To me this guy isn’t the most important in the world in general but more of today, cuz he gives hope, and is that not sucha basic thing…..and midget p*rn
)
July 19th, 2008 at 12:46 am
basic human thing*
July 19th, 2008 at 1:44 am
Norman Borlaug
He is an American agronomist who, in the 1950’s and 1960’s developed new strains of wheat that were resistant to disease and also very high-yielding. These genetically-modified crops were so successful that he is widely credited with saving perhaps A BILLION PEOPLE from starvation. Also, as a result, countries such as Pakistan and India became not only self-sufficient in food production, but became exporters, thus helping improve the global economy. He very deservedly won a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. This amazing man is definitely not a household name, but his achievements have undoubtedly done the most good for the greatest number of people in the 20th century, if not in the entirety of human history. His story is also a big middle-finger to those who protest genetically-modified food and fail to see the obvious benefits of its implementation. Penn and Teller’s TV show “Bullshit” even profiled him in an episode, calling him the “greatest human being” in history. Check him out on Wikipedia or just Google him for more.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:58 am
To number 1,
WTF buddy?
A baseball player???? I couldn’t even tell you what team he played for. Yeah, he got to play baseball which was breaking a racial barrier, whatever. What about Martin Luther King, or Susan B Anthony. JFK? Ghandi?
I’m going with Batman.
People kill in the name of Jesus everyday.
Jackie F*cking Robinson! Sheesh re-re.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Charles Darwin 1809-1882.
Contributed enormously to the advancement of human understanding of the natural world which was the catalyst to enlighten generations, laying the foundation of modern biology and for bringing science to the fore.
Without Darwin we would just have “goddidit”
July 19th, 2008 at 2:00 am
G.W Bush – Part 2 (means .jr)
just kiddin.
I cant Decide.
And yeah, did no-one say einstein ?!
Like Tempyra said, Let me think over it and I’ll give my simple one word answer later. Hopefully.
It would be easier for a lot of us to decide if you provided some options, like in a poll. But mainly, the question is not right, it should be much more specific than this.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:04 am
I’m serious. Hitler. I love everyone, but think about it.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:41 am
wow. to answer this-one has to realize that there are agreat many, many, wondrous and amazing individuals who changed the way we all live, for better or worse! to name a;; is likened to counting all the grains of sand on Ft. Lauderdale beach!
Science:
Sir Alfred Russel Wallace. Although Charles Darwin wrote Origin of Species, he was pen-pals with this young naturalist who was beginning to come up with the same conclusions concerning ‘decent with modification’ that Darwin had had… Wallace was a young whipper-snapper, and was actively in the field, conducting research, braving the wilderness, and writing his finding to Darwin. Darwin got a little perturbed, and hastily jotted out his famous work prior to Wallace doing anything of the sort. But the actually theory of evolution is as much his as it was Darwin’s.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:16 am
I’m thinking maybe the person who invented the printing press did the world a pretty big favour. Dunno who it was or even if it was an individual or group effort.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:42 am
I’m gonna go with Alexander Fleming, too. My answer for the Your View topic for what do you think is the greatest invention was penicillin.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:44 am
James: Jesus? If you’re not just being a troll, please elaborate.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:44 am
OMG my comments are going back in time.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:47 am
What meiz said.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:53 am
Tempyra – Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press and it is an excellent choice.
July 19th, 2008 at 4:51 am
Gutenburg. (Or whoever else(s) was responsible for movable-type printing.)
July 19th, 2008 at 4:57 am
Johannes Gutenberg, hands down. The other inventions and scientific discoveries are great and those folks deserve credit. None of them would have been made, or made so early, without Gutenberg’s printing press. It revolutionized education and the sharing of information.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Aaron – You are seriously mistaken. You don’t want to know the type of place this would be without Jesus.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:20 am
I’ll say Florence Nightingale, “the lady with the lamp”. Just by introducing common hygiene she improved hospital conditions, and saved many lives. She founded the modern nursing profession. She was an excellent mathematician and a feminist too.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:31 am
After many minutes of thinking, I would have to say that Batman has done the most good (atleast for me personally). I mean he helped clean up my hometown of Gotham City from countless thugs and robbers and many bigger, badder criminals like The Joker, Two-Face, The Penguin, and The Riddler. He has been a real savior for me and helps me feel safe every day.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:32 am
Jesus Christ saved every single one of us. Enough said.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:16 am
I’m gonna have to think about this one, so I’ll say this for now:
Cyn said:
“my current time is 2:00amish CST. Saturday.”
Amish time? I don’t expect that to be too accurate…
July 19th, 2008 at 6:23 am
Kreachure -
had some site probs overnite. there were testing comments that have since been deleted. all should be right in the list universe now.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Cyn: Er, okay, good… I guess my Amish joke failed miserably.
Amish? Get it? No? Fine. My bad.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Neron, Caligula and Hernán Cortés (:P kidding)
JK: About Einstein. People nowadays still think in a Newtonian point of view. Einstein isn’t anything more than a funny genius image to ilustrate science in XX century. There will be a huge change in society when people’ll be able to understand modern physics. Even Einstein couldn’t assimilate the change he started. It’s like: “forget about everything you thought knowing. Quantum mechanics is real, and your computer is working thanks to it.”
I hate to say that, but maybe the gratest chanches were done by some ancient philosophers from Socrates till René Descartes.
And really, by the terms describing the topic: Hitler could be one of them. His madness made the whole world think about a huge change in society, trying to make a better one where no more Hitlers can exist nor climb to the power.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Kreachure -
ROFLMAO! better now?
sorry. my head was elsewhere.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Oh right, Norman Borlaug! Thanks for reminding me, ohrmets.
That episode of “Bullshit!” certainly gave a good defense for that man. They said that thanks to his efforts, a billion people were saved from starvation. So my vote’s for him (not that you get to make a single vote in here…
)
July 19th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Jack: No, he didn’t. He ’saved’ some gullible morons.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:00 am
I would say Fredrick Banting (not sure of spelling) or Charles Louis Alphonse Laveran.
Banting was a Canadian chemist who invented Insulin, without this millions of people would die from Diabetes every year, wiht the growing obesity rate in the U.S. more people are becoming diabetic.
Laveran was a French (I think) scientist who discovered that Malaria was transported by mosquitoes, before that almost nothign was known about the disease. More than half a billion people contract Malaria every year and all of them would die wihtout treatment, treatment that wouldnt be possible without Laveran’s work.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:02 am
“Jesus Christ saved every single one of us. Enough said.”
Every one of us who happens to be a Christian. Te rest of us burn, remember?
I think Leonardo Da Vinci and William Beveridge both deserve a mention. Churchill maybe; he was certainly the right guy in the right place at the right time.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:07 am
jesus christ , martin luther king jr. these to guys were killed for what they belived peace and love and unity i really thing that that they were tryen two amazing men that will always influsence others, theres no need in saying bad things about jesus because he truly was a good person and if u read about him u will see that he gave great speaches on peace and love and Martin luther king jr. was such a big part of civil rights…….
i belive that there are meny great people out there that want to help there fellow man but these are my two
July 19th, 2008 at 7:11 am
The topic is too broad to pick just one person. It entirely depends on the criteria or definition of good. In the broad sense or the narrow?
Solon and Pericles for the foundations of democracy; where power is hinged on achievement and not an accident of birth. One man – One Vote, where would we be without it?
Rene Descartes for the modern (Plato did if first) principal of rationalism; that truth is discovered by reason and fact, not faith or belief. He also invented analytical geometry – the basis for calculus, was the first to short form math problems by using little number to signify exponents, ie – x to the power of 3. or X3 (sorry no math key board, can’t show you correctly what I mean). Without him we wouldn’t have computers or thinking machines. (his term)
Pasteur, not only for pasteurization but for the entire germ theory of disease; illness caused not by humors but by microorganisms. No such thing as spontaneous generation.
Gutenberg for the printing press and the dissemination of knowledge.
And I haven’t even touched on present day.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Besides the obvious Jesus ….
I think no one person is responsible for bringing more laughter, joy, and smiles into children all over the world than Walter Elias Disney. Walt’s works are timeless and there is not a country on the planet that hasn’t had its children touched in some way by the magic that is Disney.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:34 am
The person I would nominate has neither name nor face. It is the prehistoric man who invented the WHEEL. Without the WHEEL and all it represents to transportation and technology thoroughout the ages for tens of thousands of years, we would all still be living in trees and caves, killing what we eat with handmade spears. Let’s give some credit to the inventor of the WHEEL, for no one in the history of the Nobel Prize (in any field) would have had that opportunity to advance humanity without the WHEEL!!!!! Amen.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:36 am
romerozombie – keep telling yourself that.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:37 am
romerozombie – keep telling yourself that.
Chickensoup – Did i say that? didn’t think so. I don’t happen to be one of those christians.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:43 am
isaac newton. for every bit of modern technology we enjoy today, his discoveries are at the basis.
thomas jefferson. he put into words some pretty radical ideas that are considered mainstream today.
mlk. for putting right one of the great wrongs here in the US.
another vote for darwin, gutenberg, des cartes and socrates.
Ibn al-Haytham, father of the scientific method.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Thomas Jefferson
July 19th, 2008 at 7:47 am
S_R won’t be posting. He is banned forever from the site.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:54 am
jfr, (60),
Pity you only able to ban him from this site.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:55 am
add ‘are’ as appropriate.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:04 am
OH OH OH!
I vote for Socrates and Descartes too! I love those guys!
And Plato. He rocks too.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:05 am
bwmyers; Walt Disney? A friend and informer for Joe McCarthy? A paranoid, communist in every corner, micro-managing, sweat-shop running mogul? THAT Walt Disney?
Davey Crockett and Cinderella hardly make up for the man’s excesses.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Bravo to Ohrmets’ choice of Norman Borlaug!
When I was a kid, there was this doomsayer Paul Erlich (I have no idea if he’s still around and I have no inclination to go look him up, because he hardly needs more publicity). Anyway, Ehrlich wrote several bestsellers and was the recipient of many an award and grant for his pronouncements that we, as a species, were headed for horrific disaster well before the end of the 20th century (he was writing in the late 60s and early 70s, and continued publishing, I think, until the 80s, unless I’m mistaken) from overpopulation and the lack of food. He made a living (literally–his books were huge) off of scaring people and making his predictions of horror, based on only the most limited science. But what this so-called genius failed to do was take into consideration the advancements that science was making in the field of agriculture, (primarily the work of the aforementioned Norman Borlaug) as well as in other fields where science was going after the problems Ehrlich said we’d succumb to.
Ehrlich, of course, was proven entirely wrong. Our world did not collapse from famine and disease and war by the 1990s–and it was in large part due to men like Norman Borlaug. Ehrlich’s failing is that he never foresaw the reality of what mankind can do when they strive to better situations; Borlaug’s success is all around us, not only here in the US but around the world. And agricultural sciences continue, in his wake, to make things better and better. Ehrlich sold bestsellers; Borlaug has a place secured for himself in history that’s worth far more.
Now after all that, I ought to give my own answer to this question. It would be simplest to back up Ohrmets and say that I feel Norman Borlaug has done the most good. But in the interests of variety, I could also say that Alexander Fleming, Jonas Salk, Louis Pasteur and their like are also deserving of the recognition. In fact, there are countless scientists throughout human history, going back to the ancient Greeks, who have done great good for humanity, sometimes in a deeply practical sense like Borlaug and Pasteur, and some in that they simply opened all of our minds to possibilities and new questions and so on. Not all science brings us good things, of course. It also brought us the atom bomb, and countless other nasties.
I will throw in the towel on this one then, and simply pick the name of one of my personal heroes when I was growing up:
Jacques Cousteau.
My family has always loved the ocean, and we’re a family of sailors and water-sports-enthusiasts. But what many younger people may not know when they see documentaries right and left on television, and have grown up with “Shark Week” and such, is that there was a time when few paid attention to the life of the sea–and as we have begun to learn (some of us don’t yet accept it) the sea is key to our own survival. Jacques Cousteau was one of the first to go out to study the ocean directly (he wasn’t even a trained scientist when he began–but in those days it was unheard of for even trained scientist to embark *on* the ocean–let alone dive under it–to study and learn) and he popularized the sciences of oceanography and marine biology for generations. He was an outspoken supporter of conservation and the importance of protecting the oceans and the life within. Without his contribution to not only our knowledge, but our awareness, we might today be living in a far worse world of more heavily polluted water and far more extinct species. As it is we still face a lot of crises caused by our treatment of the oceans and our practices of over-fishing and such. But Cousteau awakened the consciousness of countless people who followed him and devoted their lives to protecting that resource, and that, in turn, helps to protect our own species’ survival.
Not quite the same contribution of a man like Norman Borlaug, but I think it ranks up there.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:17 am
MPW: JESUS that was a good one. I don’t know if it’s fair to put him in here because come on, ….and plus we know the stories but can we honestly say for a fact that we KNOW thet’re true. think about it……Now Chuck Norris..that guy…yeahh. J/k i reallly can’t choose just one person so i won’t try wrecking my brain.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Yay! One more vote for Borlaug!
July 19th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Sorry, I don’t buy Jesus. He wasn’t even known to 3/4 of the world’s population.
I say Tesla for electricity generation or Gutenberg for western printing press.
July 19th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Strangely an interesting point has been made by JB on comment no46 regarding Hitler,
By the logic of the topic question JB is correct but conversely Jesus, although trying to make the world a better place, left a legacy that still causes bigotry and suffering throughout the world.
It’s a strange old world indeed!
July 19th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Nikola Tesla… If it wasn’t for him, you wouldn’t be able to read this, much less use a computer; your cellphone would be a paperweight, we would have DC electricity rather than AC electricity, and we wouldn’t have death-ray’s orbiting the Earth to protect us against Russian nuclear attack, and so much more! Yeah, we had generators before him, but he explained HOW the magnetic coils make the electrical generators work. That germaphobic Serbian Mad-Scientist has my vote!!!
July 19th, 2008 at 9:10 am
What exactly does ‘done good’ mean?
Charles Darwin, great philosophers and others, as also Jesus, enlightened or influenced us. Is that actually ‘doing good’?
And if wonderful medical and agronomical advances also lead unintentionally to overpopulation and attendant problems (O.K. I appreciate others don’t accept the existence of this, please take that as read), has that ‘done good’ in sum? Printing lead as equally to ‘Mein Kampf’ as to the bible.
Aaron (34) also has it in a nutshell in the first sentence. Also Mom424 (53).
Assuming though we mean unqualified good whilst ignoring ‘bad side effects’, and ignore collective contributions and those of the anonymous ancients:
Anita suggests Ghandi (a second mention, I think), and I also immediately thought of him. His rejection of violence may have saved lives beyond estimation. He also proved passive resistance can work (under certain circumstances, as he himself admitted). But to some extent his success is ’shared’ by the relative ‘reasonableness’ of the British. The problem also is; too few have followed his shining example.
I’d like to move Ghandi into wider perspective and make what for most will be a rather unexpected joint nomination, I suspect: Emmanuel Kant and Woodrow Wilson. Great ideas will out, but always have a first or most famous proponent. In 1795 Kant published the philosophical idea of a world order for peace (some might find his German nationality more than a little ironic). Wilson is the person most associated with its first practical application, The League of Nations. Please spare us a trashing of that well-meaning but often ineffectual organisation. It led to the United Nations, which has been a great advance, even if also inevitably flawed. My point is that taking into account all aspects of the present evolution of human civilisation, we only have hope for the future in the presence of such a forum for world order and agreement.
bwmyers (18),
Watch out! The Big Bad Wolf (Randall) is on your trail. He’s going to huff and he’s going to puff and he’s going to blow your house right down.
ringtailroxy (21),
I’m glad to see Alfred Russel Wallace here, a hero of mine (together with Darwin). I think he perhaps belongs as a candidate for the 10 people most neglected by history. At least people like Ed Wilson and David Quammen shout for him.
Incidentally, for those who ask what sort of world we would be living in without Jesus, please take a look at Greek civilisation, which came first. There are others too.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:27 am
i cant believe two people already said geroge bush
come on, we can do better
July 19th, 2008 at 9:30 am
I sure will, Alex and James. Gee, it sure is swell living a life with morals but without all the God-fearing crap and the worrying about where I go when I die.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I have two answers, both of whom popped into my mind simultaneously, and there is no way for me to choose between the two.
So you get both.
John Snow.
He found himself in the middle of a major cholera epidemic, and nothing he could do, as a doctor, was helping to save his patients. What he knew he needed way a way to stop the epidemic; to find it’s source, and to somehow stop it from interacting with the public.
Through rigorous, logical analysis of all the facts he could gather, he became histories first epidemiologist. He tracked the outbreak to *one* public drinking-water well, which was polluted with raw sewage. He had the pump shut down immediately.
No further cases of cholera were reported.
His methods are still being used by Public Health Organizations worldwide. The number of lives he has saved is countless.
*
Edward Jenner.
Smallpox was a terrible scourge in his day. Jenner, and hundreds of other doctors and scientists were working feverishly on a way to stop, or lessen the effects of, the disease.
Jenner noticed that the neighborhood milk-maids did not come down with smallpox, even during raging epidemics. Experiments led to the discovery that cowpox, an extremely mild, related, disease common among milkmainds, gave immunity, and further experimentation led him to create live vaccines.
Smallpox vaccines began slowly, people being afraid of taking a “pox” voluntarily into their body, but when Kings and Queens and their children did so, in public, others followed.
Jenner’s efforts led directly to the WHO’s campaign to eradicate smallpox, among the deadliest of all contagious diseases, which was successful less than 200 years later.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Randall,
Before I start to send blood to your eyes, can I say what an inspired addition I find Cousteau to be. As a land-based nature freak, it’s all too easy for me to overlook him. But he was a key figure in my early TV viewing, and always an influential pioneer in publicising the vital importance of the marine component of the biosphere.
Next a gentle reminder. Don’t get over-optimistic or knock Ehrlich so hard. Human population growth right now is exponential and showing no sign of slowing globally. An undeniable statistic. That means for obvious reasons we also need exponential Borlaugs (i.e. to achieve the equivalent, not necessarily the same as Borlaug). On this unexpandable and unescapable planet of fixed natural resources we also need these Borlaugs to work the same technological miracles for fresh water, fuel, wood for construction, several minerals, inter alia, and also to rid us of pollution.
I can only offer the following off the top of my head, but believe I’m right in saying that world emergency food stocks stood at several weeks supply around the time Ehrlich was writing. I recall hearing or reading somewhere recently that they are now dangerously down to a few days. If anyone can deny, modify or add backbone to that, I’d be grateful.
Sorry, I didn’t start this diversionary theme.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Randall: Kudo’s for the mentioning of Cousteau. Our family counted the days ’til the next Jacques Cousteau special. Was a scuba pioneer and underwater spy too wasn’t he? for the good side? In WWII?
Spanner in the Works: If Wilson ranks (and I’m not disagreeing) an argument could also be made of Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Lester B. Pearson. One of the founders of The United Nations, The father of UN Peacekeeping, and he likely saved the world from another war when he brokered an end to the Suez Crisis (for which he was awarded the nobel). He also, in our little corner of the world, instituted universal health care, student loan programs and the Canada Pension Plan that provides income in retirement for all working Canadians. A visionary.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Randall,
I propose we both leave this debate where it is, having said our bits, for the sake of everyone else. Because if you keep on shredding Ehrich, I shall end up doing the same to a certain cynical publicist called Robert Siricco, who supports your view to the hilt. He is a scientific ignoramus in the pay of Big Business and its conservative political ‘fellow travellers’. He claims, in effect, that nothing at all is going wrong environmentally on this earth as a result of human activity (except that of socialists and communists). All we have to do, he tells us, is to keep business going as usual and breed as hard and fast as we can (at the command of God via the Bible) to solve all our problems.
I’m sorry. That call for pax wasn’t really fair, since I’ve just taken an extra bite at the theme.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Mom424,
Yes, oh yes. I’ll gladly accept Lester and make that a triple nomination, even if it does carry us into collectivity, which I felt I ought to try to avoid!
Couldn’t you do a memorable Canadians list? It would have to have one of my favourites though, the crazy fighter pilot ace George ‘Screwball’ Buerling.
I think you were asking about spotty herberts over on the other site, yes? If so, zits it is.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Jesus
July 19th, 2008 at 10:45 am
romerozombie – Whatever floats your boat there pal.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:56 am
William Shakespeare
July 19th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Jesus
———————————
for modern times (last several hundred years)
Abraham Lincoln: he saved the Union and it still affects our country today. Why is that so much for the world? He change the course of the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! f.uck all you who say America sucks!
July 19th, 2008 at 11:25 am
I dont know. Um… ME! hahaha kidding
How about Bob Barker? Hes provided entertainment for forever.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:30 am
with being a diabetic i’d have to say dr. banting and dr. best and their team of scientists that discovered insulin.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I have read all 85 post to this point, and I agree with Syras #55. In the evolution of humankind, without the wheel, we are NOTHING!!!!
July 19th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Martin Luther king jr
Or kurt cobain
July 19th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Hmm, no one’s mentioned the Dalai Lama yet? A man who tirelessly promotes peach, harmony, and understanding. I would say he’s done the most good (?that sounds terrible) to mankind. Most others I would have picked have been picked. Or I would have picked them if I had known. Borlaug, DeCartes, Einstein, MLK Jr., yeah, I’ll even go with Jesus. He was a groovy guy who had some good things to say.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
sorry, not anyone that has to do with any kind of religeon.
the idea of religeon is great but it is true that it caused war.
and why do people keep saying Jesus when it’s obvious that people are gonna argue here.
and hitler has technically done good because he’s shown the world that we shouldn’t be close minded, mass murdering bastards
July 19th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
sorry, not anyone that has to do with any kind of religion.
the idea of religion is great but it is true that it caused war.
and why do people keep saying Jesus when it’s obvious that people are gonna argue here.
and hitler has technically done good because he’s shown the world that we shouldn’t be close minded, mass murdering bastards
July 19th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
The person who has done the most good for humanity is obviously Lucy.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Nelson Mandela, for showing the world that it is ok being a terrorist, bombing your black brothers, showing no remorse and getting away with it.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Thomas Paine. Modern Democracy around the world owes it’s existence to him, and most modern political theory has some basis in his writings.
July 19th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
The idea here is to choose one person. It’s certainly difficult to choose only one. I don’t think it’s possible. There are so many individuals who have done great things for society. How can we choose only one? It’s like the farce of the Academy Awards…Best actor, Best picture, Best director.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Randall,
If you care to discuss or pispute the Ehrlich theme, I’ll see you over at the Your View: Global Warming site, where I believe the topic belongs.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
dispute, I’m just going out … in a hurry.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Well, this subject is too broad for one person, so I guess the pickings for me would have to be…
Abraham Lincoln
Nelson Mandela
Martin Luther King,Jr.
