|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 28 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Nov-18-04 | | Pawsome: < BishopBerkeley:>Thanks for the arresting websites. I've shipped them off to some astronomically bent friends.
Cheers. |
|
Nov-29-04
 | | BishopBerkeley: I was just leafing through my copy of "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" by freelance writer Michael H. Hart (Citadel Press; Revised edition [October 1, 1992], ISBN: 0806513500, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t... ). This ambitious book attempts to rank in order the 100 most influential persons in human history. Though my list would be quite different (as I suspect yours would!), I do think he's done a reasonably good job at a daunting and controversial task. As I was considering his list, I began to wonder how many Chessplayers there are on the list. Of course, many of these people lived before Chess had come into being (to our knowledge), and even during the "Chess Age", many of them lived in culture regions in which it was not played. I think there are four known Chessplayers on the list: (#10) Albert Einstein, (#34) Napoleon Bonaparte, (#64) Thomas Jefferson, and (#84) Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov). I also believe (#27) Karl Marx, (#74) Voltaire, and (#78) Jean-Jacques Rousseau played our wonderful game. (Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this?) (#90) Francis Bacon refers to it in his writings and demonstrates a familiarity with the concept of "stalemate", so he may have been a Chessplayer. I intend to provide the entire list in a subsequent message. I wonder, does anyone know if anyone else on this list was a Chessplayer? Thanks in advance for any help you might provide! (: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
Nihil obstat. |
|
Nov-29-04
| | BishopBerkeley: The 100 Most Influential Persons in Human History (?)
(according to freelance writer Michael H. Hart's "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History") 1. Muhammed
2. Isaac Newton
3. Jesus Christ
4. Buddha
5. Confucius
6. St. Paul
7. Ts’ai Lun
8. Johann Gutenberg
9. Christopher Columbus
10. Albert Einstein
11. Louis Pasteur
12. Galileo Galilei
13. Aristotle
14. Euclid
15. Moses
16. Charles Darwin
17. Shih Huang Ti
18. Augustus Caesar
19. Nicolaus Copernicus
20. Antoine Laurent Lavoisier
21. Constantine the Great
22. James Watt
23. Michael Faraday
24. James Clerk Maxwell
25. Martin Luther
26. George Washington
27. Karl Marx
28. Orville and Wilbur Wright
29. Genghis Khan
30. Adam Smith
31. Edward de Vere [better known as “Shakespeare”]*
32. John Dalton
33. Alexander the Great
34. Napoleon Bonaparte
35. Thomas Edison
36. Antony van Leeuwenhoek
37. William T. G. Morton
38. Guglielmo Marconi
39. Adolf Hitler
40. Plato
41. Oliver Cromwell
42. Alexander Graham Bell
43. Alexander Fleming
44. John Locke
45. Ludwig van Beethoven
46. Werner Heisenberg
47. Louis Daguerre
48. Simon Bolivar
49. Rene Descartes
50. Michelangelo
51. Pope Urban II
52. “Umar ibn al-Khattab
53. Asoka
54. St. Augustine
55. William Harvey
56. Ernest Rutherford
57. John Calvin
58. Gregor Mendel
59. Max Planck
60. Joseph Lister
61. Nikolaus August Otto
62. Francisco Pizarro
63. Hernando Cortes
64. Thomas Jefferson
65. Queen Isabella I
66. Joseph Stalin
67. Julius Caesar
68. William the Conqueror
69. Sigmund Freud
70. Edward Jenner
71. William Conrad Roentgen
72. Johann Sebastian Bach
73. Lao Tzu
74. Voltaire
75. Johannes Kepler
76. Enrico Fermi
77. Leonhard Euler
78. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
79. Niccolo Machiavelli
80. Thomas Malthus
81. John F. Kennedy**
82. Gregory Pincus
83. Mani
84. Lenin
85. Sui Wen Ti
86. Vasco da Gama
87. Cyrus the Great
88. Peter the Great
89. Mao Zedong
90. Francis Bacon
91. Henry Ford
92. Mencius
93. Zoroaster
94. Queen Elizabeth I
95. Mikhail Gorbachev
96. Menes
97. Charlemagne
98. Homer
99. Justinian I
100. Mahavira
Notes:
*As if it weren’t controversial enough to rank the most influential persons in history, Mr. Hart goes on to inform us that his research strongly suggests that William Shakespeare was not the author of the plays usually attributed to him, but rather, that they were written by a nobleman named Edward de Vere! Of course, “Anti-Shakespearean” theories have been floating around for centuries. Perhaps the most familiar version is the one that attributes the plays to Francis Bacon (who happens to occupy position 90 on this list, and of whom it has often been said that he was the last person in history to know everything that was knowable in his time. Incidentally, the Bacon authorship hypothesis is sometimes referred to as the "Shake ‘n’ Bake Theory") Hart’s arguments in favor of de Vere’s authorship are interesting, but one wonders if this is the best forum in which to debate this old and controversial question. If the issue had to be raised at all, Mr. Hart might have listed #31 as “The Shakespearean Author”. **Hart is careful to point out that he includes President John F. Kennedy in the list for one reason and one reason alone: for his role in advancing humanity’s first moon landing. (: ♗B :)
P.S. Again, my list would be quite different! |
|
Nov-29-04
| | BishopBerkeley: Additional notes on "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" by freelance writer Michael H. Hart 1. I think it is extremely difficult to rank the relative influence of the great spiritual leaders and innovators of the human race – not to mention the fact that it tends to arouse very strong emotions! But from a purely historical point of view, my list would have made no attempt to rank Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, or Confucius relative to one another. I agree with the notion that the great spiritual teachers of human kind are perhaps the most influential single group of persons in human history, but I think I would have simply listed them alongside each other. 2. Mr. Hart has also co-written a book called “"A View from the Year 3000" (by Michael H. Hart and Arturo Kukeni, Poseidon Press, ISBN: 0967107709, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t... ) The description at Amazon.com: “This book lists the 100 most influential persons of all time (as judged by a fictitious person living in the year 3000), ranks them in the order of their overall importance, and gives a brief biography of each person, describing what he or she did, and why it was so important. Half the characters are real persons from the past, the other half are fictitious persons from the next millennium. (Includes historical table, glossary, and index.)” An interesting idea!