Batman(if you include the cartoons)
The Dalai Lama
And Jesus should at the least deserve and honorable mention.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
No, Riya B, Jesus should be at the top of the list.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Jfrater sure knows how to ask the easy questions. I can’t even being to think of someone…
Johannes Gutenberg, cause I like books.
But I gotta say something jfray, if you think you’re going to reverse negative comments by asking who has done the most good. You’re a bit naive.
Some people just can’t behave. But I think most of the LV crowd will.
I’m very intrested in what I’ll learn from the comments though.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Richard Dawkins.
xD
July 19th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
well, I would have to say…..martin luther king JR., for some obvious reasons, I would also put in anyone who helped with the civil rights movement. and Nelson Mandela. there is my 2 cents.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Look, this planet was set up with processes that keep the population in check. It was a good system so why are you picking people who mess it up like Pasteur and Flemming? I’m going to go with people who entertain us like Shakespeare or enlighten us like the Buddha or feed us like Borlaug. BTW, Jesus gave us some good suggestions but didn’t tell us how to do what he suggested. You don’t have to look very far to see Christianity doesn’t work.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I can find 105 noble people:
Jane Addams
Susan B. Anthony & Elizabeth Cady Stanton
[Ridiculously long list cut]
July 19th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
So few people have actually done good things…
-Jesus tried and was swiftly corrupted.
-Muhammed was pulled by his entrails into a gutter and now many who follow him simply want to kill and be killed
-Ayn Rand became a parody of her own philosophy
Henry David Thoreau comes to mind. In Walden and Civil Disobedience, he tells people specifically NOT to follow him. In a seemingly eternal age where megalomaniacs are desperate for followers and enemies to destroy, the request to not be followed carries great weight and humility.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
The Buddha. What wars were started in his name? What people killed or places destroyed by his followers? Buddhism never claims to be higher than any other religion or slanders the names of other teachers.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I’m not even going to waste my time with someone who picks Batman as the one who has done the most good for society =)
Come on, go turn on the news and count the number of times you see something about a terrorist blowing something up in the name of Jesus and the same for in the name of Muhammad. I don’t even know how my comment was #1, it was in response to another comment. Anyways, Jackie Robinson is right up there with MLK though. He’s the only player to EVER have his # retired from every team! That means something.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
No entity can compare with Jesus Christ because the good continues and will continue eternally.
For one man doing about all he could do in a lifetime, Dr Michael Debakey was amazing. Innumerable medical techniques, inventions, procedures. Sixty thousand (60,000) heart surgeries in a SEVENTY year career.
Most of humanity can’t do 60,000 things in 70 years….much less heart surgeries.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
****
104. Eric Gmeinder
I can find 105 noble people:
****
Eric: I’m not sure if I misunderstood the point of the question, or you did, but I had 2 people’s names and offerings come to mind without having to “find” them.
I included both names and what they did to earn a spot on the list of Who Has Done The Most Good.
With your list, we’ve got 105 names and no reason for their inclusion.
July 19th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Cedestra (88) If I was one of the more strident types here I would say “Your F*ing joking right?”. But I’m not so I will merely ask whether The Dalai Lama has actually had any Effect with his preaching. From my viewpoint it would seem that it is only very minor, certainly not Earth Changing. Not saying he’s bad or wrong just, in this context, irrelevant.
Re: The Borlaug supporters. You would support someone who is a proponent of Genetic modification tsk tsk. Guess you’re all off the Greenpeace Xmas card list.
My pick: The Wheel guy whoever he may have been. It all comes back to that.
Cheers
Lee
July 19th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
1. whoever discovered how to make fire
2. whoever invented the wheel
3. whoever decided to slice bread
Duh.
Anyone who started a religion or political party should be immediately disqualified.
Religions kill more people than heart disease, AIDS, cancer, and malaria combined.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Jesus but besides him has anyone said the United States Marines?
July 19th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
OK, take a breath and step back. Who good exactly have Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and Dalai Lama actually accomplished for the WHOLE world? The WORLD.
PS: Dalai Lama and his cronies are hypocrites who only rejected fund for guerrilla training from CIA after it was about to be uncovered. His regime are absolute monarchy where most of his citizens lived in poverty.
July 19th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Bill Gates
July 19th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
think about it, jobs, school, medical care, anything without computers in this day, the world wouldn’t be anything like it is now
July 19th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
“Did i say that? didn’t think so. I don’t happen to be one of those christians.”
You didn’t say that atheists would burn in Hell. God did.
“Dalai Lama and his cronies are hypocrites who only rejected fund for guerrilla training from CIA after it was about to be uncovered.”
Dire times call for dire faces. Fuck China, free Tibet.
“His regime are absolute monarchy where most of his citizens lived in poverty.”
And still do. China if anything has made the situation worse, with the added bonus of being controlled by an oppresseive, genocidal regime.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
The person I most admire and wish to emulate is Mother Teresa. She worked tirelessly, thanklessly, anonymously (for the most part) and whole-heartedly to bring some semblance of comfort and hope to a people ignored or even hated by the rest of the world. She put Jesus’ words into action and ministered to the poor, the starving, the sick, the elderly, the outcasts… What a beautiful testimony she remains for human goodness. Her fellow nuns carry on with her work now that she is gone. Would that we all had God’s love in our hearts as she did…
July 19th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Big shoutout and thank you to…
Margaret Sanger.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
hollis: you do realize that Sanger was a racist who favored the idea of executing disabled people for racial purity right? Pretty much the same idea that Hitler had some years later.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
oh – hollis, check out item 6 on this list.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
1) God
2)MLK
3)Michael Jordan
Okay, the third choice was a joke……………or perhaps not.
Mr.Frater also did an incredible job creating this site, I would put him at 7056.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Tempyra (11): you are right that you can buy some – Roquefort and Parmesan are the two main ones that come to mind, but it is illegal in NZ thanks to Annette King from the labour party, to produce any cheese here without pasteurization or a very similar type or treatment. This means that NZ can not compete (quality or pricewise) with the international cheese market for unpasteurized cheeses. This is a great shame as NZ has such a good dairy industry.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Am I allowed one silly entry?
The Earl of Sandwich.
Without his serendipitous discovery MacDonald’s would never have come into existence.
Hey. What list is this???? What person has done the most evil for society ????? Have I got it wrong ????
(Thinks) Good job they don’t know my real name and details.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Mother Teresa – outstanding contributions to our messed up world.
July 19th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
hmmm. . .that is a tough question. alexander fleming did do a lot of good, but i’m allergic to penicillin. boo. in my opinion in no particular order: Walt Disney, Ghandi, and Edwin Herbert Land
July 19th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
My divorce attorney who was able to get me SOLE custody for my beautiful babies. Away from a man who was not abusive to the children, but brutally abusive to their Mother (me).
Yeah, make the jokes. Everybody hates lawyers, until you need one.
July 19th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
idk if anyone said this already but. i think george washington carver. he made some many things from simple beans. alot of things we take for granted. also ben franklin
July 19th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
k1w1taxi,
I am a big proponent of any kind of science that saves A BILLION PEOPLE from starving to death. It doesn’t matter if its genetically modified or not. All these GM-phobes are woefully ill-informed anyways.
I reiterate my vote for Norman Borlaug.
July 19th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Epicurus!
For his excellent positive philosophy
July 19th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
I haven’t read through all of these comments, but as far as I can tell, nobody has offered a good reason why Jesus could be considered the person who did the most good, short of someone saying that he’s saved us all. So somebody please, tell me, I want to know, what do you believe that Jesus has done for you?
Forgive me anyone who finds this offensive, I’m only trying to incite intelligent conversation and debate and at the same time to gain some understanding of people’s concept of Jesus.
My opinion personally is that Jesus, quite unintentionally started a religion, one that has become very popular lately. And while I will agree that religion can give a lot of people direction, guidance and faith, I believe that if Jesus had never lived, people would have found this things somewhere else. People will ALWAYS look for someone to believe in, and let’s be honest with ourselves, things weren’t so bad before Jesus showed up.
And while I certainly know that a lot of good has been done in the name of Christianity and religion in general, I have also seen the evil it can do. It’s true, we don’t consider Christians to be particularly dangerous, in general, acts of terrorism and such are usually attributed to Muslim extremists. But on the other hand, I have seen religion lead to violence, Christianity included, don’t forget that hate groups such as the KKK and the Nazis were and are Christians. Though it’s unfair for me to judge Christianity by the worst of it’s kind, these groups do commit their actions in the name of Jesus.
I believe that if Jesus had never lived, much would be similar to how it is today, changes in the continuum of time not withstanding, as any change such as that would change the present dramatically, but I think people would go on believing in another god or savior, doing good and evil in the name of these religions, living by them, dying to defend them and doing all of the things that people do now in the name of Jesus Christ.
This turned out longer than I expected but if you wish to comment on anything I’ve said, or wish to communicate with me, just make sure that you put my name in your comment somewhere, I won’t be reading through every comment and that way I can just scan through those comments written for my eyes.
July 20th, 2008 at 1:42 am
This is a very tough question and can not be answered properly, so I divided my choices in topics
Science: Leonhard Euler, a swiss mathematician who was the first person to introduce calculus properly and to spread the usage of complex numbers among many other scientific uses. He also defined many fundamental physical topics like hydrostatics etc.
I could have also taken Einstein but Euler laid down the basics to a huge generation of scientists, which is the best thing one can do.
World view: Charles Darwin. He could also run undoubtly for the best scientist but his main effect on us is to sepreate ourselves from old wives tales and to rethink about nature as a vivid process which is changing constantly.
Politics, Freedom: You can’t name a single person here because there were just too much great people in this field.
Thomas Paine, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela etc.
July 20th, 2008 at 2:20 am
TicoTuanis (112) United States Marines Mmmm. Love Marines. Any man in uniform, but Marines esp.
July 20th, 2008 at 2:24 am
Hippocrates? or perhaps one of the great greek doctors. as the Hippocratic oath is still used today and greek doctors were some of the first pioneers in medicine.
July 20th, 2008 at 6:19 am
First off, I would like to say that this is a VERY good question! Of the many noble men and women our planet has hosted, picking the kindest and mst generous is exceedingly hard. But I gotta go with my gut and say Steven Biko – If it weren’t for that gentleman, the Western worl would never have even heard of apartheid (let alone start protesting it). He’s one of my heros, and has been since about 1979.
July 20th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Too hard to pick one, because, as we can all see, depending on circumstances, different people are affected by different things.
There are probably thousands of unnamed pioneers, who developed techniques and advances, in all fields, that we employ everyday, without giving them any thought.
I do have to question the inclusion of Jesus though. You don’t have to be a Christian (or any other religion) to advocate peace, love, friendship or kindness. I’m not saying that atheists don’t kill. Of course they do, but I doubt that they are responsible for more deaths than have occurred in the name of religion.
July 20th, 2008 at 7:28 am
“And still do. China if anything has made the situation worse, with the added bonus of being controlled by an oppresseive, genocidal regime.”
The question is not who is the lesser of the two evils, but rather “Who Has Done The Most Good”. Of which Dalai Lama is far from being justified. His reign isn’t popular, neither did he done anything much outside of Free Tibet movement. But hey, I guess it’s all right to accept money from a known terrorist “Aum Shinrikyo” if you have Richard Gere and Sharon Stone as your mouth piece.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Everyone who doesn’t breed is tied for the honor.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:24 am
easy this one it has got to be winston churchill him standing up to nazi germany refusing to surrender refusing to ask for peace saved a lot of people all over the world but mainly Europe imagine if there was no western front in world war 2 germany would have been able to destroy the ussr and from that they could have controlled all of Eurasia and then who would hitler turn his genocide on. so in my opinion winston churchill saved hundredes of millions of people perhaps billions
July 20th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Its a tie between heidi baker and mother theresa. Both are women who have devoted their entire lives to helping the lowest of the low. There efforts are marked on the earth
July 20th, 2008 at 9:35 am
What I’m finding of enormous interest, at least for those who take the question seriously, is the far ranging group of answers. Answers honor people from religious, scientific, political, and artistic worlds.
Each answer gives one a little nugget to chew on, even when it’s obvious that the named person is *not* deserving of the title…they might still have accomplished some great good.
Fascinating.
Thank you.
July 20th, 2008 at 9:40 am
“Its a tie between heidi baker and mother theresa.”
You should watch the Penn & Teller episode on Mother Theresa, for starters.
July 20th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Maybe from a cultural point of view:
Despite the fact of beeing a conqueror (through killing lots of people) Alexader The Great did compile cultural tresures from half the ancient world. He founded Alexandria witch was maybe the greatest cultural center ever. Unhopefully most of the richness were destroyed accidently during roman ocupation.
Marco Polo does also deserve a mention. He started the cultural dialog betwen the western medieval world and the oriental cultures. He showed both sides that other civilizations were there.
July 20th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I’m supporting the “Jesus” people but I’m also surprised that no one has yet mentioned Jean Vanier, founder of L’Arche. L’arche is a world-wide community for mentally ill adults. Jean Vanier has toured the world many times giving lectures on the importance of love and saving thousands of lives from loneliness.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Thomas Alva Edison – not because he had 1 major invention that changed the world (the first long-lasting safe lightbulb – have you ever tried doing something detailed by candlelight or gaslight?), but THREE, including the phonograph & motion pictures. Then there are the more forgotten but still important inventions like the small microphone, the electric company (using DC over AC), the floroscope (early Xray machine), stock ticker, and was instrumental in the creation of the first electric train system (i.e. light rail) in the US.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Whoever invented birth control.
July 20th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
- John D. Rockefeller.
- Óscar Romero
- Leonardo Da Vinci
July 20th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I change my mind. My pick is whoever invented beer.
July 20th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Not even Mother Theresa is free from corruption. I won’t go into it, you can look up her issues.
And when I said the Dalai Lama, I didn’t necessarily mean this one. There were also 13? before him.
July 20th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Craig (136) Interesting you should nominate WC. I was listening to an author interview on the radio about three weeks ago that postulated the opposite effect from Churchill’s leadership ie it made the war longer and more costly in lives than did alternative strategies.
Sorry I can’t remember either the author or his book, but I do recall that from what I heard he was using a lot of 20/20 hindsight to come to his conclusions. And even then I still think many of them were wrong.
Cheers
Lee
July 20th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Wow, so many people come to mind for this(as many have pointed out in previous posts) so ill try and get one that i have not seen mentioned as of comment 146. Upton Sinclair did a lot of good with his book “The Jungle”, showing the nauseatingly filthy conditions of meat packing plants at the time and what terrible conditions the workers were under. He caused many sanitation reforms in factories all over, and if not for him, people would have taken who knows how long to discover and fix this problem so buying meat would not have been like playing the lottery. Ironically though, that wasn’t his main point, his main point was the plight of the wage workers under a capitalist rule and all the hardships and grossness they had to endure, to quote the man “I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.” But because of his fame he earned by publishing “The Jungle” he went on to write many books on all sorts of social injustices in the 20th century.
July 20th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
David (144)
Da Vinci I understand but would you care to elucidate on the other two?
Cheers
Lee
July 20th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I’m gonna go with Buddha, as he has made the most difference in my life. Jesus could be there too, but Buddha’s message simply makes more sense to me.
July 20th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Jesus did the most good. his followers in his name probably have done the most harm….following Jesus’s teaching’s we would all live better lives. There are too many arguments either way to defend all. I know i am a better person for trying to follow his teaching’s.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
If we don’t get side tracked by “who killed in who’s name”. The historical impact of belief in Jesus and being a “good Christian” is the foundation for most other names in this list.
The foundation of Medical treatment comes from a Christian obligation to care for the suffering. Monks and scribes gave purpose to kept the western written word taught. Gutenberg’s printing press printed the bible to spread it among the people. There would have been wars regardless who believed in what – but day to day Christian morality and ethics among the common folk inspired everything we hold dear in civilization, from human rights to health care.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Now, I mite sound a little biased when I say this, but probably the guy who invented bacon… Yeah…
July 20th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Wafa Sultan – google her speech.
Most people who save the world – you’ll never even know their name.
July 21st, 2008 at 2:28 am
its funny, Jamie posts a friendly “your view” and it gets less attention. That says a lot.
July 21st, 2008 at 2:34 am
Interesting isn’t it?
July 21st, 2008 at 6:06 am
Jesus… Maybe. He seemed cool- I mean, condemning the rich to hell, championing the poor, a regular little Marx.
Plus, people always like the guy but condemn the results of the religion- ignoring all of the schools, hospitals, charities etc. All the stuff funded by the church, back before it was disengaged and the government picked up where it left off.
So yeah… Jesus. But Jesus the bloke, Jesus the pedagogue- not Jesus the son of God.
July 21st, 2008 at 8:30 am
LooLoo, Thomas Edison did not invent the lightbulb. His assisstant did. Thomas Edison did, however, patent the first lightbulb. This act I believe basically precludes him from the arena of discussion in this topic, but hey, what do I know.
Massoluk, I didn’t suggest the Dalai Lama, but discussing his shortcomings as a leader and a person in the face of China’s disgusting seizure of his country is not big and not clever. Furthermore, Tibet as an overwhelmingly Buddhist country makes his absolute monarchy no more of a crime than the Pope’s rule of the Vatican. I don’t recall any ‘Free Tibet’ protests while he was still in control.
DDRM: “The foundation of Medical treatment comes from a Christian obligation to care for the suffering.”
While disease, violence and war are spread by demonic Atheists. Yeah yeah. Ever heard of Hippocrates, AKA ‘the father of modern medicine’?
“There would have been wars regardless who believed in what” So one more cause for war is OK because there are already plenty? If people are going to fight and die for something I would personally rather it was something rather more important than ‘who has the best God’. Remove the cause, remove the problem.
“but day to day Christian morality and ethics among the common folk inspired everything we hold dear in civilization, from human rights to health care.”
I’m sorry if my entire comment has come across as rude, but I simply cannot comprehend these totally spurious assertions, particularly the one above – I mean, in all serious, do you actually believe that?
July 21st, 2008 at 9:18 am
Saith Jamie in the intro:
“To help us reverse some of the negative comments in recent “your view” topics, we are going to do a positive your view – we are going to look at which one man or woman has contributed the most to the betterment of society throughout all history. You can pick anyone from anytime or any place.”
I think we can all guess the genesis of this comment. Things got out of hand. Let’s try, for Jamie’s sake, for our sake, to respond to this, and all lists, as the intelligent people we are.
July 21st, 2008 at 10:08 am
Santa Clause!
… but in earnest I’m still lobbying for Jean Vanier, founder of L’Arche.
July 21st, 2008 at 10:26 am
I still lend my vote to Borlaug in this thing (with Jacques Cousteau as honorable mention) but I’m prompted to say something about this argument that persists here, about Jesus.
It’s perhaps easier, one might argue, to confuse Jesus with the religion of his followers than it is to confuse the Buddha with the religion or philosophy that grew up in his wake… Buddhism is not a bureaucratic, hierarchic religion, largely, and so lacking the sense of an outward “central authority” (other than the dalai lama and such) it perhaps seems easier to mentally divorce Buddhism from its “founder.” Nevertheless, it’s a mistake, it seems to me, to discount Jesus from this list because of the injustices committed in his name.
Jesus (and the Buddha) introduced an entirely new paradigm into the human consciousness, which in point of fact had simply not existed previously. Prior to Jesus there was an overwhelming sense of fatalism in the notion of human existence, as well as an utter lack of any sense of shared comity between individuals, and a lack of recognition of the humanity of other human beings. It isn’t that people weren’t aware that their fellows were also humans like themselves, and it isn’t that communities/cities/tribes etc. didn’t provide some sense of a communal spirit–but this is not precisely the same as the recognition that all men are brothers, and that an “enemy” is really the same as the self (hence the act of “turning the other cheek”). Jesus even went *beyond* the Buddha in this, in a sense–at least looking at it a certain way.
In any event, it’s to Jesus that the West, at least, owes its inherited sense (even if on MANY occasions we’ve only paid lip service to it) that the other individual over there is really the same as yourself, and you should therefore help him and sympathize with him—and that this *crosses over* all boundaries of race, creed, and nationality. Jesus also taught other things, some of which people have been less inclined to pick up on (read carefully, his message is not altogether very different from the Buddha’s, flaming speculation that Jesus went away to India for a time to study Buddhism, adapting it to a Judaic context) but at any rate, it’s to him that we owe an awakened sense not only of the Self, but of the other Selves all around us… and that’s no small thing. We like to bitch about how horrible our world has been, particularly over the last hundred years, and how we’ve done awful things to each other–sometimes in the name of Jesus. But we really need to be grown up about this and face that A) what’s been done in his name and what HE would have done are usually two VERY different things and B) the world, without his teaching, would have certainly been a great deal worse. In fact, we might not be here today, if not for the inner restraints on our own hatreds and passions which Jesus caused us to place upon ourselves.
Whatever you think of his divinity, the dude was one-of-a-kind and he did one of the greatest things ever for our civilization.
July 21st, 2008 at 10:45 am
Chickensoup:
As you can see from my previous comment, I feel I have to take issue with your denunciation of what DDRM said in his/her earlier comment.
You’re right, of course, about Hippocrates, but as a specialist in ancient Greece, I feel I need to assure you that there’s a big difference between the PHILOSOPHY of health care in our post-Jesus world vs. that in the day of the ancient Greeks (and Egyptians, who were also accomplished, if incurious, physicians). Health care, of course, is largely a matter of practicality–it’s expedient to keep useful members of society healthy so they can go on being useful. And in ancient Greece this sometimes did cut across all lines to include slaves and other hoi polloi as well as the aristocratic. But it was largely a practical matter. The Greeks were highly inquisitive lovers of science who saw new ways of applying their brains to the pursuit of knowledge. Medicine was part of this–but the extent to which it was practiced out of an innate feeling of “one-ness” with one’s neighbor/fellow is pretty small. The Greeks did not possess this sense any more than any other ancient society–which is part of the reason that it was possible for them to ignore slavery, in large measure, as a social injustice. (Of course, yes, we did the same thing, but this simply proves that we are far from perfect, and do not always follow our better natures–not that we are the same as the ancients). In essence the Greeks did love life, and were followers of the “life impulse” more readily than the “death impulse,” if you will, unlike their Asian or Egyptian fellows (or later, the Romans). But this is not the same as our modern sense of what is “right” and true in regards to caring for one’s neighbor, etc.
You went on to quote DDRM and then reply:
““but day to day Christian morality and ethics among the common folk inspired everything we hold dear in civilization, from human rights to health care.”
I’m sorry if my entire comment has come across as rude, but I simply cannot comprehend these totally spurious assertions, particularly the one above – I mean, in all serious, do you actually believe that?”
Yes, frankly–*I* believe that–because I know it historically to be so. What is your reason for doubting this or asserting otherwise?
Note what I said in my previous comment about the paradigm shift that Jesus brought about (it took a while) in the modern mind. Prior to Jesus there simply was no sense of “social good” based on compassion and a shared sense of co-existence. The “social good” of the ancients before Jesus was rather based on expediency and practicality in large measure (I’m generalizing of course, but nevertheless this is largely so). It’s only after Jesus that we get the sense of doing good for the sake of doing good–or to put it more specifically, for doing what is “right” based on a shared sense of existence–that everyone around us is our brother and sister and that we are all, underneath, the same. That’s a day-to-day philosophy that had only the barest existence prior to Jesus (in the West at least) though some philosophers in Greece had touched upon it slightly.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:33 am
Chicken Soup,
Again, the question is not who is the lesser of the two evils, but Who Has Done The Most Good. The current Dalai Lama didn’t do anything worthwhile when he was in Tibet or when he is an exile.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:36 am
Frankly, when US gov. agency openly said the Tibet Coup against China failed in the past due to lack of support from the local, that should say something.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Leo Baekeland, he invented plastic in 1898 (which gave rise to newer synthetic plastics now in play). I honestly think that without the gift of plastic so many of today’s conventions would be lost. Even when you think medically, much of what we use in a hospital again, is made of plastic (from syringes, nebulizers, even the beds the patients lay on, etc.). I hope I do not see a “Green” backlash b/c I know it’s not the best at being biodegradeable but it got us through many advances through the past century+. Thanks a bunch to Leo!
July 21st, 2008 at 4:14 pm
****
161. Randall
****
Randall, has it been my imagination, or have you been unusually quiet of late? I’ve missed you.
Spanner is gone, and I thought maybe you had gone also.
Are you alright?
July 21st, 2008 at 5:08 pm
ben franklin. he invented EVERYTHING.
July 21st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Randall, I must commend you on your posting 161.
As a person who has read most of the posts nominating/supporting Jesus and thought “Fuck Off” as much for the tone as the validity of Jesus as a nominee, I found your post to be one of the best written presentations supporting him.
Nice to see a mature sensible posting on the subject after some recent efforts in the LV.
Cheers
Lee
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:18 am
segue:
I hope Spanner hasn’t *really* left. But thanks for missing me. I’ve been caught up in a health issue. Hopefully it’s nothing. Thanks very much for asking though.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:21 am
k1w1taxi:
Thank you.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 am
Muhammad(pbuh)
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:40 am
147. k1w1taxi
my main point about winston churchill was he did not surrender when many people in the government wanted this the only other option for pm (lord halifax)in my opinion whould have bowed down to the pressure from his own government and surrendered
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:29 am
I’ll start by congratulating Mom424 on the best post so far. I will reiterate their comment that this topic is WAY too broad.
I’d also like to add a name to the candidates: John Locke. English philosopher who was instrumental in the liberalism movement out of the Age of Enlightenment.
However, I don’t think that any one person can be credited with an idea. Locke himself was influenced by Descartes, who was in turn influenced by other teachings.
Which leads me to the nominations by others of Jesus. Randall makes a decent argument but writes as though Jesus came up with the principles that he taught. From what I understand, Jesus was a jew and was simply teaching the ethics of judaism. Furthermore, there are no writings by Jesus, only those of the gospels, so it’s really these authors who should be applauded for spreading the benovolent ideas that Jesus is credited with.
What I’m getting at, is that if ideology is the category, then naming a particular individual is next to impossible, as thought is constantly evolving.
The same goes for Darwin. He’s credited with the theory of evolution but he was simply building on the work of others (see Lamarck) and managed to provide scientific support for the idea.
As a last comment, I feel the need to call DDRM and Randall on their assumption that “Christian morality and ethics among the common folk inspired everything we hold dear in civilization, from human rights to health care”. That is a truly egotistical, ignorant and inflammatory statement. How can you try to assert that these concepts weren’t also championed by buddhists, jews and ateheists? Plus, what does “christian morality” have to do with the conversation at hand?
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:10 am
umgrego2:
You’re laboring under some misconceptions, so allow me to clear them up for you:
“Randall makes a decent argument but writes as though Jesus came up with the principles that he taught. From what I understand, Jesus was a jew and was simply teaching the ethics of judaism.”
Incorrect, umgrego2. Yes, Jesus was a Jew, but no, he was most certainly NOT “simply teaching the ethics of Judaism.” I would suggest you re-read my earlier posts–I made it *quite* clear that Jesus introduced an entirely new paradigm into the consciousness of western civilization. Judaism prior to Jesus contained little of the ethos that Jesus taught–Jewish thought at this time still in large measure derived from the Torah, or the Law. This bears little relation to the teachings of Jesus, who by his own admission went beyond the Law and set a “new” law into being. Some of Jesus’ teachings spin off from Jewish Law, of course… but the ethos he introduced was entirely new and had no actual precedent in western consciousness.
“…Furthermore, there are no writings by Jesus, only those of the gospels, so it’s really these authors who should be applauded for spreading the benovolent ideas that Jesus is credited with.”
While true that Jesus left no writings, this is a somewhat spurious argument. History and philosophy grant to Socrates, the great ancient Greek philosopher, credit for his ideas, despite the fact that he wrote nothing in his lifetime and everything we know about him comes from his student, Plato. Moreover, the authors of the gospels would have had no ideas to spread if Jesus had not first spoken these ideas in the first place. Lastly, we do have the Gospel of Thomas, which, while apocryphal, has been the one non-biblical gospel generally accepted by scholars as being representative of the actual words of Jesus–in fact, in many cases it’s judged that Thomas *more closely* gets the words of Jesus right than the biblical gospels do. So while Jesus also did not write this, we do have what we believe are his actual words—and it’s what Jesus said that mattered–not who reported it or wrote it down. Your argument would say that we should give more credit to the reporter who publishes the words of the president’s latest speech FOR that speech, than we should give to the president himself–simply because he spoke it rather than wrote it down. Silly.
You also go on to say:
“As a last comment, I feel the need to call DDRM and Randall on their assumption that “Christian morality and ethics among the common folk inspired everything we hold dear in civilization, from human rights to health care”. That is a truly egotistical, ignorant and inflammatory statement.”
To begin with, I did not make that statement, DDRM did. However, yes, I support it.
I would ask you to explain how it is that this statement is “egotistical” and “ignorant.” I take it by inflammatory you refer to how it seems to discredit or steal credit, at least, from other religions. Hence your next statement:
“How can you try to assert that these concepts weren’t also championed by buddhists, jews and ateheists?”
A) Saying Jesus, as a figure, was responsible for the introduction and codification of certain principles, ethics and ideas is NOT the same as saying it was NOT also championed by others. I stated *clearly* in my comments that the teachings if Jesus closely mirrored the teachings of the Buddha—so your accusation is off the mark and reactionary. However, I also stated that Jesus in some ways went *beyond* the Buddha in his teachings. If you know anything about the Dhammaparda (the teachings of the Buddha)–which you apparently don’t–then you see clearly that while Jesus and the Buddha run parallel in many ways, they diverge on certain points, and Jesus actually takes things further–and is more clear, in a moral sense. This is by no means an indictment in any way of the Buddha–his mission, as it were, was simply of a different nature.
B) In any case, I saw this statement as relating mainly to WESTERN civilization, which is what I spoke of in my statements. I was not, therefore, speaking about Eastern civilizations and their ideals and systems of thought and ethics.
C) As I already pointed out, Judaism did NOT come up with the ideas that Jesus brought into our western consciousness. He built on some Judaic principles, yes, but Judaism itself did not formulate what Jesus taught.
D) There is no evidence whatsoever that atheists ever created any unique ethical system. This is not to say atheists can’t have ethics–of course they can. But no ethical system ANYONE comes up with nowadays is unique, after thousands of years of human history. But the simple fact is that Jesus’ system WAS unique–at least to the West, and while it bore much relation and similarity to Buddhist teachings, Jesus also deviated from that and what he taught was, in nearly every other sense, new and singular.
“Plus, what does “christian morality” have to do with the conversation at hand?”
That’s rather obvious, umgrego2. DDRM introduced the idea of Christian morality as the reason WHY Jesus should be considered as “the one who has done the most good.” And again, it comes back to the statement that the morality and ethos he laid down was entirely new to the Western mind and created the paradigm that we still work under to this day.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 am
Randall, to imply that the Greeks practiced medicine purely to preserve the lives of useful people is to ignore the eentire basis of Greek society. The image you create is of a cold, heartless, machinistic society with little interest in the health and happiness of the people. This was simply not the case – empathy and thoughtfulness are evident in much of the documentation we have from this time, from the writings of Plato to ‘Oedipus Rex’. The philosophy of Christian health care also owes something of a debt to the influence and teachings of the Muslim Middle East, particularly in the Middle Ages. Social conciousness is not an exclusively Christian virtue, and can, in fact, be trampled over in puruit of Christian goals – just look at Mother Theresa, lauded as a near-saint despite her revolting “souls before bodies” policy. And if this really is such a pervasive part of the Christian psyche, why doesn’t America, one of the most fervently Christian nations in the world, employ its values in either its domestic or foriegn spheres? Why is there no state healthcare in America, while the largely atheist nations of Britain, Canada, China, Cuba, Germany etc. all do? Why did it take Britain thousands of years of Christianity alongside slavery and bloodshed in the name of the Empire before adopting the Beveridge report as its guide? And finally, why are these values prevelant in non-Christian countries, even those going back thousands of years BC, such as Japan?
“Yes, frankly–*I* believe that–because I know it historically to be so. What is your reason for doubting this or asserting otherwise?”
Because to claim that these values amongst common people are ‘Christian’ rather than ‘human’ is quite frightening to me. Empathy is not a Christian value, and a simple knowledge of non-Christian people and societies proves this. I have to say I find the fact that I have to attempt to impress this fact upon you rather confusing – I feel that the onus is on you, rather than I, to back up your claim, being as it was proposed by DDRM, rather than the opposite by me. If you feel otherwise, let me know and I will respond in kind.
“It’s only after Jesus that we get the sense of doing good for the sake of doing good–or to put it more specifically, for doing what is “right” based on a shared sense of existence–that everyone around us is our brother and sister and that we are all, underneath, the same.”
I would highlight the fact that Buddhist teachings have been around since 2500 BC – do you think that this was an isolated conciousness?
“That’s a day-to-day philosophy that had only the barest existence prior to Jesus (in the West at least”
And which continued to have only the barest existence until the Renaissance and the social revolutions in the 18th – 20th centuries. I see no correlation between Christianity and the rise in social conscience – as a matter of fact, I see more of a link between this and the rise of atheism-informed scientific practices. Draw your own conclusions.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Adolf Hitler.
Before anyone shits there pants, i just want to say that Hilter has brought more good to the world than any one person will ever. He showed us our weakness and how corrupt the human being can get. The general worldwide illegalness of genocide, fascism, rascism, and totalitarianism is a direct result of his conquests.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Chickensoup:
Listen, I realize I make a habit sometimes of throwing my weight around here on this site, but I still have to go ahead and tell you flat out not to presume to lecture me about ancient Greek society as though I don’t know what I’m talking about when I offer up my opinion about it. Not only was I trained in this topic, (ancient history) but the Greeks have been a passionate interest of mine ever since I was a little kid–I’ve probably read more books on every aspect of their history and society than you’ve even heard of. I’m part Greek myself for god’s sake.
First of all, I think your problem is that you persist in viewing the Greeks through the prism of your modernity. Stop it. They weren’t moderns and you aren’t an ancient Greek. So realize it would take time and nuance of understanding to fully grasp them and their attitudes.
“The image you create is of a cold, heartless, machinistic society with little interest in the health and happiness of the people.”
In no way, shape, or form is that what I painted or implied. You *took* it as such, however–and that’s your error. And in so doing you also ignored what I said about the Greeks’ love of life and their adherence to the “life impulse” over the death impulse.
No, the Greeks were not cold and heartless and certainly not a machinistic society. But neither were they like you and me in regards to our generally-held attitudes towards the social good and compassion between individuals who are strangers and so on. Yes, of course they had some sense of these things–human nature in itself is to some extent about social compassion–we’re social animals. But do not make the mistake of thinking that the Greeks were just like us when it came to viewing one’s neighbor as one views oneself. *Some* Greek philosophers held views akin to this–but in general the Greeks–nor any other ancient people–didn’t think as we do in this regard.
“…empathy and thoughtfulness are evident in much of the documentation we have from this time…”
You’re looking for an argument, chickensoup. I would advise you to step back and get a grip. No one loves the ancient Greeks more than me. They’ve been the subject of my passionate study, as I said, ever since I was a kid. I never said that empathy and thoughtfulness were unknown to them or absent from their society. You’re missing the point. These qualities were part of the Greeks, yes—in particular in their view of a human-centered universe, unlike their fellows (the Asiatics, the Egyptians, etc.) who viewed Man as a piece of mud, beholden to gods and god-kings—in particular the Greeks had a nicely developed sense of the pathos and glory and wonder of being human. They appreciated this greatly.
But there’s a big difference between the Greek notion of placing the center of the universe on Man, as it were (this isn’t really an accurate way of putting it, but it’ll do for the discussion) and actually having an embedded sense of the brotherhood of all human beings–and a sense that that stranger over there is the same as you and is your brother (or sister). The Greeks certainly appreciated that philosophy and grasped it, and there’s evidence of it, as you say, in their writings. It’s in fact no wonder that they so readily opened their arms to Christianity when it came–the Greeks “got it,” whereas it took the Romans (and others) a lot longer to swallow. But again there’s a difference between the words of a poet or a philosopher and what a society actually practices. The Greeks viewed all non-Greeks as barbarians as we well know, and even their respected neighbors, like the Egyptians, they viewed as less vital and worthy because they were not Greek. There’s nothing horrible in this, it was common for their day. It’s what allowed Greece, like all other ancient societies, to view slavery with nary a whiff of concern (some Greek philosophers, to their credit, DID speak against it, though). Even amongst themselves, it would be unusual for Greeks to view “the Other” as a mirror of oneself–in other words, to the Greeks also the “good Samaritan” would be an unusual fellow worthy of particular praise–but an exception, not the rule. They UNDERSTOOD compassion, of course, then…. but they had not had it codified for them nor had any ethos ever grown up within them that said, “this is how one must live.” WE expect the good Samaritan to be the rule. The ancients–including the Greeks–did not.
Of course, yes–you’re forcing me to go into all sorts of complicated discussions of this–the Greeks had traditional “rules” about hospitality to the needy stranger or guest–and still do today—there are few more hospitable people on earth. BUT AGAIN–this is not precisely the same as our attitudes today, nor does it any way recommend to “turn the other cheek,” nor does it say to “love one’s enemy.” The Greeks would have found that absurd. They recognized that being kind to a needy stranger is a virtue. But they had no concept of kindness for the sake of humanity OVERALL–and certainly not of being kind to an enemy.
And you’re putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said that social consciousness is a strictly Christian virtue.
AND when I was speaking I was addressing WESTERN civilization.
“And if this really is such a pervasive part of the Christian psyche, why doesn’t America, one of the most fervently Christian nations in the world, employ its values in either its domestic or foriegn spheres?”
Why does it always come down to America bashing? You’re like the atheist who says there can’t be a god because a “real” god wouldn’t let suffering go on. Childish.
I SAID that our modern societies are far from perfect. The mere fact that we rarely… RARELY… practice what we have been taught, what is INGRAINED into us by our traditional values–ANY of us, regardless of nationality–is not proof that those values don’t exist or that we are no different from the ancients. The difference, as cynical (or perhaps naive?) as this sounds is that we DO have a picture of rightness which is different from the rightness of the ancient world–which makes us, if anything, even more despicable when we fail to live up to it. But fail we do. NEVERTHELESS this doesn’t change the fact that this social consciousness is part of what we are–AND that social consciousness did NOT exist prior to the arrival on the scene of a Jesus–or a Buddha. Or for that matter a Muhammed.
Arguing this about the ancient Greeks is one thing–but you look at the Romans or the Persians or the Egyptians or any other ancient society. Clearly no such consciousness exists in them. If you want to dispute that I’ll be glad to go at it with you. But you’d be dead wrong, I can warn you in advance. And I can handle the argument, trust me.
“Why is there no state healthcare in America, while the largely atheist nations of Britain, Canada, China, Cuba, Germany etc. all do?”
Now you’re just resorting to cant and pure nonsense, chickensoup. The West has lost its faith, yes–and I think this is correct in some sense–don’t make the mistake of thinking I am some born-again Christian or something. But Christian values are rooted in our civilization still, and it’s what makes the nations you mention compassionate. America has its own fucked up ideas about it–the tough love attitude. I don’t know who’s right really but I’m more on the side of the Europeans certainly. But don’t pretend that Europe is an “atheist” continent just because most of the populace has stopped believing in Christianity as a religion. Christianity is still part of our history, as Westerners, and whether we still “believe” in it or simply treat it as a valuable well to draw from while rejecting the parts we no longer like doesn’t matter–it is still there and is still part of us.
Socialism, as we all know, champions the idea of governments seeing to the needs of the society. Hence your example of Cuba and China. But socialism, too, is *largely* a western invention–and it too has its roots in Christian principles.
The mere fact that the West hasn’t lived up to its principles, that it took it a long time for it to really get around to walking the walk—does NOT disprove any of what I’ve said. It takes TIME for the kind of thing we’re talking about to settle in to the attitudes of human beings as a whole. It sounds like you’re trying to say it happened overnight when we *stopped* being Christian… as though it were an impediment–and that the ancients had it all along. This is silly.
And I challenge you to back up your statement that the values we’ve been talking about existed in ancient Japan. That was an absurd overstatement on your part.
“Because to claim that these values amongst common people are ‘Christian’ rather than ‘human’ is quite frightening to me.”
I did NOT make that claim. You are quite simply misreading what I said.
“Empathy is not a Christian value”
EXCUSE ME? The hell it isn’t, chickensoup. But I’ve already laid this out for you. I did NOT say it was EXCLUSIVELY Christian. I said simply that it was NOT the NORM in ANCIENT societies.
AGAIN—I am deeply sympathetic with Buddhism. But I was speaking of WESTERN culture and civlization. Is that now clear?
“I see no correlation between Christianity and the rise in social conscience – as a matter of fact, I see more of a link between this and the rise of atheism-informed scientific practices. Draw your own conclusions.”
I will draw the conclusion that you simply no little or nothing of history.
what “atheism-informed scientific practices” are you speaking of?
Sounds to me, chickensoup, that you’re just another one of these history revisionists who hates the idea of giving credit to the despised Christians–superstitious and backward fools that they are. I suggest you grow up a little and get a more balanced view of reality.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Jesus Christ
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Paramhansa Yogananda.
He was the first Indian sage to move to America (in 1920). He showed the underlying unity of christianity and Indian spirituality / yoga. He introduced many spiritual techniques that are now commonly used. He was immensely popular, taught hundreds of thousands of people and was received by president Coolidge. His book ‘Autobiography of a yogi’ has been an eye opener for many in many countries. It helped them understand that religion is not about belief but about the actual experience of truth, timelessness and love.
In my opinion it is thanks to his influence that we are now moving beyond the old, structured form of religion into an age of true spirituality.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
do a bit more research , alexander fleming wasn’t actually the true inventor of penicillin
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
OK, here we go…
I’ll try to do this bit by bit.
First of all, I thought we were having a debate. I didn’t think I was ‘lecturing’ you, but it’s a little hard to monitor your audience’s response when you’re typing into a computer.
I have no doubt that you’re well-versed in the subject, as am I. I too have studied ancient Greece, although my fields were literature and philosophy (hence why I mentioned “documentation”). I’m sorry if I upset you by not giving your academic prowess the respect it deserves. Won’t happen again, mate.
“In no way, shape, or form is that what I painted or implied. You *took* it as such, however–and that’s your error.”
You’re right, my failure to understand your point was clearly entirely my fault. You are exonerated of all responsibility for my inability to follow your point, being it within a certain “nuance of understanding” that my puny mind couldn’t grasp. Good for you.
I concede the point about the ancient Greeks having a different social perspective from ours.
“You’re looking for an argument, chickensoup.”
Is that what I’m doing? If you say so.
“I would advise you to step back and get a grip.”
*Ahem*, will do.
“It’s in fact no wonder that they so readily opened their arms to Christianity when it came–the Greeks “got it,” whereas it took the Romans (and others) a lot longer to swallow.”
I would argue that the Romans took longer to ‘get it’ because it was considered an insurrection on Roman soil. It’s hardly surprising that Christianity took a while to spring up there. Considering your extensive knowledge of Greek history you must be aware that it was the Byzantines (for all intents and purposes the Romans) who introduced Christianity to Greece, as they did many other innovations and aspects of their society.
“But again there’s a difference between the words of a poet or a philosopher and what a society actually practices.”
True, but there is also an element of zeitgeist – these ideas do not spring up solely in eloquent individuals, and they are certainly not popularised without a certain shared understanding.
“WE expect the good Samaritan to be the rule. The ancients–including the Greeks–did not.”
Point well made, I concur with that.
“BUT AGAIN–this is not precisely the same as our attitudes today, nor does it any way recommend to “turn the other cheek,” nor does it say to “love one’s enemy.” The Greeks would have found that absurd.”
As do most people to this day. Evidence? Prevelant in every aspect of society, including the very comment I am responding to. No slight intended, just look at it and you’ll see what I mean.
“And you’re putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said that social consciousness is a strictly Christian virtue.”
It’s the assertion that Christianity introduced widespread social conciousness to the world that I am arguing against…
“AND when I was speaking I was addressing WESTERN civilization.”
Well, I’m not. This topic is called “Who Has Done the Most Good?”, not “Who Has Done the Most Good in Western Civilisation?”.
“Why does it always come down to America bashing? You’re like the atheist who says there can’t be a god because a “real” god wouldn’t let suffering go on. Childish.”
*I’m* being childish? You ignored my point because it said a not very nice (though obviously true) thing about America. Then you insulted me and made a ridiculous assumption about me and my beliefs. Cut the shit, answer my God-damn question.
“I SAID that our modern societies are far from perfect. The mere fact that we rarely… RARELY… practice what we have been taught, what is INGRAINED into us by our traditional values–ANY of us, regardless of nationality–is not proof that those values don’t exist or that we are no different from the ancients.”
But it does indicate that Jesus did not do ‘the most good’ for our society if his teachings have, in large part, been a failure.
“NEVERTHELESS this doesn’t change the fact that this social consciousness is part of what we are–AND that social consciousness did NOT exist prior to the arrival on the scene of a Jesus–or a Buddha. Or for that matter a Muhammed.”
People can be influenced. This doesn’t mean that the values are not already there. If it did, then that would mean that social conciousness would not exist in the children of non-Christian countries.
“Arguing this about the ancient Greeks is one thing–but you look at the Romans or the Persians or the Egyptians or any other ancient society. Clearly no such consciousness exists in them. If you want to dispute that I’ll be glad to go at it with you. But you’d be dead wrong, I can warn you in advance. And I can handle the argument, trust me.”
I don’t want to get into that. I didn’t say I wanted to get into that. So no, I’m not going to dispute that. Do you want me to list some topics about which we could debate and on which you’d be ‘dead wrong’? Clearly, that wouldn’t really be beneficial to the topic, but my ego would enjoy the massage.
“Now you’re just resorting to cant and pure nonsense, chickensoup.”
Oh, an insulting accusation with little or no explanation. How clever of you.
“The West has lost its faith, yes–and I think this is correct in some sense–don’t make the mistake of thinking I am some born-again Christian or something.”
I didn’t.
“But Christian values are rooted in our civilization still, and it’s what makes the nations you mention compassionate. America has its own fucked up ideas about it–the tough love attitude. I don’t know who’s right really but I’m more on the side of the Europeans certainly. But don’t pretend that Europe is an “atheist” continent just because most of the populace has stopped believing in Christianity as a religion. Christianity is still part of our history, as Westerners, and whether we still “believe” in it or simply treat it as a valuable well to draw from while rejecting the parts we no longer like doesn’t matter–it is still there and is still part of us.”
So, despite the fact that the predominantly Christian America is losing its social conciousness while the predominantly atheist Europe is increasing it’s social conciousness, it is still Christianity that is the impetus for its adoption? I would argue that it is more likely to come out of education (before you get upset again that is not a crack at America) and social progress rather than Christianity. This argument is similar to the suggestion above that Hitler did the greatest good because he inspired the world to defeat fascism. Again, that isn’t a crack, just think about it.
“Socialism, as we all know, champions the idea of governments seeing to the needs of the society. Hence your example of Cuba and China. But socialism, too, is *largely* a western invention–and it too has its roots in Christian principles.”
No, socialism has its roots in socially conscientious issues. Religion, especially in the societies I mentioned, is rejected. You can argue otherwise till the cows come home, but i can assure you that, in your words, you’d be “dead wrong”.
“It takes TIME for the kind of thing we’re talking about to settle in to the attitudes of human beings as a whole.”
Again, the topic is “Who Has Done the Most Good?”, not “Who Will Do the Most Good?”
“It sounds like you’re trying to say it happened overnight when we *stopped* being Christian… as though it were an impediment–and that the ancients had it all along. This is silly.”
Now who’s putting words in who’s mouth? I didn’t say that at all.
“And I challenge you to back up your statement that the values we’ve been talking about existed in ancient Japan. That was an absurd overstatement on your part.”
Oh really? Ever heard of Confucianism? Don’t write cheques you can’t cash.
“I did NOT make that claim. You are quite simply misreading what I said.”
Quote:
DDRM: “day to day Christian morality and ethics among the common folk inspired everything we hold dear in civilization, from human rights to health care.”
Chickensoup: “I’m sorry if my entire comment has come across as rude, but I simply cannot comprehend these totally spurious assertions, particularly the one above – I mean, in all serious, do you actually believe that?”
Randall: “Yes, frankly–*I* believe that–because I know it historically to be so.”
That’s REAL easy to misread, isn’t it?
“EXCUSE ME? The hell it isn’t, chickensoup. But I’ve already laid this out for you. I did NOT say it was EXCLUSIVELY Christian. I said simply that it was NOT the NORM in ANCIENT societies.”
CHILL! I said empathy was not a Christian value because it isn’t. I know many non-Christians. They are all empathic people. I even know empathic animals. Jesus didn’t come up with these ideas, they are not Christian-exclusive, Christian-based, Christian-named or anything, so I do not accept that they are ‘Christian’ values.
“AGAIN—I am deeply sympathetic with Buddhism. But I was speaking of WESTERN culture and civlization. Is that now clear?”
If you wanna talk about that then good for you, but that’s not what this topic is about.
“I will draw the conclusion that you simply no little or nothing of history.”
Because I have a different view of it from you? I will draw the conclusion that you are an arrogant blowhard who makes personal assumptions based on little or no evidence. I study history at university, I write dissertations and magazine esaays on it. I know a SHITRAKE about history, whether you like my opinions of it or not. We disagree, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I am ignorant. So cut the shit nd stop acting the pezzovenante. It’s not big, it’s not clever, and I can’t maintain civility in the face of bullshit.
“what “atheism-informed scientific practices” are you speaking of?”
I was speaking of the popularisation of practices such as euthanasia, abortion, stem cell research, etc., all of which are opposed by popular Christianity.
“Sounds to me, chickensoup, that you’re just another one of these history revisionists who hates the idea of giving credit to the despised Christians–superstitious and backward fools that they are. I suggest you grow up a little and get a more balanced view of reality.”
Blah, blah, blah. I’m sure your half-baked, petty assumptions about me are very self-fulfilling, but I can assure you they don’t exactly suggest that you have any more balanced a view of reality than I do. If you wanna cry then do so yourself, I didn’t come on to this site to have someone wax bollocks about my life and opinions. Let’s keep it civil.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
“Empathy is not a Christian value” at least since Spanish Inquisition NOBODY EXPECTED THE SPANISH INQUISITION in this list, ja,ja!!!
yeah I know, soul salvation and all this stuff… that explain it all
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
failed, was that this?
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
the caveman who first discovered fire
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
i win
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Tell us what you think: OK, I will.
I think Randall, Chickensoup, SpannerintheWorks are all the same person. How do y’all enter so much so fast? You are debating yourself! “Sybil” anyone?
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:31 pm
There has been enough personal slanging around here recently to make me reluctant to stick my neck out, but here goes.
Whether talking about good people or evil people, it may be necessary to distinguish between what people did themselves, during their lifetime, what people’s followers did, during their lifetime, and what people’s followers did, after their death. During his own life, Jesus did good (healing, teaching etc), certainly, but during his life did not affect millions, for good. On the other side of the coin, Karl Marx did not do much evil during his own life – that was done by others, (mis)interpreting his philosophies, after his death.
Way back I nominated Gutenburg. The same comment applies to him. During his own life printed books were a rare commodity. Only after his death did others change the world through printed books.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
astraya: I agree with your distinction between a person’s personal effect, that of their followers (during their lifetime), and that of their future followers (after their death). In the case of Gutenberg (who I also nominated
) he didn’t really make a massive difference during his lifetime, as far as I know, but his invention went on to become the mechanism for amazing things all over the world.
Who else agrees that for a person to qualify as someone who has done the most (or a lot of) good that they would need to be an historical figure? Some of the people I’ve seen nominated are from the previous century or even still alive – hence they’ve only affected the lives of the current population. Someone who lived during the 8th century (for example) has affected many many generations since.
I know that the point I made in my last paragraph is rendered somewhat moot by the fact that there are probably more people alive right now than has ever existed previously, I just thought I’d add it to the debate anyway.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:59 am
Adolf Hitler. He brought the world together against evil. Thanks to him we are all better prepared and have a deeper understanding of how corrupt the human being can get.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:46 am
Pontius Pilate.
If Jesus did the most good by dying for our sins; this is the man who made it happen.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:44 am
I need to speak up and counter the spurious and false claims decrying the Dalai Lama; the western bias dripping through them is so virulent and obvious that it is saddening.
The Dalai Lama is chosen for his post; there is no monarchy because a monarchy is comprised of a royal family. The Dalai Lama is chosen as a direct result of his reincarnation. He is the same Dalai Lama as the previous Dalai Lama. He doesn`t lobby, or buy votes, or ask for the position; it is completely out of his control.
In the west you see a leader as someone who rules over people and lords over them. This is an ignorant bias towards the Dalai Lama`s role. His chore is, as a spiritual being, to protect and care for the people of Tibet. Until the Chinese invasion- and what made the Chinese invasion possible- was the fact that Tibet evolved instead towards militarization like every other country, but in the direction of peacefullness and spiritual exploration. At the time it was the most ecologically friendly and peaceful country on the planet. not faultless, but worthy of respect.
There is no logical claim that the Dalai Lama is a tyrant; his position is assigned to him and his entire life is forfeit in the occupation of solely devoting himself to the people of Tibet. He is the literal manifestation of compassion on earth. not only does his role leave him with the spiritual responsibility of caring for the Tibetan people, but his purpose on the planet is to spread peace and teach the benefits of buddhism to humanity. The automatic assumption that religious figures with power are the exact same as the Catholic church during the Spanish inquisition is foolish. The entire structure of the Tibetan system was filled with checks and balances.
The structure of the Tibetan government cannot be compared to a ‘president’ or ‘prime minister’ in the ways we view the dispersal of power in our own societies. Making comparisons as such are simply ignorant.
The structure of the Tibetan government, with it’s extremely small populace, viciously harsh landscapes, and complete disinterest in military, allowed for the closest example of Plato’s Philosopher King that history has ever understood. Trying to fit the circular culture of spiritual Tibetan life into the square aesthetic of western dogma is little more than laughable and an excersize in creating a mockery of yourself while you are claiming knowledge and showing how wrong you are.
As for accusations of unsavory acts; they are just accusations. They have never been proven and the majority of these claims originate in Chinese propaganda and are proliferated by ignorant people who have a vested interest in ignoring that there is no definitive proof, but continually squealing them over and over so they can convince themselves an unsubstantiated lie can become true if they keep saying it enough times.
The accusations of guerillas being funded by the CIA has basis- but the accusation that the Dalai Lama knew and sanctioned it is completely false and perfect example of this type of misinformation. The guerillas were approached outside of the Dalai Lama`s knowledge, which has been documented, and when they began to act he made a public request for all Tibetans- not just guerillas- to refrain from any violence. The Dalai Lama has always advocated a peaceful resistance and compromise- I doubt any of the people attempting to slander him would have half the self control if their country of origin was under attack. But you still think you have the right to judge.
H.H. is just a simple monk, and a teacher. Nothing more. He has a role assigned to him, not one he chose himself. He has never asked for converts or for power, and millions of people around the world are enlightened by his writings and teachings. Without his efforts, the modern world would be largely ignorant of the beneficial practices and serenity held by Tibetan buddhism.
I am not even proposing him as the person who has done the most good- I am only suggesting that people spreading lies about him are not grounded in the truth and have an obvious agenda.
I have been in his presence personally on four different occasions, and taken part in the Kalachakra ritual with him, and he is nothing but humble and kind.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:11 am
Western bias against the Dalai Lama? Perhaps you can see what you feel is bias on these messages but I don’t feel it’s fair to project that onto half the planet.
Sadly your rant is so long as to deter people from reading it. “I have been in his presence personally and he is nothing but humble and kind.” would have said so much more; a humble answer no less
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:54 am
“I think Randall, Chickensoup, SpannerintheWorks are all the same person. How do y’all enter so much so fast? You are debating yourself! “Sybil” anyone?”
Am I… am I Tyler Durden? :L
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:26 am
****
#186. Vera Lynn
I think Randall, Chickensoup, SpannerintheWorks are all the same person.
****
Chickensoup, having spoken for himself, I can tell you that Randall and Spanner are absolutely two different people.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:45 am
192: Brevity out of fear has no place in any dialogue of importance; if someone can’t be bothered to read because it ‘looks too long’ then they aren’t the type of person whoswaying one way or another would be of any real intellectual value.
Also, if you did read and understand what I wrote, the western bias mentioned is the inherent assignment of certain values based on western experiece and then assuming a religious figure like the Dalai Lama operates in the same way- the western bias is the assumption that a foriegn culture can be judged as a mmicry of our own and with the same value system we are conditioned to use.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Jesus, Chickensoup… we can’t keep writing these l – e – n – g – t – h – y posts about Jesus. I ain’t got the time anymore.
Let’s put aside argument about ancient Greece, then. Sounds like I win, anyway, which is as it should be and what I’m used to. (Hey, I’m kidding, being flippant). But seriously, sounds like we both love the Greeks and therefore we can shake hands on them and move forward.
“I’m sorry if I upset you by not giving your academic prowess the respect it deserves. Won’t happen again, mate.”
Don’t patronize me, crumb.
Unless of course you mean it, in which case thank you very much sir, and I appreciate your heartfelt assurances.
“You’re right, my failure to understand your point was clearly entirely my fault.”
Stick your sarcasm somewhere. Yeah, sometimes it IS your fault if you misunderstand what someone else is saying. You very definitely strike me as someone with an agenda… now, ever stop to think that maybe that colors your thinking a bit and removes some of your objectivity? Gives a shade of bias? And that therefore you jump to conclusions on occasion which you shouldn’t? That’s the feeling I get about you. Just trying to be helpful. Like any good citizen.
Sounds to me like you’re a Brit (or Australian or New Zealander) who is clearly on a A) hate America kick and B) atheists are the only rational people on the planet kick. I must say I sympathize with the former–I hate Americans too–and with the latter, well… I understand and have some measure of sympathy, but in large part I chuckle at such silliness. Literature and Philosophy being your admitted specialties, i suspect your grasp of History to be colored by gobs of self-inflicted bias which drip down into the picture too readily.
Really, I strongly suggest you pay heed to what I say–it could help you out. In turn, you can teach me about Wittgenstein and Schlegel. I never understood them. Or… well, the truth is, by the time I got to them I was too bored with philosophy to care.
“I concede the point about the ancient Greeks having a different social perspective from ours.”
Efharisto. (Greek for “danke”). Really, it’s for the best.
““You’re looking for an argument, chickensoup.”
Is that what I’m doing? If you say so.”"
Wellllll…. my judgement here seems far more the rational and even-keeled between the two of us.
“I would argue that the Romans took longer to ‘get it’ because it was considered an insurrection on Roman soil.”
From the point of view, perhaps, of the brittle hierarchy of Rome. But religious movements and such don’t spread from the top down, really, except at first. Most of the time they spread from the bottom up. By the time Constantine got around to adopting Christianity as the official religion, let’s face it–there were already a lot of Christians in the Empire.
But if you know anything about the Romans as opposed to the Greeks, you know that the Romans just weren’t as imaginative, clever, or open to the more abstract notions of life. They were great builders/engineers and administrators, and great at inventing keen new brutalities. But notions of the spirit didn’t penetrate the Roman mind as well.
““But again there’s a difference between the words of a poet or a philosopher and what a society actually practices.”
True, but there is also an element of zeitgeist – these ideas do not spring up solely in eloquent individuals, and they are certainly not popularised without a certain shared understanding.”
Yes and no. I both agree and disagree. I DO believe that many of our great and large ideas–artistic, political, philosophic, etc. DO often come from individual men/women of *genius.* So I can’t agree with you when you say that “ideas do not spring up solely in eloquent individuals”… rather, I think, sometimes they do. Yes, often built upon foundations set by others–but foundations don’t make a structure.
The second half of what you said, though, I most certainly agree with. Ideas don’t become popularized without some measure of mutual understanding.
““BUT AGAIN–this is not precisely the same as our attitudes today, nor does it any way recommend to “turn the other cheek,” nor does it say to “love one’s enemy.” The Greeks would have found that absurd.”
As do most people to this day. Evidence? Prevelant in every aspect of society, including the very comment I am responding to. No slight intended, just look at it and you’ll see what I mean.”
Come now. You’re simply refusing to acknowledge the simple truth staring you in the face is all. And you’re squirming to get out of having to do so.
No one says that modern man behaves himself the way he KNOWS he should. But that’s the difference–he KNOWS. We have the very concept, the very ideal, of turning the other cheek. The ancients had no such ideal, no such concept. This is simple fact. They are therefore excused from not having followed such an ideal, seeing as they didn’t have the damn thing. Jesus, however, is responsible for having implanted said ideal into at least the *western* mind–and so we moderns have it. We practice it only haphazardly, but that’s to OUR shame. We aren’t excused on the basis of ignorance, in other words.
But the fact that we often fail to live up to such ideals often is NOT proof that those ideals do not exist in us and do not color our behaviors in certain ways. I mean, this is where I think you’re being wholly disingenuous, because it’s really very simple logic, and yet you’re discarding it.
For instance, the concept of the vendetta, while alive in our culture in certain corners, is for the most part a discarded relic of the past. Most of us do not look kindly or approvingly on the idea of the vendetta. Our social consciousness prohibits it, and we view it as wrong. (and no trickiness here. Punishment of crimes via the rule of law is not equivalent to the concept of the vendetta. So let’s just nip that argument in the bud right now). When nation-states go to war in modern times, we certainly brutalize each other and bomb and devastate the living *piss* out of each other–but once victory is secured we don’t go the extra classic ancient step of killing all the males, raping the women and then salting the ground of the loser. Of course, this is far from “turning the other cheek,” but it does show we’ve grown up a tad, and the morality of this issues directly from the teachings that we call “Christian.” The mere fact that Christians of elder ages didn’t always practice the “restraint” that we do proves nothing except that hypocrisy has changed over time. OUR hypocrisy is that we still wage wars and kill each other even though we know it’s wrong–but we pat ourselves on the back that we’re humanitarian in victory. THEIR hypocrisy was that they waged wars and killed each other and then did MORE killing and brutalizations even after they won… and then sat down to pray and thank god for helping them do “his work.” We’re both despicable in this sense, moderns and pre-moderns… but I would say that over time the message has sunk in enough to make us a bit more delicate about it. We at least ask ourselves after the fact if it was wrong to bomb cities out of existence. We have a dialogue about it. They may have given it some thought, but it didn’t seem to have kept them up at night.
““And you’re putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said that social consciousness is a strictly Christian virtue.”
It’s the assertion that Christianity introduced widespread social conciousness to the world that I am arguing against…”
well you’re arguing with the wrong person. Go find the person you want to argue this with, because it isn’t me.
““AND when I was speaking I was addressing WESTERN civilization.”
Well, I’m not. This topic is called “Who Has Done the Most Good?”, not “Who Has Done the Most Good in Western Civilisation?”.”
I’m AWARE of what the topic is, I can read. But what we were discussing, I thought, was the appropriateness of JESUS as a choice here.
Witness, please, that *I* did not personally PICK Jesus as a choice. My choices were Norman Borlaug and Jacques Cousteau.
Sadly, I have run out of time and must dash to a meeting. I will try to pick up the rest of this soonest.
Ta.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I say Mohatma Gandhi, because he showed the world that active non-violence can conquer any oppressor. This example lives on and will continue to be a blueprint for the people of the world to rise up everywhere.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Damn Randall, does that comment come in paperback form?
I only recently learned about Borlaug in one of my business ethics classes strangely enough. I’d put him up there with Jesus and the guy that invented beer. Who else did I say…oh yeah, Jackie Robinson too. A 4-way tie for first for me.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Mr. Graves, thank you for taking up my cause. I find going into tyrades to possibly convince someone of my point of view a bit draining, but it doesn’t mean I don’t believe in it any less.
I don’t necessarily believe the Dalai Lama to always be the same, exact person, however. I believe he is the reincarnation and therefore the same soul, but how much can one remember from lifetime to lifetime?
Anywho, he still gets my vote.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
johnny depp. guyliner. righteous.
and the wonderful people who invented the following:
-tivo
-wonderbras
-string cheese
-tupperware
-tide to go pens
-george foreman grill
-feety pajamas
-those little zen gardens you rake with tiny fork knockoffs
-harry potter
-captain morgan
who has done the most bad:
-randall
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“Sadly, I have run out of time and must dash to a meeting. I will try to pick up the rest of this soonest.”
Don’t bother Randall, I can’t be bothered with this ‘conversation’ anymore. You made some good points, particularly regarding Greece, but you smothered the rest of it in bullshit, assumptions and accusations about my life and what I can only describe as literary masturbation. So therefore, consider the discussion over. I forfeit… Even though Jesus is still a shite choice for this topic! Ciao.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
James Watt, definitely. He revised the steam engine, and massively impacted the industrial revolution, without which, we would be nowhere near as technologically advanced as we are today.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
segue (194) I know this. I’m just teasing,. Making an observation to their passion. They speak and debate. Cool. What they don’t realize is their similarities. More alike than different. Funny we all see it and they don’t.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:34 am
ohrmets: big THX for bringing up Mr. Borlaug. He definitely deserves far more recognition than he has ever received. As it is sadly the case with majotity of scientists and inventors who often quietly, dilligently and out of pure passion worked for our lasy-asses’ great benefit and we still love more some empty-headed movie stars or whoever. Let’s not ever forget those guys!
July 24th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Chickensoup:
“…you smothered the rest of it in bullshit, assumptions and accusations about my life and what I can only describe as literary masturbation.”
Are you sure you weren’t simply re-reading your own, earlier post? I think you were.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:18 am
****
#203. Vera Lynn
segue (194) I know this. I’m just teasing,. Making an observation to their passion. They speak and debate. Cool. What they don’t realize is their similarities. More alike than different. Funny we all see it and they don’t.
****
Until four days ago I would have agreed without hesitation.
Now…there’s a difference.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Like I says, Randall – Ciao. Give it up now mate.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:07 am
New nominations – Robert Moog and Ol’ Dirty Bastard!
July 24th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
It’s Santa Claus. Duh! ^-^
July 25th, 2008 at 4:13 am
Either the inventor of the wheel or Oprah.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:32 am
HOw about Mother Teresa? She has done all good things and always
July 25th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Its hard to have this list with out three people that by far have done the most good. I think they can be considered one person because they all contributed to the progression of Philosophical Thought. The principles and ideas of these three men are still today the basis of modern thought. Almost all the other people on this list were some how effected by these three.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
“HOw about Mother Teresa? She has done all good things and always”
That’s a myth. Mother Theresa was a dick.
July 26th, 2008 at 7:34 am
****
#213. Chickensoup
“HOw about Mother Teresa? She has done all good things and always”
That’s a myth. Mother Theresa was a dick.
****
Care to expand that answer a bit? Or do you just want to sound like a stupid 14 yr-old drop-out?
July 26th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Either is good with me. But to save time, I recommend you watch this video, regardless of what you think of Christopher Hitchens:
Other than that, I suggest you do your research before you leap behind false idols, and stop getting your lessons from people you think are “14-year-old dropouts”. Ciao!
July 26th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
@chickensoup
Even if that video be interesting, that doesn’t make your post any less childish.
If you’re serious, why post in this way ? If you’re not serious, why post at all ?
July 26th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
****
215. Chickensoup
Either is good with me.
****
Why didn’t you just post the video in the first place, instead of the totally idiotic “# 213. Chickensoup – Mother Theresa was a dick.”
At any rate, neither Christopher Hitchens nor Penn & Teller (whom for purposes of this post shall be considered as one entity), are exactly world-class denouncers.
Mother Teresa may have been a Mafia front…who the hell cares? Either post an opinion in such a way that people understand *why* you hold such a position, and can engage in open and intelligent debate, or don’t bother.
July 26th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
“@chickensoup
Even if that video be interesting, that doesn’t make your post any less childish.
If you’re serious, why post in this way ? If you’re not serious, why post at all ?”
Good question. The honest answer is that I was drunk. Ta-da!
“Why didn’t you just post the video in the first place, instead of the totally idiotic “# 213. Chickensoup – Mother Theresa was a dick.””
Again, drunk. And idiotic or not, it is kinda true. Mother Theresa dicked the poor, dicked the press, dicked her charitors, dicked a whole lotta people. Personally, in my opinion, I believe that that makes her a dick. I should perhaps have made the fact that this was my opinion more obvious in my first post, but like I says – drunk.
“At any rate, neither Christopher Hitchens nor Penn & Teller (whom for purposes of this post shall be considered as one entity), are exactly world-class denouncers.”
Penn & Teller have an entire show, now running into it’s 5th season, in which they do nothing but denounce. I challenge you to name better denouncers!
“Mother Teresa may have been a Mafia front…who the hell cares? Either post an opinion in such a way that people understand *why* you hold such a position, and can engage in open and intelligent debate, or don’t bother.”
Good point. Mother Theresa may have been a horrible human being, but that shouldn’t preclude her from something entitled: “YOUR VIEW: WHO HAS DONE THE MOST GOOD”, now should it?
Ah ha ha ha… yeah.
July 26th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
“@chickensoup
Even if that video be interesting, that doesn’t make your post any less childish.
If you’re serious, why post in this way ? If you’re not serious, why post at all ?”
Good question. The honest answer is that I was drunk. Ta-da!
“Why didn’t you just post the video in the first place, instead of the totally idiotic “# 213. Chickensoup – Mother Theresa was a dick.””
Idiotic or no, that post was a conversation starter. Mother Theresa was, in my opinion – a dick. That video equals my evidence to that effect.
“At any rate, neither Christopher Hitchens nor Penn & Teller (whom for purposes of this post shall be considered as one entity), are exactly world-class denouncers.”
Penn & Teller denounce for a living. They have an entire show dedicated to denouncing, now running into its fifth season. I challenge you to find any better denouncers.
“Mother Teresa may have been a Mafia front…who the hell cares? Either post an opinion in such a way that people understand *why* you hold such a position, and can engage in open and intelligent debate, or don’t bother.”
Does “Mother Teresa may have been a Mafia front…who the hell cares?” count as ‘intelligent debate’? I guess you’re right though, Mother Theresa being a sick, horrible excuse for a human being shouldn’t preclude her from something entitled “YOUR VIEW: WHO HAS DONE THE MOST GOOD”, now should it?
Ah ha ha ha… yeah.
July 26th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
218. Chickensoup
The honest answer is that I was drunk. Ta-da!
219. Chickensoup
The honest answer is that I was drunk. Ta-da!
****
I think you still are…otherwise, why two identical posts?
There are a lot of problems with the video. For one, the absurd Penn & Teller bit on Teresa not being her name, like that’s some kind of big deal or cover-up.
Frankly that, alone, pretty much colors every other thing they have to say. It’s common knowledge that Catholic nuns give up their birth names when they take vows. They *ALL* do. As soon as that rant started, it blew a big hole in any pretense at being unbiased, which is the way one should approach such an issue.
Another was their assertion that the Pope changed the rules on sainthood for her.
Happily, I didn’t know Penn & Teller were now doing denouncing ( I remembered they had a magic act ), because I don’t watch commercial television…or much of anything else, except NatGeo, Science, and Discovery.
The only one who came across as being without guile was the former nun, now a stand-up comic.
I’ll have to do personal research to come to any conclusions on Mother Teresa’s honesty/valor/goodness, because you did raise some questions.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:41 am
right now probably Martin Luther King, FDR, or Lincoln, but in a couple years the answer will be Barack Obama
July 27th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
“I think you still are…otherwise, why two identical posts?”
Technical fault.
“There are a lot of problems with the video. For one, the absurd Penn & Teller bit on Teresa not being her name, like that’s some kind of big deal or cover-up.”
Yeah, that bit was dumb.
“Frankly that, alone, pretty much colors every other thing they have to say.”
What a convenient way of ignoring the issue.
“It’s common knowledge that Catholic nuns give up their birth names when they take vows. They *ALL* do. As soon as that rant started, it blew a big hole in any pretense at being unbiased, which is the way one should approach such an issue.”
Exactly.
“Another was their assertion that the Pope changed the rules on sainthood for her.”
He didn’t change the rules for her per se, but John Paul II was notoriously trigger-happy when it came to beatification, and there is little doubt that a number of his nominations didn’t exactly deserve it.
“I’ll have to do personal research to come to any conclusions on Mother Teresa’s honesty/valor/goodness, because you did raise some questions.”
Cool cool.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:07 am
****
222. Chickensoup
because you did raise some questions.”
Cool cool.
****
Chickensoup , I don’t always (make that “often”) agree with you, but I do possess a rather bizarre ability…or curse…to see two sides of an issue if the issue is presented in an intelligent way.
Obviously, your first attempt (while drunk), failed, and the video came close to failing, but had enough shining moments to grab my attention…I still question how the Nobel selection committee could have over=looked such egregious problems. They are usually very through.
It hasn’t changed my mind, but it has put me in research mode, which means I have become more neutral personally, and while doing the work, a neutral mindset is the only mindset I allow myself.
So, thanks for an interesting project. I’ll even check with the Vatican.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Chickensoup probably doesn’t like me now… but I will deign to be big about this and back him/her up on this Mother Theresa thing.
She, like Dr. Schweitzer, was not the kindly soul we all think she was.
In the first place, there’s every evidence that she was a loyal (read that “rigidly loyal”) catholic who abhorred abortion. Okay, fine, everybody’s entitled to their opinion–but she was as equally against contraception–a policy of the church that those of us who possess thinking brains find abhorrent in itself. Yet, yes, in an age when population is booming in areas of Africa and Asia, Mother Theresa was a most vocal critic of contraception, and spoke against it in no uncertain terms. And I mean, *no uncertain terms.* She thought booming populations were just fine, and that god will always provide.
O—kay.
Her care facilities in India were also far from the cleanest (this was a problem with Schweitzer too, interesting) even though she had access to funds and opportunities to expand on sanitation and better care for her charges. Yet when she was ill, the saintly mother went to top care facilities for her own treatment.
I don’t believe she was by any means the low-life that Schweitzer actually was… but people who are suspected to be saints should be treated with suspicion all around.
July 28th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Randall,
Not having seen the video, and will all respect, I don’t find your arguments very convincing.
It is clear that mother Theresa had a totaly catholic view of life. That means that she will be at odds with many people’s views a lot of the time. It doesn’t make sense to count all her individual ‘wrong views’ if they follow from the same basic belief. Her only wrong view, if you disagree with it, would be that basic belief. But that’s a different kind of discussion, and a pointless one.
Quarters not being very clean, well, how grave a sin is that ? She was born in Albania, probably not the cleanest environment to grow up in. My guess is her places were cleaner than the average Indian dwelling.
I don’t know who paid for her medical treatment. If the money was taken from funds intended for people in her care, you have a minor point. If someone urged her to get the best treatment and paid for it, which wouldn’t surprise me, I don’t see what’s wrong with accepting the offer. As you may know, Jesus rebuked Judas for suggesting that the money that Mary Magdelene spent on oil for het guru should have been given to the poor. He was, I believe, teaching his disciples to understand that spirit (devotion to the guru is an important aspect of the spiritual life) goes before body.
Another way of looking at it is acknowledging the role Theresa played. She was of much more help to many more people being alive than dead.
All this doesn’t mean to say I consider Theresa necessarily a saint. I am saying though that when criticising people of high spiritual stature, one must have the humility to acknowledge that they may have been guided by views or intuitive knowledge that we are not aware of.
The idea that we should be extra suspicious of people ’suspected to be saints’, as you put it, strikes me as odd. I would say that one will learn much more by being receptive and humble. After all, who cares if Theresa or anybody is really a saint, whatever that may mean ? Saintly persons, sloppy or not, are best taken advantage of by learning and deriving inspiration from them, instead of judged by standards they wouldnt accept as valid anyway.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Segue: “I still question how the Nobel selection committee could have over=looked such egregious problems.”
If I remember correctly, she used her Nobel acceptance speech to rail against abortion, claiming that if society allowed women to “murder their own children even in the womb” then it would then allow people to kill each other outright. I find the whole business of her nomination baffling, but the *acceptance* of her *acceptance* simply beggars belief.
“Chickensoup probably doesn’t like me now… but I will deign to be big about this and back him/her up on this Mother Theresa thing.”
Ha, no worries mate, we’re cool!
“Quarters not being very clean, well, how grave a sin is that?”
When you’re receiving millions of dollars a year from supporters of your organisations it is near criminal. Theresa’s mission was not to help the sick in any conventional sense; it didn’t even extend as far as offering them comfort in their last days. It was in simply in “catholicising” and sanctifying these people before their death. Theresa believed in suffering, she actually said that she welcomed the suffering of her charges because it brought her closer to God. Catholics may have a case for considering her a saint; for the rest of us, however, I don’t see that she has done anything to merit a place on this topic.
July 29th, 2008 at 7:38 am
Peter:
With all respect–I find you to be entirely too credulous on the topic of Mother Theresa. You got some problem with criticism of your favorite saint-in-waiting?
To begin with, if I had MADE an “argument” you would have known it, Peter. Whether you’d be convinced by it is your business. What I reported are simple facts about Mother Theresa. You either believe facts or, if you’re a fool, you don’t, or you discard them. Sounds to me like you’re content to discard them. I also have no idea what video you were referring to; perhaps that bit was meant to be directed at someone else?
Frankly I find YOUR argument very unconvincing. Indeed, I find it weak and transparent. We can’t call M. Theresa into question, you essentially say, because her “wrong” beliefs all stem from ONE belief, and arguing THAT would be another, unrelated discussion. Huh? No no… evasive and disingenuous, Peter. Mother Theresa made a point, time and time again, of lecturing *vehemently* on abortion and contraception. She also made a point of basically saying that suffering was a good thing. Whether these beliefs stem from her deep catholicism is irrelevant; she clearly made a choice, in her life, to stand for certain things. There are many true christians who don’t go around making the statements she made, but rather focus more on love and kindness and the *rejection* of suffering. We are allowed to judge her on the choices she made, as with anyone else. Where her choices come from is not germane to the discussion.
You have completely missed the point regarding Mother Theresa’s care. It isn’t that she went for the best care, herself… it was that, despite funds available for such, better care was often unavailable to the people under her charge. See again her beliefs regarding suffering… Chickensoup has covered this well.
“I am saying though that when criticising people of high spiritual stature, one must have the humility to acknowledge that they may have been guided by views or intuitive knowledge that we are not aware of.”
That doesn’t even make sense, Peter. So when someone is of a “high spiritual nature,” we aren’t allowed to view them critically, because their inspiration may come from god? That’s the kind of excuse all sorts of godawful people use to be let off for crimes, Peter. You need to rethink your logic there.
Orwell said that “all saints should be viewed as guilty until proven innocent.” This is more correct. When someone lays claim to, or is called, a saint—it’s an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence, and calls for extraordinary scrutiny. You don’t get a free pass just because you seem “extra-spiritual.”
“The idea that we should be extra suspicious of people ’suspected to be saints’, as you put it, strikes me as odd.”
and you strike me as extraordinarily gullible. You find this odd? Why? Because you think it better to give a pass to those who “seem” saintly? Who seem to have a “calling”? Scam artists must love you, Peter. How many times have you been sold aluminum siding, I wonder?
“Saintly persons, sloppy or not, are best taken advantage of by learning and deriving inspiration from them, instead of judged by standards they wouldnt accept as valid anyway.”
One of the most asinine statements I’ve heard all week. A) you would hope to derive inspiration from people who are genuine and honest, Peter. I’d prefer to, anyway, I don’t know about you. I can look up to people if when they’re flawed, if they do great things…. but saints are beyond that—I don’t take inspiration from people who fake their way along. If you do, then why not just take inspiration out of the thin air? It’s about as valid. B) many people who have once had their hand caught in the till, will not WANT to be judged, and will not accept as valid the standards they’re judged by. Last I checked, we don’t consider that to be correct, though. We judge them by those standards anyway–because they’re objection itself is not viewed as valid. I don’t care if someone like Mother Theresa finds my or anyone else’s judgement of her valid or my standards valid. She’s a human being just like me, and I have every right to hold her to a standard that I find to be not at all terribly difficult to meet.
There’s plenty of great people to draw inspiration from in life, Peter. YOU should perhaps be a little more picky in YOUR standards.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Well Randal, where to start ? You seem pretty upset by what you seem to consider my defence of my favorite saint.
I’ll try to not make this into an expanding universe.
- I don’t have strong feelings one way or another about mother Theresa.
- I have had the good fortune of spending time with people that many consider saint or saintly.
- I have seen people’s tendency to put them on a pedestal as well as (often the same people) to pull them down. The latter has never been a pleasant spectacle.
- I wanted and still want to point out that it is very easy to judge and criticise. In fact, all one need do is say ‘I think he’s an asshole and it’s all bullshit’. By many people’s standards that is enough evidence.
- Judging Theresa’s words about suffering without trying to understand what they mean in the context of her spiritual life, is totally meaningless. And again, so easy.
- Yes, I prefer honesty and sincerity. In fact, without them, there is no spirituality. I appreciate your straishtforwardness and have the illusion that I’m an honest person as well.
- You ridicule my remark that Theresa’s ‘wrongs’ may stem from one and the same essential conviction. You fail to see that you yourself are judging her from a similar though different set of beliefs that make perfectly sense to you. So perfectly that you say ‘of course we have the right to judge her on these issues’.
- for me it’s like this: I know no more about mother Theresa than that she worked tirelessly for the dying poor, starting with nothing and succeeded against the church’s initial disapproval and resistance. All the pictures I have seen of her suggest a deep inner life and total dedication to what she believed in.
Then there comes a post with a link to a video (here’s the video) in which some journalists, not known for their lofty approach I understand, claim she was a front for the mafia. With subsequent reactions that I found and still find very unconvincing, because the issues raised are the typical issues raised when one wants to questions another’s integrity. Hence my attempt to draw attention to the importance of understanding, somewhat, what goes on in a saintly person. Rather that judging them using our own moral standards, that are, after all and more likely than not, totally flawed in any saints eyes.
I believe they condemned Jesus in pretty much that way. But then again, perhaps he was not a saint. He dined with the mafia of those days, remember ?
I rest my case. I admit I haven’t investigated the issues. No one inspired me to do so so far.
The idea that I am a gullible believer and uncritical would bring a smile to my readers faces for sure. It did to me anyway.
All the best.
-
To start with this simple statement: I donlt have
July 29th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Peter:
Listen, I don’t say Mother Theresa was a monster. Of course there’s little doubt she did good. But the question at hand is, was the good that she did in any way tainted by deeds and attitudes which in another sense did harm to people? And that, of course, depends on how you look at matters. Perhaps the only conclusion we can reach is that there’s some ambiguity there. But I’ll say this–ambiguity is no field for a “saint” to be caught standing in.
I certainly was not “upset” by what you said Peter. Fact is I could care less. I see it as my job, here, however, to sort out cant and lies and distortions and poor logic from the truth, and accuracy. I detected, in your words, a nasty lack of logic and some lazy thinking. I sympathize with your view as regards saintly people–though I’m skeptical that you’ve really known that many–they’re painfully rare–but my sympathy doesn’t alter the fact that you were speaking rather muddily.
I don’t know why you bring up (again) this issue of a video. That had nothing whatsoever to do with me or anything I said. Sounds like a bunch of cranks.
The point is, Peter–and the point still stands–giving a pass to people just because they seem saintly is foolhardy. Saints should be examined as closely–and in fact more so–as anyone else.
Who are these “readers” that you speak of? If you fancy yourself some sort of commentator on these matters, all I can say is, you haven’t convinced me that you’re NOT gullible from anything you’ve said here. Again, I sympathize, but I never give people a pass just because they seem sweet and kind.
It isn’t a question of spirituality for me–that has, in fact, its own kind of honesty. And spirituality is a private thing after all. The only person’s spirituality I look after is my own.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Personal opinion so please don’t laugh!
I don’t know if someone has mentioned this before as the response list is very long and i don’t have a lot of time at the moment to read through them all! (But i will later…)
William Shakespeare
The writing is incredible and the linguistic use, astounding!
Just my 2 cents
July 29th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
**#224. Chickensoup – July 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Segue: “I still question how the Nobel selection committee could have over=looked such egregious problems.”
If I remember correctly, she used her Nobel acceptance speech to rail against abortion.
****
Chickensoup, “Quarters not being very clean, well, how grave a sin is that?” is *NOT MY QUOTE!* How dare you attribute to me an absurd quote from another poster?
One of the first rules of reporting is to always attribute quotes correctly.
That one happens to belong to Peter.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
OK Randal, we’re getting there.
Without rereading my initial post, I guess I must have been less than clear. You seem an intelligent person interested in truth. I’m interested in truth also.
Now, some reactions:
Peter:
“But I’ll say this–ambiguity is no field for a “saint” to be caught standing in.”
If it God that’s having ambiguous feelings, I totally agree.
If not: many great saints were considered crazy, off the track, dangerous, posessed and what not, by the church and/or
contemporaries.
“I sympathize with your view as regards saintly people–though I’m skeptical that you’ve really known that many –they’re painfully rare”
I agree that there aren’t that many and, again without rereading, I’d be surprised if I wrote ‘many’. Enough though to see similarities in their impact on people and people’s reactions to them, plus to knbow very well that they are guided from within and don’t care much about what people say or think about them.
“I don’t know why you bring up (again) this issue of a video. That had nothing whatsoever to do with me or anything I said. Sounds like a bunch of cranks.”
My understanding was that the issues concerning mother Theresa were brought up by a video. If not, how did we get into this ?
“The point is, Peter–and the point still stands–giving a pass to people just because they seem saintly is foolhardy.”
I totaly agree. And so that wasn’t my point.
“Saints should be examined as closely–and in fact more so–as anyone else.”
And why is that ? I understand you don’t mean in the sense of role model and inspirator, but in the sense of criticaly watching if they don’t slip or don’t retend to be holier than they are. I don’t see the point in that at all. Who cares what we think is Theresa’s saintliness score ?
It’s fine and necessary to expose crooks and conscious deceivers, but that’s not what we are talking about here, is it ? She cared enough to help thousands of people, that otherwise would have died alone and in their own filth, die with some kind of dignity and in company. And here we are, judging her behind our laptops because the quarters weren’t clean.
“Who are these “readers” that you speak of?”
Sorry, I was only thinking of how many readers of articles (published in Holland) had problems with my scepticism and stubborn disbelief. Being taken for a gullible believer seems sort of strange, funny.
But again, I guess I wasn’t clear initailly. Hopefully I’m improving.
It isn’t a question of spirituality for me–that has, in fact, its own kind of honesty. And spirituality is a private thing after all. The only person’s spirituality I look after is my own.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
229 Seque,
“Chickensoup, “Quarters not being very clean, well, how grave a sin is that?” is *NOT MY QUOTE!* How dare you attribute to me an absurd quote from another poster?
One of the first rules of reporting is to always attribute quotes correctly.
That one happens to belong to Peter.”
Care to explain what’s so absurd about my quote ? Pasting from another post:
“Who cares what we think is Theresa’s saintliness score ?
It’s fine and necessary to expose crooks and conscious deceivers, but that’s not what we are talking about here, is it ? She cared enough to help thousands of people, that otherwise would have died alone and in their own filth, die with some kind of dignity and in company. And here we are, judging her behind our laptops because the quarters weren’t clean.”
July 29th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Last thought, about suffering.
I didn’t discuss it with her, but my guess is that Theresa’s fondness of suffering wasn’t the SM kind or the ‘hehehe, suffer you fools’ kind.
Although in my opinion suffering has become overrated, so to speak, in the catholic church, the point of it is this: we are identified with our limited bodies and personalities, which is the couse of all suffering. By patiently enduring hardship, pain or any kind of suffering, we become aware that in fact suffering is relative and we are not the body.
In other words: rising above duality is the point, not suffering for the sake of suffering.
I can’t see Theresa’s desire to help people rise above their identification with the body as tainting her possible sainthood.
July 29th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
****
231. Peter
229 Seque,
“Chickensoup, “Quarters not being very clean, well, how grave a sin is that?” is *NOT MY QUOTE!* How dare you attribute to me an absurd quote from another poster?
*Care to explain what’s so absurd about my quote?
****
Well, I have to admit it’s out of context, and since I spent almost all of yesterday in the hospital (in agony), I’m a bit behind on my reading. Taken out of context, as it was in the post attributed to me, it was absurd, because it seemed that it just added another layer of suffering…lying in filth…to another level.
If you had read the earlier posts, which it seems you haven’t, you’d have seen that I consider Mother Teresa quite a wonderful person.
Chickensoup did raise some interesting questions which, because I try to be fair, I am looking into.
I suffer every day. Even through massive doses of opiates, I suffer.
My old nun’s and priests would be so proud!
I just call it a pretty awful way to live.
July 29th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
231. Peter, it’s segue. Small “s”.
July 29th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
OK seque.
I’m sorry that you have to go through this. I realise it’s one thing to theorize about suffering and quite another to actually be in it.
You seem to have held on to your sense of humor, which is important and shows you to be a strong person.
Just in case it could be helpful one day: Years back I developed tinnitus, a constant loud noise in my left ear. Within a week it got to a level that was so disturbing that I couldn’t think about aything else. When I realised this noise was with me the rest of my life, I wasn’t sure I could take it. I panicked, basically. Then after some days came the Godsend thought: don’t think ‘forever’ or ‘the rest of my life’. It’s enough if you can bear it one day. Because it’s only one day. Perhaps every day, but still one day. That thought saved me from depression or worse. The noise is still there but I hardly ever think about or notice it anymore.
I wish you strenght and patience and the trust that your life will be beautiful becasue of who you are.
July 29th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
235. Peter, right. One day. I’ve pretty much been doing one day for 11 years.
Sometimes I haven’t been very good at it, but, as you can see, I’m still here to make an annoyance of myself, so it works more than it fails.
Sorry about the tinnitus. Oliver Sacks, a well-known Neurologist and author, has written a number of case studies about tinnitus, and some of the odder effects it can have. Of course, he covers all sorts of Neurological problems and does so with both compassion and wit.
I’d advise you to pick up any of his books, but if memory serves, the tinnitus tales are in “The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat”.
July 30th, 2008 at 3:48 am
Charles Darwin. Need I say why?
July 30th, 2008 at 10:09 am
I’m Seconding Norman Borlaug. The man did an astounding amount of good for the world. As for Charles Darwin, Evolution is an important theory, but he wasn’t the first to come up with it. Several others had put forth similar theories already. Darwin did, however, help to tie them all together though.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Ben Franklin – his invention of the lightening rod has possibly saved more people’s lives than any other invention.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:46 am
****
239. rolltide
Ben Franklin – his invention of the lightening rod has possibly saved more people’s lives than any other invention.
****
Good ol’ Ben. It’s almost, “What, in the late 18th and early 19th century America *didn’t* he invent?”
Of course I know.
He was just such a brilliant guy.
July 30th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Slightly flippantly: the man who invented toilet paper.
Seriously: is it possible to do good with no bad side effects? Various people in various discussions on this site have deconstructed Gandhi, Edison, Nobel and Mother Teresa. Even Norman Borlaug’s work has the effect of dragging people in “developing countries” (for the want of a better term) into globalisation, whether they want to or not, or whether that is a good thing or not. (Another discussion for another day, I think.)
July 30th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
A tie! Doctors Sabin and Salk! Who else saved billions of people?
July 30th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Mother Theresa – period. Anyone who sacrifices themselves for the good of other people and the world.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
some people I can think of:
Winston Churchill, who kept the civilized world from falling apart until we could join in the fight
Mr. Borlaug, who’s already been lauded here, and rightly so
Raoul Wallenburg, who helped tens of thousands of jews escape from being put in nazi concentration camps, only to be captured by the russians and die in a gulag
Margaret Sanger, who pioneered the women’s birth control movement
The medical wonder-workers like Salk
And one who’s work will have done a lot of good in the future would be Michael Moore(I just saw Sicko last night – heartbreaking).
July 31st, 2008 at 10:40 am
I still think Hitler should win.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Mo: “Mother Theresa – period. Anyone who sacrifices themselves for the good of other people and the world.”
As lazy, flippant and inconsiderate as it is for me to say this, “BS”. Mother Theresa did no such thing.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Chickensoup (246)
Actually the lazy flippant and inconsiderate person is Mo for his/her posting, given the amount of discussion already amongst the comments on the subject of MT.
Mo. You might like to actually read the comments before posting next time. Given the amount of debate regarding MT’s suitability for this list I find it lazy and inconsiderate at a minimum to just put Mother Theresa – period.
Cheers
Lee
July 31st, 2008 at 7:33 pm
astraya, 241.
Interesting and thoughtful response. I have often thought that about inventions, but it hadn’t occurred to me in the context of people before. Perhaps that is why we are recommended to make as ‘light a footprint’ as possible in the planet!
August 1st, 2008 at 6:21 am
The one person in the world who has done the most good will probadly forever go unidentified and maybe even anonymous. I guess it depends on what you consider good. Was it someone that brought political stability to a region and ended a genocide. Was is some one who advanced scientific progress to enable our lives to be safer and cleaner. Was it someone that brought pyschological comfort to people and allowed them to live a peaceful happy life.
Since I am in the medical field my vote would go for someone like Dr Salk the inventor of the polio vaccine. A simple cheap relaible way of ridding hundreds of millions of a crippling and fatal disease.
August 1st, 2008 at 8:20 am
****
249. dastex Since I am in the medical field my vote would go for someone like Dr Salk
****
I agree.
Way up at 71 I nominated John Snow and Edward Jenner, for just those reasons…John Snow in particular, as the father of epidemiology. Through his methodology, expanded and evolved as science did, his humble start has saved too many to count.
What a blessing he has been to millions upon millions!
Edward Jenner. His humble beginnings with smallpox vaccine has led, 200 years later, to worldwide eradication of a disease whose very name struck fear in the world’s populace.
Salk and Sabin are certainly in that same category.
August 1st, 2008 at 8:45 am
****
248. Anon – Perhaps that is why we are recommended to make as ‘light a footprint’ as possible in the planet!
****
Spot on!
When I was young, and backpacking and hiking Half Dome or El Capitan in Yosemite was a lark, the rule was leave nothing behind.
Now, not quite in my dotage, but having scaled my climbing back to tidal pools, sandstone cliffs, and exposed subduction plates, my rule has expanded; leave nothing behind, and clean-up after the airheads who litter the beaches and sanctuaries in which I live.
We have to be responsible for the planet upon which we live, we are it’s only care-takers. If we drop the ball, there is no one else to pick it up.
A light footprint, yes!
August 1st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
How about the great explorers? Contributed so much with great sacrifices to themselves and their families.
Captain James Cook
Able Tasman
William Dampier
Jacques Cartier
or Christopher Colombus?
The claims for Martin Luther King? To the rest of the world, he really didn’t make that much of an impression, I understand how he may be revered in the US, but the rest of the world had already well and truly got on with civil rights, and it was only that the US was so far behind that he stood out.
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:25 am
Well said, Spart. And I agree that many of the great explorers deserve a nod of gratitude. Hey, JFrater, how’s that for a list idea? The top 10 explorers who changed the world? I’d like to nominate Leif Ericsson (well, my dad says he IS one of my ancestors… hee-hee).
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
erm… …. ……. lets think
MEE =D
August 2nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Just a small converse footnote to my 248.
We have an extremely intelligent and intellectual friend with a mass of knowledge on many subjects who has a particular bee in his bonnet. He believes that nobody who has ever lived, however *evil*, has failed to do something good. As far as that goes, he’s not looking for any kind of moral account balance. So if either Ghenghiz Khan or Saddam Hussein risked life to save a puppy from drowning, that might do, I suppose! Seriously, he considers it may be just too glib to write anyone off as all-bad, or anyone up as all-good.
It interests me how our friend’s philosophy ties in with the proposal of Hitler here for having shown us what limit of unspeakable evil exists to be faced. Personally I would nominate, or at least co-nominate, Stalin. Hitler never pretended to be doing *good*, he openly announced he was just advancing his Master Race kick at any cost. The ogre Stalin tried to hide his homicidal obscenities beneath a smiling face and beneficial Five-year plans which killed a few million Ukranians. That false bonhomie of his also took in a good dollop of the free-world’s brightest intellectuials and artists for a worryingly long time.
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:46 am
Too many people did so many things to help humanity for me to choose one. Like mom424, it’s much too broad a question, akin to, “What’s your favorite book” or movie, city, etc. Great answers though, that have caused me to think. The considered, defended responses in particular are the most welcome. I knew coming in that I would see several of the names here; Jesus, Buddha, Mother Theresa, Salk, Sanger, Edison, Darwin, et al, but I enjoyed reading why.
I also enjoy the tangential discussions: whether a person who lived an imperfect life could still have a profoundly positive impact on humanity, and thereby merit consideration; whether an individual actually had “done the most good” when that individual’s philosophy was written down by others rather than themself, or perhaps was influence by others. Randall and Chickensoup’s back and forth was fun to read (Randall #175 “I’m part Greek myself for god’s sake,” as an argument as to why he is qualified to speak about ancient Greek history and culture. I’m half Irish but I don’t think that qualifies me any more than anyone else to speak about ancient Gaelic culture. The rest was good though!) as well as thought provoking.
So, I’m not casting a vote for this one. I’m hoping perhaps one of you out there might inspire me through your acts of humanity to sway my vote for you.
Listverse Rocks!
August 3rd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Skepticalpete:
You know, I hate when people take unfair, unjustified, and snide little side swipes at me. If you read that post of mine to which you refer, you would see that clearly I state that I ancient history was a *specialty* of mine–a *professional* specialty. I was, in other words, *educated* in it. The line about being part Greek myself was just a throwaway–and OBVIOUSLY so–which was meant to simply punctuate the fact that I knew a great deal about the subject.
Get your facts right before you take wild swings at people.
Furthermore, let’s be honest and forthright about this. There’s a big difference between the significance of Greek culture and the significance of Gaelic culture. Fact is I love and respect Gaelic culture, deeply. But Ireland ain’t Greece, pal. Every Greek I know is at least somewhat steeped in the history and importance of the classical Greek culture, because its significance to all of western civlization is immense, and its contributions to the world have been huge and out of proportion with other cultures. It’s a matter of pride to Greeks, even Greek Americans. And rightly so.
As I say, I love Irish history and literature and some aspects of the culture… but what Greece gave the world and what Ireland has given the world just cannot be compared. So your analogy is off-base anyway. When a people have SO much history and accomplishment behind them, they DO know something about it.
August 3rd, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Spart:
What rock have you been living under?
Christopher Columbus is roundly challenged today as a self-serving genocidal bastard; yes, he had the courage and tenaciousness to sail across a previously unsailed ocean and we should all give him credit for this; but his behavior beyond this was reprehensible and led to the annihilation or slavery of countless native peoples. Not the guy you want to say did “the most good.”
Your statements regarding Martin Luther King are also off-base. First of all it is simply untrue that “the rest of the world had gone on with civil rights” (what does that even mean?) and secondly King served as an example to people not just in America but *all over the world,* as a non-violent crusader for freedom and human dignity.
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Jesus Christ. He has given the greatest gift of all. life.
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
George W. Bush is pretty cool.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:33 am
Randall,
A bit touchy aren’t we?
Let’s see if I get my “facts” straight: You said, “I’m part Greek myself for god’s sake.” As this was in the context of how you find yourself qualified to speak about Greek history and society. It was at the end of how you 1) “trained in this topic, (ancient history)”, 2) “the Greeks have been a passionate interest of mine ever since I was a little kid,” and 3) “–I’ve probably read more books on every aspect of their history and society than you’ve even heard of.” I think it is understandable that one might consider your mentioning your lineage as an additional qualification. I thought your comment was funny, which is why I said immediately before my comment that it was, “fun to read.” I didn’t really think that you think that cultural awareness was somewhere in your gene sequence. I mean, really, do you?
The whole Gaelic vs. Greek thing: I wasn’t making a comparative statement with regard to which culture “has given more to the world,” but to point out that ancestry doesn’t necessarily imbue one with an innate knowledge of the culture. You sure read a lot into the two sentences I wrote. Take a deep breath and read it again. You’ll see (or maybe you won’t) that that was my meaning. The analogy still stands and is valid as I wrote it and intended for it to be understood. You may disagree, but just because a person is a descendant of a great people doesn’t mean that they are qualified to lecture about it. THAT was my meaning.
I thought it was OBVIOUSLY so.
A “throwaway?” What else can we “throwaway” from your message? Let us know when you have something in your posts that you don’t really mean. That way we won’t mention it and find ourselves excoriated in a return post.
It was fair and justified because, 1. you wrote it on a public forum for others to comment on, and 2. I’m right with my analogy and argument. It was also not meant to be snide. I can certainly be snide, cynical, sarcastic, and a jerk, but that was not my intent. Besides, it was hardly a “swipe,” or a “wild swing(s).” More of a quick jab. Apparently I landed it.
Now then,
Did you even notice that I complimented you on the rest of your posts? That I thought they were “thought provoking?” From reading your posts I have no doubt that you are qualified to speak about Hellenistic culture, or about others still. I enjoy your posts and have learned from them. Are you getting any of this or have you already written me off?
However, I do note a touch of hubris (a fitting word given the Hellenistic topic) in your posts. It gets a little annoying when someone keeps telling us how smart they are and sets themselves up as the arbiter of logic and debate. We know that you’re smart, educated, and articulate. You don’t have to tell us. And tell us. And tell us.
I cannot imagine that if we were sitting across from each other at a table, chatting away and sipping ouzo, Guinness, or whatever, that you would have responded as you did to my comment. As I said, I didn’t mean this as a “swipe” or “swing” at you. I just thought that part was funny and commented so. You jumped all over me and misread and misinterpreted what I said. You could have laughed it off, joked with me about it, taken a jesting shot at my Irish ancestry, or let it go. If you calm down and read it as it was meant to be read you’ll understand that I’m right. But instead you took great umbrage and proceeded to lecture me as you have others. I screw up all the time, and can admit it and laugh at myself when I do. Most people can.
So,
Have I burned any bridge that I might have had with you? Is the chance of any further polite discourse been irretrievably lost?
Still, you did call me your “pal,” so perhaps I won’t give up all hope. Oh wait, that’s a throwaway isn’t it?
August 4th, 2008 at 2:39 am
I say it is YOU.
The person who has done (and is doing) the best for society is you.
Every time you show a little love or kindness you make the world a better place to live in.
Kindness balances the scales…
Without it, we would all sink into savagery until we eventually exterminated ourselves.
Thank you neighbor.
August 4th, 2008 at 3:52 am
Randall
Only reason that I included Colombus is because every time I post anything about another part of the world, the troglodites lurch out of their caves and scream anti-americanism. Such a convenient excuse for those too feeble…..
All I meant was that people like Mohandas Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Te Whiti, David Ben Gurion, were already well ahead of the US civil rights movements. It is fairly well established that King was a student of Ganhdi’s teachings.
As for the rock? I work underground everyday, and have for the last 14 years. Cheers.
August 4th, 2008 at 4:10 am
Oh..and Randall
Before you launch into a diatribe and bore everyone with your quasi intellectual rants…you deliberately use inflammatory barbs and then accuse people of being on anti american kicks…
It just gets tiring, ListVerse is meant to be amusing and interesting. The way you attack people is just boring.
August 4th, 2008 at 5:32 am
Spart:
A) I could care less if I bore you.
B) Don’t pretend you speak for “everyone.” You don’t.
C) Either have the courage of your convictions, or shut up. Saying you mentioned Columbus just to keep the so-called “trogolydites” at bay is simply intellectual cowardice.
D) It isn’t quite correct to say that Ghandi et al were “well ahead” of the US Civil Rights movement. Martin Luther King began his work in the 1950s, and is best known for his activities in the 60s, up until his assassination. But King was simply the best-known and in a sense a later player in civil rights. There were people who came before him, going back to the 1940s, who were speaking out and risking their lives.
E) If you’re going to take smart-ass pot shots at me, accusing me of making “quasi- intellectual rants,” then back up what you say. I seem to recall you and I having a run-in here before, and clearly this is the source of your pissiness. But I can’t even remember what our previous encounter was about. Obviously it still sticks in *your* craw though. I’d think about that, if I were you.
August 4th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Skepticalpete:
“A bit touchy aren’t we?”
Hardly, and don’t flatter yourself. And don’t backpedal on your statements. In your first posting your remark about my “Greek lineage statement” was clearly negative, and you characterized that sole statement as my “argument” as to why I was qualified to speak on Greek history, when the fact is I’d stated other, more direct and valid reasons why I was so qualified. You chose not to mention those reasons when you took your swipe at me, which was clearly a choice engineered to discredit me. I’d be interested to hear why you felt this was necessary, if in fact, as you claim now, you found it “fun to read” and “understandable.”
This isn’t being “touchy,” SP. I simply don’t allow people to take unjustified and snide little swings at me and get away with it. You went out of your way to mention that statement of mine, so only fair that I call you out on it.
As for the rest, I understood your meaning perfectly well, thank you. What *you* failed to understand is the very clear statement I made… namely that, when it comes to Greeks and Greek Americans, they *do* tend to have a fairly decent awareness of their cultural history, as opposed to other peoples, because for them it’s a matter of pride.
And no, your “jab” fell flat. That’s the whole point. It was in error and unjustified. You A) took it out of context and B) clearly meant it, by your own admission, as a “jab,” and yet C) YES, I feel it *was* obvious that it was a “throwaway remark,” coming as it did on the heels of *other* more logical justifications for my relative expertise on the subject of ancient Greece.
You may have meant to compliment me, as you claim, but it’s an odd kind of compliment that comes in softly at best, accompanied by a louder, sarcastic stab.
As for the accusation of hubris, I don’t mind copping to this, being human. However, there’s more unfairness here, since if you notice carefully, I may seem to “repeat” myself, but only because I am on occasion speaking to NEW people who may have never read a single thing I’ve written here before. Sometimes the quickest way to get the message across that you have some measure of expertise in a certain topic is to come out and SAY it. Nevertheless, I find this implication that I am boastful to be a tad unreasonable. I have, in fact, persistently avoided being specific about my credentials and so on, partly out of an interest in protecting my own privacy, but also because I haven’t thought it all that seemly.
I appreciate that you seem to wish to get it across to me that you have an apparent admiration (?) for my contributions to this site, and hey, that’s great, thank you. But I’m also saying you’ve got a funny way of expressing it.
August 4th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Show no mercy Randall
Has anyone thought of adding up how often each name is mentioned in these comments to see who gets the most favourable mentions? I know it’s not a democracy here, but would be kinda cool to have some sort of poll based on the names mentioned.
Then we could all argue about why the person who got the most votes wasn’t deserving of the title of “Good-est Person in the World.”
August 4th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Tempyra:
Thanks, I never do.
And I agree with you, I’ve said before I’d like to see a final tally of these “Your View” topics to see who the “winner” is… like, “the consensus of List Universe is that John Astin, TV’s Gomez Adams, did The Most Good! Thirty-seven votes!” That kind of thing.
But I suspect that A) Jamie doesn’t want to call an end to these threads prematurely (if at all) and B) he also probably doesn’t want the trouble of having to go through hundreds of comments, trying to count opinions. Can’t say I blame him there.
August 4th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Randall: I don’t think naming a ‘winner’ will end the thread prematurely, if anything I think it would further invigorate the commenters. I really doubt anything stop people from disagreeing once someone makes some kind of statement
But yeah, I wouldn’t wanna count either!
August 4th, 2008 at 6:39 am
“I really doubt anything would stop people from disagreeing”
*corrected!
August 4th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Randall,
If I don’t flatter myself nobody will!
“backpedal?” I’m not averse to taking something back or apologizing if I’m wrong (happens often), but that isn’t what my second post was about.
It was about someone being very thin-skinned and finding a slight where none was intended, reading more into it than most reasonable people would, and reacting out of proportion, capital letters and all.
“discredit” you? Did you really think that my catching you on what we all know, now, was a “throwaway” would “discredit” your claim of being educated in Hellenistic culture specifically or your intellectualism in general? Wow!
Why did I do it? I told you why. I found it a humorous slip of logic that you are now claiming (backpedaling?) as a throwaway. If that irritates you (risking accusations of self-flattery again), oh well.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:59 am
You know, this list is something like “Who was the best shortstop of the 1990’s, Jeter, Garciaparra, Arod, Vizquel?”
Sure to set off arguments in ballfields around the country, and never a consensus reached.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:10 am
“B) Don’t pretend you speak for “everyone.” You don’t.”
Having read your pathetic back-and-forther with skepticalpete over our earlier ‘conversation’, I can assure you that I share his sentiments. Take it down a notch, pal.
“E) If you’re going to take smart-ass pot shots at me, accusing me of making “quasi- intellectual rants,” then back up what you say.”
Comment number 266 is a good place to start.
“This isn’t being “touchy,” SP.”
How many comments have you written about this now? When do we enter the realms of “touchy”?
“As for the rest, I understood your meaning perfectly well, thank you. What *you* failed to understand is the very clear statement I made… namely that, when it comes to Greeks and Greek Americans, they *do* tend to have a fairly decent awareness of their cultural history, as opposed to other peoples, because for them it’s a matter of pride.”
This comment suggests some ignorance of other cultures. I can’t think of *any* society which doesn’t consider its cultural history ‘a matter of pride’.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:22 am
skepticalpete:
Look, “pete,” accusing me of being thin-skinned to divert the argument away from your own original action is a cute trick, but such tricks are always transparent. You wanna talk about “slips of logic?” Here’s yours:
You claim that you found enjoyment in a series of comments between myself and another person.
In the course of this, you read a statement of mine to the effect that I have some expertise on the subject of ancient Greece because I was educated in it, and because it has been a passionate interest of mine since childhood–and, I then add (essentially paranthetically) also because I’m part-Greek myself–point to that being–*clearly*–that I was attempting to get across the message that not only do I know a great deal about the subject, but that I am also, myself, very much an *admirer* of the ancient Greeks. If you recall the original exchange, Chickensoup not only disagreed with my characterization of the Greeks, but it could be said that his statements in that regard implied that I was in some way hostile to the ancient Greeks in some way.
Bottom line, this was a small and minor little piece of a larger thought.
Next, you, in making a comment, decide of ALL THINGS to pick on that one statement to hold me up for some (evidently good-natured, or so you seem to claim) mild ridicule — finally claiming that it was a “slip of logic.”
But where was the slip in my logic? I was stating my case for my own expertise on the subject, and happened to also mention my own Greek heritage, to A) further punctuate the picture of myself as knowledgeable, and B) to point out that I am sympathetic to the Greek people, naturally. Again, you are characterizing my statement as being a form of “argument,” when it was in fact nothing of the kind. *You* simply took it out of context in order to have something—why I don’t know—to stick me with.
It’s THAT that offends me. It was, in essence, uncalled for. And now you’re turning around and trying to make ME seem unreasonable for speaking out in my own defense.
Ridiculous.
You picked a statement out of context, “pete.” And you then, in turn, made a claim that this was “illogical” of me–and for what purpose? Clearly it was to lay a bit of criticism on me–you’re still saying it was a “slip of logic” when it was nothing of the kind, and your original statement was clearly meant to be (albeit gently) critical. And now you’re trying to characterize me as thin-skinned because I choose not to let you get away with this crap.
“Did you really think that my catching you on what we all know, now, was a “throwaway” would “discredit” your claim of being educated in Hellenistic culture specifically or your intellectualism in general? Wow!”
Enough. The point isn’t whether your statement would have *worked* to discredit me in any way or not–the point is that that’s what you were TRYING to do. And if you *weren’t* trying to do that, then you still need to explain why you chose to yank a statement out of context, pretend it was meant as a logical arguing point (which it wasn’t) which you could then assail as being *illogical.*
Basically, you did something at my expense which was, admittedly, small, but nevertheless amounted to a snide little attack. You can mock me all you want now as being reactionary about it, but the fact is, I don’t allow people to unfairly fling puny darts at me any more than I allow them to unfairly toss grenades.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Chickensoup,
Did you ever watch My Big Fat Greek Wedding? Remember the dad who traced every word back to Greek? Hilarious!
I also thought that Randall’s “as opposed to other peoples, because for them it’s a matter of pride.” was rather ethnocentric.
Hey, and I’m a newbie at this. What does “SP” mean?
Maybe we should do a “Which culture has given more to the world” list. Chinese? Roman? Egyptian? German? Irish?
August 4th, 2008 at 9:35 am
How about “What group/institution has given more to humanity?” I’ll throw NASA out there for discussion because of all the advances in science that have come our way as a byproduct of that program.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Chickensoup:
You know, I thought we were done with this shit. But you want to take shots at me some more, fine. I’ll accommodate you.
““B) Don’t pretend you speak for “everyone.” You don’t.”
Having read your pathetic back-and-forther with skepticalpete over our earlier ‘conversation’, I can assure you that I share his sentiments. Take it down a notch, pal.”
“Pathetic?” Because why? Because it was a smart-ass little attack on me, and not upon yourself? I’d say that’s a good guess.
Your lack of reason, persistent historical inaccuracies and intellectual cowardice in your arguments with me don’t leave me with the sense that your opinion is one I’m going to lend a lot of respect to, “chickensoup.”
“E) If you’re going to take smart-ass pot shots at me, accusing me of making “quasi- intellectual rants,” then back up what you say.”
Comment number 266 is a good place to start.
Then DO SO. Instruct me on how anything I said was “quasi-intellectual.” Clearly, clearly, I’m in dire need of your counseling on this matter.
“This comment suggests some ignorance of other cultures. I can’t think of *any* society which doesn’t consider its cultural history ‘a matter of pride’.”
See, the amusing thing is, you and others are, by your apparent reasoning, allowed to take these miserable little shots at me. BUT… should I RESPOND, and not just lie there and take it, I’m then tagged with accusations of being “touchy” and so on. Nice.
I can assure you I’m well versed in many cultures, asshole. The point was (CLEARLY) that Greeks tend to feel they have–*with reason*–some things to be *especially* proud of in terms of their cultural history. Surely, yes, every group is proud of its heritage. No shit. But the Greek people have a particularly long and rich list of achievements that they can look back on. If this was true of all cultures, equally, then we never would have viewed the Greeks as anything special in the history of our western civilization–but CLEARLY WE DO and always have.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:47 am
I’m offended, Chickensoup,
You left off the British, Aztec and Inca Empires.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Randall & chickensoup and whoever contributed,
I just unsubscribed to this potentialy interesting list. Thanks.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Hey Anon, that was me. You’re right about those. How about the Vikings, Polynesians, Malian, Indian, Persian, Arabic, Kiwis (nod to Jfrater), Ethiopian, and I’m sure I’m missing many, many more. My apologies if I left off any obvious cultures.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:26 am
skepticalpete,
Yes, one more very important left off, Byzantine, because that is wot people say influenced most of my thinking and writing. Its bloody well byzantine, Anon!
August 4th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
****
#278. Anon
I’m offended, Chickensoup,
You left off the British, Aztec and Inca Empires.
****
Hey! What about the Mayans?!!!
August 4th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Randall, you’re right. Like I said, that shit is done with and I don’t want to get into it again. However, I reserve the right to point out when you are in the wrong, and in *this* case you are. You’re having a little tantrum over a flippant remark about some meaningless comment you made. Let it go, if you can. Let’s move on. Will you please just drop this shit now?
August 4th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Randall and Chickensoup,
Try to settle an argument as a disinterested third party and you’re liable to end up as a punch bag, they say.
But with a view to doing nothing more than pouring water on troubled oil and restoring friendships, it did strike me at the moment I first read it, that Chickensoup’s remark was not inteded as anything more than a throwaway.
Just a personal opinion with no idea of raising anyone up or putting anyone down, just to get us all on the same level. It’s so easy to misinterpret the written word.
August 4th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
segue,
D’Oh, you’re right. What an insulting omission, given the other two. I actually thought skeppypete had done them proud, but read too quickly. It was the malians in his later post!
August 4th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
then I thought about several other smaller, less well known groups, who had made remarkable contributions in their own way…but I put the brakes on. It could start to get absurd.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Randall- strictly speaking, the teachings of the Buddha have been around forever, according to the teachings of Buddhism. It is taught that a new Buddha is born every 10,000 years (there were 3 prior to the Buddha Gautama in the lineage we recite at the monastery I visit.)There is a name for the future Buddhas- maitreya Buddha. (past Buddhas I believe are referred to by name) This happens when the teachings of the previous Buddha have been largely forgotten, and the cycle begins again. Also, being a Buddhist from a Christian background, I’d say that the teachings of Jesus and Buddha are basically identical, not similar.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:57 am
Randall
No pissiness on my behalf tiger. Just have seen your type before – a half educated pompous twit with a bent on a few favourite subjects, who postures and blows hard when people have an opinion contrary to your own inflated one.
The lack of ability to let go of a subject is a case in point.
End of subject.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:13 am
Spart:
It’s amazing how you know zilch about me, but feel free to try to describe me based on your own anger over a previous encounter. Nice. Half educated? Hardly, asshole. Pompous twit? As you like, but I can think of many choice words for you as well.
And if it’s all the same, I’d prefer to ‘end the subject’ with a highly-called for “fuck you.”
August 5th, 2008 at 5:20 am
jasontimmer:
Good point, though (you’ll know more about this than I, it sounds) wasn’t this idea of a new Buddha born every 10,000 years a later addition to Buddhist teachings? In other words, I don’t recall it as something the Buddha himself said (though I could be wrong, it’s been 4 or 5 years since I last read the Dhammapada, etc.). Of course that doesn’t necessarily mean anything either, does it? It’s odd, though, it also sounds like a Hindu injection into Buddhism, but then again Buddhism more or less issues out of Hinduism, so…
Anyway, as I said, you probably know better than I.
As for the teachings of Jesus and Buddha, I’d largely agree with you, though it’s always been my understanding that Jesus’ teachings do more directly go that “extra step,” recommending the “turning of the other cheek” and so on. Perhaps it isn’t so much that this isn’t *implicit* in Buddhism, but it isn’t codified the way it is in the teachings of Jesus… “love thine enemy.” What do you think?
August 5th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Randall- you bring up a good point, I’m not sure if that was part of the Buddha’s original teaching, as I’m of the Soto Zen school, we don’t get too deep into scripture of any kind, I just remember it from our chanting. Plus it gives me a good feeling! I guess I felt that what I’ve heard of the teachings, they are so common sense and obvious that someone, somewhere, has to come up with it eventually. I would consider Jesus as a Buddha also.
I would say that Buddha taught the same “turning the other cheek dharma/gospel” as Jesus did, only in different words. Specifically in Zen, we learn to be entirely in the present moment, and practice of this teaches a person the unskillfulness of anger and violence. According to the Tao Te Ching (not a Buddhist text, but then again, Zen is often described as Buddhism through Taoist language) “Weapons are the tools of violence. The master avoids them in all but the utmost necessity.”
I would love to email you a paper I wrote for my college sociology class titled “The Relativity of Faith.” I bet you’d enjoy it.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Jasontimmer:
“I’m of the Soto Zen school, we don’t get too deep into scripture of any kind…”
Well… it hardly matters, right? Buddhism isn’t really a rigid “scripture” based theology anyway, correct?
Actually it makes sense. In fact, I’m surprised it’s such a lengthy cycle.
One would think that someone could come along who’d achieved enlightenment more than once, why not?
“Plus it gives me a good feeling!”
I don’t blame you.
Me too, come to think of it.
Have you noticed that’s the beauty of Buddhism, in some way or other? Like you I come from a Christian tradition, and I’m not wholly Buddhist (yet?) but I find Buddhism somehow just makes me *happy* in ways that Christianity only occasionally did. But then of course my commitment to Christianity was never very much of a solid thing, so…. but still, there’s something inherently peaceful and happy inside Buddhism, it seems to me.
“I would consider Jesus as a Buddha also.”
Oh me too! Absolutely. In fact, I recommend a book to you, which is a fun and interesting read: “Yeshua Buddha” by Jay G. Williams, a professor at Colgate. See if you can find it… it really is a nice little book.
“I would say that Buddha taught the same “turning the other cheek dharma/gospel” as Jesus did, only in different words.”
Yes, I suppose. I’ve always thought it was “behind the words” in a sense. Implicit in his meaning, I mean. And yes, perhaps… more of a Zen concept in a way. (I’ve been trying to explain Zen to my 14 year old daughter. My 10 year old daughter then got interested too. But it’s difficult as you can imagine.
I bought them a storybook called “Zen Shorts” that they both enjoyed immensely, and now my 10 year old has a stuffed panda called “Stillwater”–as in the book–and every day she and the panda make the gesture of the “greeting prayer” to one another. 
In such ways, I guess, children are sent on the beginnings of the path to enlightenment. 
)
“According to the Tao Te Ching (not a Buddhist text, but then again, Zen is often described as Buddhism through Taoist language) “Weapons are the tools of violence. The master avoids them in all but the utmost necessity.” ”
Exactly. I’ve read the Tao Te Ching as well. I’ve thought that in some sense the Upanishads, the Dhammapada, the Tao… they all say much the same thing. Which is reassuring, I think.
“I would love to email you a paper I wrote for my college sociology class titled “The Relativity of Faith.” I bet you’d enjoy it.”
Sure! I’d love to read it. Here’s an alternate email address for me: evanmoss101@yahoo.com
You can send it there. (Evan Moss, by the way, to anyone reading this, is NOT my real name. He is a fictional character. Hopefully someday a lot of people will know the name, if I’ve done a good job. But we’ll see).
August 5th, 2008 at 7:10 am
jasontimmer,
I’d love to read that also. From what I understand, there are several sects to Buddhism now; http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/footsteps.htm
and the Dali is not a reincarnation of Bhudda but another Bhuddist monk. Bhudda simply means “awakened” and anybody can be a Bhudda. Siddhartha Guatama was the first Bhudda and then the followers later split into two main groups.
What I find interesting is that I believe that Bhudda once told his followers not to follow him. Enlightenment is a personal thing and we each have to find our own path there.
Many other religions have the “do no harm” precepts that Bhuddism has, including Christianity.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Randall- I’ll be looking for that book. In the meantime, I’ll send that paper to you asap. Thanks for the great conversation!
August 5th, 2008 at 7:15 am
skepticalpete- just provide an address and I’d be more than happy to send it to you.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Randall- sent!
August 5th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Jasontimmer:
Got it. I’ll let you know what I think, and thanks.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:05 am
skepticalpete:
There’s some very good “basic primers” to Buddhism around if you’re interested. I think there’s even a “Buddhism for Dummies.” Pretty sure my next door neighbor has that. Or you can just start out with the teachings of the Buddha himself, the Dhammapada. (I’m never sure if I’m spelling that quite right).
No, the Dalai Lama is not a reincarnation of the Buddha; in strict terms the Buddha would not reincarnate. He’s the enlightened one, the one who found enlightenment. The idea is that he reached the end of the cycle of reincarnation and found awareness. The Dalai Lama, however, is supposed to be a reincarnation of previous Lamas. He’s more than just a mere monk, but no, not a Buddha nor, I believe a Boddhisatva (in a sense, an enlightened one who still plays a part in the world… sort of like a step or two away from “buddhahood” as it were).
Anyone can reach enlightenment, just as anyone can be Jesus. Sadly, this latter is what Christianity does not teach, but should.
As for the Buddha not wanting his followers to follow him, you might check out a book called “If You See the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!” What this means is, Buddhism is about casting off desires–one of these is desiring to be the Buddha, to emulate him and desire knowledge.
Note, however, that Jesus’ teachings (in words) are much more than “do no harm,” as is Buddhism’s, less directly. (Which is partly what jasontimmer and I were discussing). Both Buddhism and Christianity are (or should be, if properly practiced) active “philosophies” (though really this term doesn’t apply) which require more than simply resigning from the world to “do no harm.”
August 5th, 2008 at 8:39 am
skepticalpete- there are just about as many sects of Buddhism as there are Christianity. You’re right that anyone can be Buddha (more accurately, IS already Buddha) The two main groups of ZEN Buddhism are Soto and Rinzai. They have different emphasis on the most important aspect of practice. Soto- meditation. Rinzai- koan.
To clear up the notion of Bodhisattva, it has been said that a Bodhisattva (Buddhist saint) enters and leaves this world in much the same way as a pedestrian- anyone can become a pedestrian because of his actions. It’s the same with a Bodhisattva- anyone can become a Buddhist saint based on acts of selfless compassion.
The Buddha asked his followers not only to not worship him, but not to make any images of him. (You can see that many of us have not listened. I myself have a Buddha statue!) But I think his motive for that teaching was that each person should find his own way and not depend on the words of others for understanding of Truth. There is a monastery in Minnesota (near my home state of Iowa) that does not use a Buddha statue on it’s altar, but rather a large, stable rock, to suggest the mindset the Buddha wished us all to have.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:08 am
jasontimmer:
Good comments… one additional note I’d make… when it comes to images of the Buddha or Jesus… well, we might say that we moderns are a bit more sophisticated in this regard (some of us anyway) than our ancient forebears, and we don’t worship images and icons; we just like to have them out of our love for the visual… it’s a way of expressing love for the concept, the idea.
But maybe that’s just an excuse.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Guillermo Gonzalez Camarena, he invented the Color TV… that means it make globalization in information came with it….
AND
The Beatles
They bring happines to a lot of people, inspiration, apreciation for arts, taste for music etc, etc, etc…
August 7th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
dick cheney!
just kidding
that guys a pothead
August 8th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
And without a doubt, JESUS CHRIST my Lord and Savior
August 9th, 2008 at 2:36 am
Randall- I haven’t heard word from you yet. Have you read my essay? do you have any thoughts? I’d love to get some input.
August 10th, 2008 at 11:47 am
jesus
August 11th, 2008 at 10:15 am
chuck norris.
or moot, creator of 4chan.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Throughout history, no one man or woman has contributed to the betterment of society more than the group of humans, Patients, who have contributed to (with or without knowledge of doing so) medicine, that which saves and/or extends lives.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
mWm: Sweet, every time I get sick I’m bettering society by letting the doctor practice his medical skills and knowledge.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
mWm, seeing as how I have 15 doctors whom I see on a regular basis, under your criteria,, I just might be qualified for a Nobel Prize in Medicine!
cool
August 13th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Wow, is this still going? Love it.
Randall @172
“Judaism prior to Jesus contained little of the ethos that Jesus taught”
I don’t have any evidence to refute this comment but find it hard to believe that a religion could thrive without compassion.
Regardless, whether or not Jesus derived his teachings from Judaism is irrelevant to my argument. The point I was trying to make is that many of the nominations on this list, including mine, are nominated for the ideas that they championed. But I don’t believe that anybody can lay full claim to any one idea, let alone a whole list. If it wasn’t Judaism, Jesus’ teachings were undoubtedly influenced by his mentors and peers. Maybe his dad?
“the authors of the gospels would have had no ideas to spread if Jesus had not first spoken these ideas in the first place”
Exactly my point.
“Your argument would say that we should give more credit to the reporter who publishes the words of the president’s latest speech FOR that speech, than we should give to the president himself–simply because he spoke it rather than wrote it down”
Poor analogy. The authors of the gospels were not just reporting on speeches that Jesus gave. The gospels were written years after Jesus died as depictions of his life. Sure, an action (or an invention) must be attributed to the original doer/inventor. However, the influence of an idea must be attributed to those who make the idea clear to the world.
“I did not make that statement, DDRM did. However, yes, I support it”
I know you supported it, which is the reason that your name was added to my post.
“I stated *clearly* in my comments that the teachings if Jesus closely mirrored the teachings of the Buddha”
This position is contradictory to the one taken by the statement:
“Christian morality and ethics among the common folk inspired everything we hold dear in civilization, from human rights to health care”,
which you say you support. This last statement is the one I was/am refuting.
BTW, you also said that “It’s only after Jesus that we get the sense of doing good for the sake of doing good” (@160), which also contradicts what you ‘clearly’ stated about Buddha and Jesus teachings being parallel (but Jesus was better).
But wait, later on you say:
““I would consider Jesus as a Buddha also.”
Oh me too! Absolutely. ”
So, forgive me if I don’t find your position clear.
NEXT!
“I saw this statement as relating mainly to WESTERN ”
You made no mention of drawing lines in the sand prior to your response to my post. As already stated, the topic at hand is in relation to the world. Nice try. Plus, you can’t pretend that the world is actually divided into neat geograhical sections and that the culture of one does not influence the others. And this is the reason that I used the term egotistical; the original statement turns a blind eye to cultures that the author is unfamiliar with.
“As I already pointed out, Judaism did NOT come up with the ideas that Jesus brought into our western consciousness”
I know you already pointed it out. HEY! maybe this is one of the reasons your posts get so long.
“He built on some Judaic principles, yes, but Judaism itself did not formulate what Jesus taught.”
Wait. what? so you’re admitting that Jesus did base his principles on Judaism? Isn’t that the point I made and that you’re trying to refute?
“But no ethical system ANYONE comes up with nowadays is unique”
If you take away the word ‘nowadays’, I can agree with this statement. There is no distinct beginning for ideas, which was my point. Just because we’re bombarded with the history of christianity, it doesn’t mean that history started at the starting of christianity.
“That’s rather obvious, umgrego2. DDRM introduced the idea of Christian morality as the reason WHY Jesus should be considered as “the one who has done the most good.” ”
Jesus does not equal christianity. Especially if you believe what you said about Jesus being a distinct departure from judaism. Christianity includes both the old testament and the new testament. Jesus did not write the old testament. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to start referring to ‘christian morality’ when trying to promote Jesus as a contender.
Plus, christian morality is a creature in evolution. What is considered right by christians today is a far cry from that of a few centuries ago.
“There is no evidence whatsoever that atheists ever created any unique ethical system.”
No, not just atheists; deists too. They were called Paine, Voltaire, Hobbes,Hume, etc. They were instrumental in the age of enlightenment and the creation of an ethical system that was responsible for fighting things like slavery and social classes.
August 14th, 2008 at 7:26 am
umgrego2:
Wait, you have the affrontery to make some smart-ass comment about the length of MY posts, when this latest of yours is at least as long? Come off it.
““Judaism prior to Jesus contained little of the ethos that Jesus taught”
I don’t have any evidence to refute this comment but find it hard to believe that a religion could thrive without compassion.”
First of all, I said “ethos,” not “compassion.” The two words are not synonymous. But compassion–AS A CODIFIED REQUIREMENT OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR, is, yes, largely a Christian construct. This doesn’t mean compassion itself didn’t exist prior to Christianity nor that it wouldn’t have existed without it. But the first voice we have in western culture to speak of it with moral force, and to lay it out as a necessity for living “properly” is Jesus.
I mean for god’s sake, why do you think Jesus is such an important figure, historically and culturally? Merely because he founded a religion? (if you can even say he did that–technically his followers did the “founding”) Others have done so, and few of them have the weight and force that the name of Jesus carries behind it; no, rather, the reason Jesus (and the Buddha) is so important is because he presented us with a new paradigm for what it was to be human. He not only told the *story* of the Good Samaritan, he taught that that was the way for us to be if we intended to live proper lives in the view of god and what is *right.* THAT was new.
“But I don’t believe that anybody can lay full claim to any one idea, let alone a whole list. If it wasn’t Judaism, Jesus’ teachings were undoubtedly influenced by his mentors and peers. Maybe his dad?”
This is just silly waffling. By your logic, then, we can ascribe NO ideas to any particular person, and therefore we might as well throw out forever the idea of individual thought and achievement. Asinine. By your logic we can forget Einstein ever existed because “his ideas weren’t his own” or Freud, or Jung, or Kant, etc. etc.
The fact is that there have clearly been individuals of genius all throughout human history who present new ideas to us that we end up valuing. What matters is not this or that influence on their ideas–what matters is that they presented these ideas and popularized them through the force of their words, argument, presence, or what have you.
There is little or no evidence that Jesus cherry-picked the things he said from some previously lumped-together set of ideals. There is a slightly spooky resemblance to much of what the Buddha had said 600 years earlier, but that only proves that men of spiritual power and genius end up thinking alike. Perhaps there was a connection, but there’s no evidence of it as yet.
Perhaps the problem here is that you just don’t understand the nature of ancient religions—many of them were nearly unconcerned with morality, as we define it today. Compassion to some may have been virtuous, but not a defined virtue to be emulated. And so on.
““the authors of the gospels would have had no ideas to spread if Jesus had not first spoken these ideas in the first place”
Exactly my point.”
Excuse me? If I recall this turns your previous point around. It sounds to me like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, umgrego.
““Your argument would say that we should give more credit to the reporter who publishes the words of the president’s latest speech FOR that speech, than we should give to the president himself–simply because he spoke it rather than wrote it down”
Poor analogy. ”
Hardly. You were, if I recall, lending more force and credit to those who reported the philosophies and words of Jesus, than to Jesus himself. It’s as simple as that.
“The authors of the gospels were not just reporting on speeches that Jesus gave. The gospels were written years after Jesus died as depictions of his life. Sure, an action (or an invention) must be attributed to the original doer/inventor. However, the influence of an idea must be attributed to those who make the idea clear to the world.”
What of it? This is a specious point. A philosophy/theology as deeply different and powerful as that presented by Jesus is not the same as an “invention” or some single historical action. But even if you could make such an argument–which I find doubtful–the fact nevertheless remains that *Jesus* is both the paradigmatic and symbolic essence of Christian thought. The writers of the New Testament could not and would not have formulated what they had to say without him and his original ideas. The fact is that I agree, Christian thought, even in the New Testament, has surely strayed–sometimes far–from Jesus’ original intent and words. But this does not in the least negate his intent and words. Their power stands even without the New Testament–as evinced by reading such apocryphal works as the Gospel of Thomas, and so on–which report ONLY Jesus’ words.
““I stated *clearly* in my comments that the teachings if Jesus closely mirrored the teachings of the Buddha”
This position is contradictory to the one taken by the statement:
“Christian morality and ethics among the common folk inspired everything we hold dear in civilization, from human rights to health care”,
which you say you support. This last statement is the one I was/am refuting.”
Well you’re going to have to point out the contradiction for me, because frankly I can’t see it.
“BTW, you also said that “It’s only after Jesus that we get the sense of doing good for the sake of doing good” (@160), which also contradicts what you ‘clearly’ stated about Buddha and Jesus teachings being parallel (but Jesus was better).”
Again, I simply don’t see what contradiction there is here.
“But wait, later on you say:
““I would consider Jesus as a Buddha also.”
Oh me too! Absolutely. ”
So, forgive me if I don’t find your position clear.”
How is this not clear? I sense that you’re playing some kind of semantic game. If so, out with it.
““I saw this statement as relating mainly to WESTERN ”
You made no mention of drawing lines in the sand prior to your response to my post. As already stated, the topic at hand is in relation to the world. Nice try.”
Okay, prick, this is where I’ve had it. I’m sick to death of getting into arguments with smart-mouthed little assholes who have some warped view of reality that they can’t stand having assailed. Christianity IS a world-wide phenomenon. IN ITS ETHOS and in, to some degree, it’s theological construct, it has done GREAT good the world over. In the NAME of Christianity, many Christians have also been gigantic shits and have done terrible stuff. But the two are NOT the same.
NEITHER does making some forceful claim for Christianity/Jesus therefore EXCLUDE Buddhism/the Buddha from the same level of achievement. And I CERTAINLY never said that Jesus was “better” than the Buddha–*I* said that Jesus went further–with certain key statements–in his philosophy than the Buddha did. More is IMPLIED in Buddhism, whereas it is STATED in Christianity.
But therein is also a key difference between West and East, and if anyone prefers, then we can say that Christianity speaks for the West and Buddhism for the East. I don’t see why this should bother you or make you all aglee that you think you’ve found some chink in the argument.
“Plus, you can’t pretend that the world is actually divided into neat geograhical sections and that the culture of one does not influence the others.”
Once upon a time they didn’t, and the world WAS divided into geographical sections. What is your problem with this?
“And this is the reason that I used the term egotistical; the original statement turns a blind eye to cultures that the author is unfamiliar with.”
Firstly, I am blind to nothing, umgrego, though you clearly are one of these self-righteous types who feel you know better than others and are more worldly. Secondly, you’re reacting stupidly and childishly. There’s nothing egotistical in acknowledging a great accomplishment by a particular culture or group of cultures. The West has managed to give birth to many a great thing or idea that other cultures the world over missed and never got or didn’t hit upon until later. And vice versa. What’s your problem with this?
““He built on some Judaic principles, yes, but Judaism itself did not formulate what Jesus taught.”
Wait. what? so you’re admitting that Jesus did base his principles on Judaism? Isn’t that the point I made and that you’re trying to refute?”
You *are* a child, aren’t you? Do you know ANYTHING of theology? Of history? Can you even simply READ? RE-READ my sentence and stop getting so excited to find imagined contradictions that aren’t there.
Jesus was himself Hebrew and issued from that culture. NATURALLY he therefore knew of it and spoke from the gist of it, as Buddha issued from a Hindu frame of being and spoke from IT. But we would no more say that the Buddha was utterly derivative of Hinduism than we would Jesus was utterly derivative of Judaism.
The codes and concepts that Jesus spoke of are far more *unrelated* to Judaic principles and ideas than related. Do you know ANYTHING of ancient Hebraic concepts and theology? I do. Go read up on it and then compare the two.
Again, this whole argument of yours is utterly specious in any case. You’re attempt here is to dismiss Jesus as a unique force because you believe he was simply a derivation. You show your ignorance in this but also it’s a simply silly argument. You would have to then explain WHY Jesus became such a central and important figure–which your argument would be unable to address.
All this argument about Christian morality and its failings is also pointless. Some of the nations of the East practice Buddhism and have done terrible things and committed terrible atrocities. How does this address the nature and teachings of Buddhism, and how does the nature of Christianity as an institution address the nature of what it actually is to be Christian–or, to put it more clearly, what it is to follow the teachings of Jesus? Hypocrisy of the followers is no reason to dismiss the teachings themselves of the originators.
““There is no evidence whatsoever that atheists ever created any unique ethical system.”
No, not just atheists; deists too. They were called Paine, Voltaire, Hobbes,Hume, etc. They were instrumental in the age of enlightenment and the creation of an ethical system that was responsible for fighting things like slavery and social classes.”
I said UNIQUE ethical system. UNIQUE. There was nothing unique in what was formulated by the deists–they simply took pre-existing principles and followed them, cleaving to what they liked and discarding what they did not like, as we do today for the most part. This is why deism has never actually been considered a RELIGION, but simply a form of philosophy, a philosophy OF what were essentially Christian principles. Jefferson and Voltaire both spoke of Jesus as the real force and mind behind the principles they followed–they simply discarded what had come after Jesus for the most part. Jefferson even composed his so-called “Jefferson Bible” from the parts of the gospels that he found truthful and relevant—but they were STILL the stories and words of Jesus.
There’s no implicit acceptance in any of this of Jesus as a deity; I don’t understand what your problem with it is. It’s Jesus as philosopher and to some extent theologian and certainly as vital figure that we’re talking about here. That’s what matters.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Randall, my eyes are now bleary and sore, because I have gone back and re-read every post between you and umgrego2. I didn’t want to post anything without being positive of all the back and forth, and all of who-said-what.
Having done so, and realizing no one needs another novella right this minute, I just want to say, and want to assure the LVers at large, that your position is the correct, intelligent, factual one.
After 13 years of a Catholic education, then studying comparative world religions in Un, I have a decent grasp of question at hand. You’ve nailed it, Randall (which I’m sure you already know), but I’m making the effort for the benefit of the other posters.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Personally, I’m glad to see the word affrontery making a comeback.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:03 am
rushfan- Indeed.
I really wanted to read everything, because it seems very interesting from the little I did read, but I really have no drive to read the 312 comments before this, especially with dozens being short stories.
Very good topic to inspire debate. A tip of the hat to jfrater.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:09 am
jasontimmer:
Very sorry, I’ve been busy with so many things, I’ve had lapses in memory. Excellent essay, very well done… I’ll have more to say about it… might email you if okay.
segue: Thank you.
August 14th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Randall, your welcome, but I’m just telling the truth as I see (and know) it.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Randall- I’d love some input. Feel free to email me.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
BTW- anyone who wants to read the essay on “The Relativity of Faith” that I sent to Randall can now find it at my blog- jasontimmer.blogspot.com
Please enjoy and comment!
August 16th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
There are so many, but Einstein is my favorite.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:23 am
In modern times – Bob Geldof. Like him or not, no one can deny the great charity work he has done and argued with Margaret Thatcher on prime time tv to get her to do something about the state of the african affairs. Not only this, but he also adopted Tiger Lily Hutchence after Paula Yates died. I think this is a tremendous self sacrifice to adopt the little girl whose mother was his ex wife and father the man she left him for. Amazing.
August 20th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Randall@311
Wow. really? Prick? Asshole? That’s how you try to get a point across? Yeah, you must really understand the teachings of Jesus and Buddha.
I’ll sum up the first point of my first comment with a quote:
“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”. – Isaac Newton. Major ideas are built on the strong foundations provided by previous thinkers. So, although I also proposed a thinker as a candidate for someone who has done the most good, I was trying to put forward the notion that identifying philosophical idols ignores the work of previous people. I was hoping that I would get some intelligent views on this notion, not that I would be sworn at.
The second point of my first comment was that “christian morality” is not the equivalent of Jesus’ teachings and that neither Jesus nor “christian morality” is responsible for “everything we hold dear in civilization, from human rights to health care”.
The first human rights document is attributed to a persian empire and was created well before Jesus was born. The human rights movement in ‘the west’ was given a huge boost in the 18th century thanks to a group of philosophers who were decidedly not christians.
An extremely early example of public health care comes from India, again before Jesus was born. Today, health care exists in many forms all over the world. China, the largest country in the world, has health care, but christians make up around 4% of their population.
August 20th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I’m not sure of his name but he crossbred a certain type of plant and was able to save millions of lives by the increased production of this type of plant. Anyone know who I’m talking about? I sure don’t.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:39 am
I think adam and eve.
That’s why we are here in this world to do more good things.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 am
Nikola Tesla without doubt – a misunderstood genius who had the knowledge to put Earth in the fast lane.He also stopped his work when he knew that he’s invention are far too dangerous for an imoral society and that it could destroy the planet if the wrong people got it.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
August 25th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
For the person that has done the most good, I would have to say Stanislav Petrov. He prevented a nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and the U.S. by calling a computer error. Had he trusted those missile warnings we wouldn’t be alive right now.
It was likely the closest the world came to total nuclear war. He literally saved billions of lives or even the human race and the world. As for how good that was, saving the world is pretty good!
August 26th, 2008 at 6:32 am
i’ll say Jesus Christ..Giving his own life for our sins..
and whether it’s true or not, his campaign for LOVE and PEACE; it’s a big thing..dying on the croos for our sins; it’s a big thing as well..
And hey don’t blame Jesus or God if lots of people were killed because of religion. Religion will not save you but your faith with God..
I give the Credit to Jesus Christ…c:
August 28th, 2008 at 9:17 am
What is good?
August 28th, 2008 at 10:28 am
ciko, (327),
One of the shortest yet most profound entries. It would be an interesting question to ask each person who has contributed.
My own point would be that in absolute terms *good* perhaps may not exist. In other words it’s a relative and subjective quality like its converse bad (or evil). Those who see an all-embracing supernatural morality imposed over everything for all time need read no further, as my entire thought is constructed against that premise. To begin with, such consideration requires a developed brain and perception and conscious intellectual awareness, which psychopaths and sociopaths, for example, physiologically lack. Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking *good* or downplaying the vital importance of what we collectively understand by that word, or the need to recognise and nurture it, either in my life or in the affairs of mankind. I am mere saying that like art, it is something that has developed along with ourselves.
It may be that amoral *good* exists as a *selfish* aspect for all living things: what is *best* for survival is *good*. In other words the self relates the surrounding world to IT. Perhaps the unique quality of human *good* is that we can relate OURSELVES to the surrounding world. Both could be said to be forms of self-interest in the widest sense, but the difference between them is fundamental and massive. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if we fail to relate ourselves sufficiently to the surrounding world at this moment in time, our civilisation may be doomed. Could you get nearer to self-interest than that?
However, it would take a fool not to acknowledge that what is good to the point of holiness for Osama Bin Laden, a fellow human being, is bad or evil to the point of satanism for most of the rest of us. We cannot altogether dismiss him as a criminal psychopath, unless we are opening that door to fanatics and fundamentalists of all kinds. That will not work either, since psychopaths can make no value judgements, whereas Bin Laden does, demonstrating that he has the capacity.
Acts, people or inventions that can be seen as good from one aspect, or bad from another are countless. Perspectives of this change across time and cultures, and even from individual to individual. What if a medic invented a life-saving drug which saved a baby Stalin from a premature death? His intention was good but that particular result led to monstrous evil.
This gabble could go on forever. Besides, the ground has probably been covered over and over before by trained philosophers. I don’t feel like writing more here, so will end on that paradox. If anyone wants to argue or take ùp the theme, fine.
Sight, (235),
Wow, I didn’t know that. I’ll get down on my knees and say a little thank-you to him every night.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Tony Danza
August 28th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
you people are confusing Jesus with people who came after him. Jesus never did evil in the name of religion. Evil people do evil for their own sake. Had they not been reeking havoc during the Crusades in the name of Christianity, they would have done in the name of whatever they believed at the time.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
jfrater you have made a mistake, alexander fleming, was not the sole creator of penicillin, it was also created by Dr. Fredrick Banting (Canadian) in the early 1920’s. the person i think did the most good probably was that caveman a ways back, who unknowingly invented the wheel.
August 28th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
319, Shlufi; How could you possibly think in any sense that Einstien has done the most good, he was a physicist who helped the american goverment create the atomic bomb, which has since killed millions of innocent people and will probably wipe out the entire human race in the all too soon future:(
August 28th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
koekaine, (332),
“… the atomic bomb, which has since killed millions …”
Are you talking about the history of Earth or another planet?
Regardless of what *good* might happen to be, or Einstein’s qualification, your vilification of him belongs with the following subintellectual waste-pipe junk;
Jesus is responsible for the butchery of the Crusades.
Darwin promoted the gassing of Jews.
Whoever first, out of curiosity or by accident, mixed together a few substances and found they fizzled, spluttered and could be made into fireworks, is guilty of all the butchery in the trenches in WW1.
Andreas Stihl (or whoever else invented the chainsaw) is to blame for deforestation of the world’s rainforests.
The Wright Brothers caused the bombing of Dresden.
Well, there’s plenty more where those came from.
Please just do try to use that marvellous organ in your head which is called a brain, some of you.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Matt Groening, Seth MacFarlane, Prof. Perseus Alexander P. Rullan, Homer Jay Simpson
August 29th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Um, you realize Homer Simpson isn’t real, right?
August 29th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
333. Anon…Regardless of what *good* might happen to be, or Einstein’s qualification, your vilification of him belongs with the following subintellectual waste-pipe junk;…
****
OMG!
I was eating my lunch, Anon! You really have to put a warning in front of such total Monty Pythonesque humor! I mean, I know you were being serious as hell, but for those of us who actually *use* our brains such subintellectual waste-pipe junk is humor at it’s most absurd and pure.
August 29th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
segue, (336),
Mever fear. Nothing can dry up the inspirational source. It’s the nearest you’ll get to perpetual motion. Motion, or motions, in this case, perhaps signifying er …
You don’t know how near the mark you were with Monty Pything.
My penultimate sentence derived from “And there’s more where that came from”, a catchphrase of Spike Milligan on the legendary radio ‘Goon Show’. Now Spike was scriptwriter and second comic voice generator of the show, number one voice and his partner-in-crime being no less than Peter Sellers. It was from this postwar base that Sellers rose to international fame, while Spike (Whom I saw perform live once) remained more parochial. If you want to find more, just Wiki up ‘The Goon Show’. This show was a seminal, probably THE seminal influence on the Pythons.
Apropos, at around the same time there was a science fiction series on BBC black and white TV called ‘A for Andromeda’. Andromeda was a dishy alien played by a young Brit actress called Susan Hampshire. For some reason, perhaps illness, Susan was unable to continue the role, and it was taken over by an unknown young ingenuée called … Julie Christie. So, bags I. I saw first. None of my known personal rivals can remotely match that claim!
August 30th, 2008 at 8:47 am
337. Anon…Andromeda was a dishy alien played by a young Brit actress called Susan Hampshire. For some reason, perhaps illness, Susan was unable to continue the role, and it was taken over by an unknown young ingenuée called … Julie Christie. So, bags I. I saw first. None of my known personal rivals can remotely match that claim!
****
You get the Spike Milligan prize, absolutely!
My husband and his late wife were friends with Carol Cleveland, of Monty Python fame. So there’s a little Python to go around, I guess.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:28 am
i think i have done pretty good so far
September 9th, 2008 at 6:22 am
can we really name any individual that has done the most good for mankind?
I think many people has contributed significantly and don’t you think it’s a little unfair to name any one person?
Just my thoughts:)
September 11th, 2008 at 7:50 am
What individual has done the greatest good for humankind? That is a very tough call.
My vote is for those scientists that are currently preserving seed of all kind deep below the surface in Antarctica, as a hedge against climate change, mono-culture farming, and the destructive greed of companies like Monsanto. It may be that their efforts will eventually be the direct salvation of life on this planet.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
When the question is asked, “Who has done the greatest for Mankind?”, I would have to say Jesus. I mean, he created us, and that is the best thing for us.
The most outstanding individual in society so far though,(for me) would be Isaac Asimov. He wrote alomost 500 books ranging almost everywhere. In those books he clarified topics of almost everything, save for psychology and philosophy. He wrote them so everyone could understand, if they could read english.
To me, he’s the best. I love his books.
September 16th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Einstein should not be condemned for the atomic bomb. If anything, to date, the atom bomb has probably saved more lives than it has destroyed. Since all the major powers got their hands on it, there has not been a large general war like WWI or WW2, which would have killed a lot more people than those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ofcourse the jury is still out on the bomb and coz it might still wipe us off the face of the planet. But I think Einstein should be a contender.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 am
umgrego:
This will probably go unread by you now, as it’s so long after the fact, but since I posted to you on August 14 and you saw fit to not respond until nearly a week later (August 20) I can hardly be blamed. I had assumed, at the time, that you were simply not going to reply, and after a few days I ceased looking in on this thread.
Now I happen in here and find that you DID ultimately respond to me. So….
“I’ll sum up the first point of my first comment with a quote: ‘If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants’. – Isaac Newton. Major ideas are built on the strong foundations provided by previous thinkers.”
NOT ALWAYS. For god’s sake, you are incredibly obstinate, umgrego, like a dog tucking into a bone he just won’t give up on.
Simply because Newton, modestly, said what he said, does not make it a truism for all time and all people.
But it’s also irrelevant, even if it were fairly universally true, because you STILL HAVE NO ARGUMENT. What, after all, are you saying? Are you arguing that men like Newton shouldn’t be given credit for what they did, because they built their work on the work of others that came before them? I highly doubt you’d actually argue that. But then what? That SOME credit is due to others? That must be judged in each individual case. And in the case of Jesus we have NO evidence that he was influenced by ANY previous teachings or individuals in formulating the words and ethos that is known to be his and exists in his name.
“So, although I also proposed a thinker as a candidate for someone who has done the most good, I was trying to put forward the notion that identifying philosophical idols ignores the work of previous people.”
And I am telling you that this is silly, as it must A) be judged on a case-by-case basis, and B) there ARE men of genius from time to time, in human history, who have formulated their own ideas, or have founded artistic movements or new branches of science (etc.) which owe very little to previous ideas and previous individuals.
“I was hoping that I would get some intelligent views on this notion, not that I would be sworn at.”
You DID get intelligent views, and you chose not to listen to them or heed them. You were sworn at, justifiably, when you were childishly obstinate–clearly because you didn’t want to concede an argument. Grow up and live with it.
“The second point of my first comment was that “christian morality” is not the equivalent of Jesus’ teachings and that neither Jesus nor “christian morality” is responsible for “everything we hold dear in civilization, from human rights to health care”.”
And you are, in fact, historically INACCURATE in this–christian morality and, viz, the teachings of Jesus ARE in fact responsible for, YES, much of what we hold dear in western civilization—at least in terms of those ethical/humanitarian/compassionate values which we consider, today, to be basic to us.
“The first human rights document is attributed to a persian empire and was created well before Jesus was born.”
This is simply a FLAT OUT FALSEHOOD. Obviously what you’ve done is look up something somewhere so you could try to fling it out here (again) in hopes of introducing some chink in the armor. Childish, again, and transparent.
It’d be amusing to find out what it is you were referring to. Sadly this will probably never get a response at this late date. My guess would be the code of Hammurabi, however–who was NOT Persian (one of the LEAST things the Persians were known for was human rights, let alone codifying them). But at any rate, whatever you were referring to, the mere fact that an ancient culture made some statement loosely related to “rights” does NOT make them the originators of the idea. An idea has to have full fruition to BE an idea—it doesn’t belong to someone simply because they’re the first to mention it. Are you arguing, then, that we should build monuments of human rights to the Persians, because you claim they had some sliver of a notion of it?
“The human rights movement in ‘the west’ was given a huge boost in the 18th century thanks to a group of philosophers who were decidedly not christians.”
And again, a deliberate and bald-faced falsehood. A) the deists and rationalists were NOT a monolithic group—indeed, it would have been entirely out of keeping for them to be so—and the fact is that many of them DID consider themselves to be loosely Christian and/or to issue from a Christian ethos and underpinning. B) Whoever said this argument was about “human rights” anyway? The discussion originally centered on ethics and humanitarian compassion–NOT solely on human rights, which is more political in nature. C) You’re off the mark anyway–a “boost” is not the same as actually ORIGINATING the idea. D) This “boost” you speak of was not at all done out of the blue and DID in fact have a direct line of descent, in terms of philosophical thinking and ethical treatment, going back VERY far into the history of the west.
“An extremely early example of public health care comes from India, again before Jesus was born.”
AGAIN–bringing up a SINGLE, isolated example does NOT make your argument, umgrego. Are you arguing that we should therefore thank India for modern health care?
Your arguments were specious, shrill, desperate, and obstinately childish. It’s just a shame that I missed your final statement and couldn’t be here with a timely answer to perhaps shame you into admitting any of this.
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
“If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”. – Isaac Newton.
Randall – slightly offtopic, and you possibly already know this…whilst such talk of “giants” in Newton’s age would typically have been a reference to the Ancients, there is a particularly acidic bite to Newton’s choice of these specific words – there is evidence that they were a deliberate double entendre. Newton and Robert Hooke had become very bitter scientific rivals (Hooke, I think, being the Chairman of the Royal Society at that time).
Contemporary descriptions depict Hooke as being of “crooked and low stature” (almost dwarflike, according to some). Newton’s words were, of course, intended for Hooke, himself, to read (in a letter to him) with a view to both highlighting his physical stature and eliminating him from inclusion amongst the preceding intellectual greats to whom Newton is referring.
Whilst we might never know the absolute truth behind this anecdote, Newton did have previous form : he wrote to an ex-colleague once to apologise for “having wished him dead”…
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
fuck jesus. all hes good for is mowing my lawn
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:45 am
John Winston Lennon.
Not only did he help change the face of music FOREVER, he was also an advocate for world peace and animal rights.
jesus…no.
george bush (with the HW or just the w)….dont think so..
all these people have done is help kill our fellow man in the name of something they dont even know exists
(in one case, the man himself. in the other, WMDs.)
John Fuckin’ Lennon…
no question in my mind.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:49 am
I second the vote for John Lennon, for the same reasons.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:08 am
prophet muhammad s.a.w – the last prophet
October 13th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Rick Astley, for making such a great music video in the 1980’s
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Paul Newman
January 17th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I think many people have done good for the world. There are many different types of “good”.
Social good like Martin Luther king and Gandhi.
Scientific good like Fleming.
You also have people like Churchill who would be described as having done good.
My personal view is that no person can claim to have done the most good. Though I think all those who fight against tyranny and discrimination are doing more good than any of us could ever do in our lifetimes.
February 10th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
321. Eggs
You were thinking of Mendel.
I agree with the four or five people who mentioned Adolf Hitler. The list never stipulates that the individual did the most good act but rather society is better because of the person.
February 21st, 2009 at 5:36 pm
you know I really cant say anyone more than the other. Because of all of the legimitate opinions expressed here it would be a tremdous job to single out either one person.
I think of all the ‘founders of religon” who preach love goodness and tolerance, or act as the old wise man.
I look at the comments for norman bourlaug who i didnt even know about and realize i am not as well read as i thought.
I look at individuals who were the right person at the right time – churchill for one.
Great people – Mother thersea (sorry about the spelling)
I will pick one it must be the glass of wine i am drinking it is
The person you can talk to when you are down, the person you can confide in or run things by. I would hope that all of us whoever we are, have that person, for me that’s the person I would pick.
March 20th, 2009 at 11:05 am
If you think that over population of our planet is a bad thing in that case the one of the worst men of all time would be the best. Stalin , I think he is evil but I am just saying..
March 23rd, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Bill Gates.
1. He created jobs for countless people.
2. He founded scholarship programs to help others go to college and pursue their dreams.
3. He created the technology which has enabled many businesses and private citizens to be more productive in their daily lives.
He may not be the most moral person to ever walk this earth, but I was simply addressing the original question: Who did the most GOOD for society.
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:21 am
Jesus F Christ!
June 18th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
OK, I’m not Catholic, but you guys are all getting off the point with this Jesus thing (specifically people killed in the name of religion). First of all, Jesus never harmed anyone in any way. He would not have wanted all this killing in his name. So why blame it on him? Secondly, The question is who has done the most good for humanity, period. If you argue about bad things people have done, that’s getting off the subject. So if you count JUST GOOD THINGS, Jesus is top three, easy, maybe even #1.
By the way, Superman has done more good than everyone else in all these comments put together. He routinely saves the world from total destruction from a variety of causes. If he were real, he would even blow away Jesus on this list. There would be no question.
I know that some of you are going to take this the wrong way, but I think the comparison should be made: Think of how many people were saved by the deaths of both Jesus and Hitler. Not that they had anything else in common, other than they both (conceivably) had noses. lol