(: ♗B :) |
|
| Nov-29-04 | | SBC: <BishopBerkeley> .
While everyone, of course, would have their own list and ranking, as I read through the names. I did notice three conspicuous absences: Alexander the Great, Timur Lenk (Tamerlame) and Leonardo da Vinci. |
|
Nov-29-04
| | BishopBerkeley: <SBC> Actually, in reviewing the list, I see that Alexander occupies slot #33 (notwithstanding the poor reviews his recent movie got! http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ale... ). But his omission would surely have been a mistake, no doubt! Mr. Hart addresses some controversial omissions in his book. I believe both Leonardo and Tamerlane are discussed. I don't have the book with me at the moment, but perhaps I'll post some of his thoughts on those historical persons later. I would have included both on my list I believe. Though I'm sure my list would immediately sprawl to 500, and trimming back the least influential 400 would be the trick! Thanks!
(: ♗B :) |
|
| Nov-29-04 | | SBC: <BishopBerkeley>
<I see that Alexander occupies slot #33> It amazing how many times I reread the list looking specifically for Alexander and never saw it. Next thing you know, you'll be informing me that Muhammed, Sir Isaac Newton and Jesus Christ made the list too. |
|
| Nov-29-04 | | Willem Wallekers: Who are the numbers 7, 17, 37, 60, 61, 82, 83, 85, 92, 96 and 100, and how may they have had influence on me? |
|
| Nov-29-04 | | acirce: There is a recorded game between Stalin and Yezhov, although believed to be staged -- I do think Stalin knew how to play the game, though. See the last posts on Napoleon Bonaparte vs Madame De Remusat, 1804 |
|
Nov-29-04
| | BishopBerkeley: <SBC: Next thing you know, you'll be informing me that Muhammed, Sir Isaac Newton and Jesus Christ made the list too.> Well, my creaky neurons seem to recall at least one of them on the list! :) I used the "Edit" > "Find in This Page" feature of my Mozilla browser to double check the Alexander situation. Being a graduate/victim of the Evelyn Wood Speed Reading Program, I do sometimes miss names in lists. (Actually, I don't know if that program is still taught, but I certainly was happy to have had the experience of taking that course. I do think speed reading should be used selectively though.) Decrepping with Dignity as always....
(: ♗B :) |
|
| Nov-29-04 | | azaris: <The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History> Interesting that he would include Leonhard Euler but not Carl Friedrich Gauss. |
|
| Nov-29-04 | | Willem Wallekers: Bishop:
http://www.geocities.com/siliconval... is a list of people who play chess, but had to do something on the side to acquire fame. |
|
Nov-29-04
| | BishopBerkeley: <Willem Wallekers: Who are the numbers 7, 17, 37, 60, 61, 82, 83, 85, 92, 96 and 100, and how may they have had influence on me?> I bet you could find out by searching for them at http://www.wikipedia.org/ (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ts%27a... ) or http://www.google.com/ (in quotation marks with the latter). Thank you for that link! <acirce> Thank you. I see that (not surprisingly) it was said to be a victory for Stalin! (Incidentally, I once stumbled upon this strange multi-panel cartoon involving Stalin, Hitler, and Lenin as super-villains (or something like this), but not being able to read Russian, I missed the point of it. I believe it has now been translated, but I just don't feel the urgency to work my way through it! http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/zone/... ) <azaris> I had immediately noticed Gauss's omission, which is all the more odd, since Mr. Hart is quite scientifically literate! (: ♗B :) |
|
| Nov-29-04 | | TheSlid: The 100 - a fascinating list <BishopBerkeley> - one could argue about this for a long time. I liked St Paul at number 6, but did not see Pythagaras. Gauss is presumably excluded for weak marketing. |
|
| Nov-29-04 | | percyblakeney: I think I might include Gandhi and Bill Gates on my influential persons list. |
|
| Nov-29-04 | | Poulsen: The 100-list is highly speculative in my opinion.
Note, most of scientists on the list comes from english-speaking countries - just as the author of the list. It lists Einstein but not Bohr.
Denghis Khan - but not Kublai Khan.
Ford but not Benz or Daimler.
Gorbachev but not Jeltsin.
...
I could go on, but I have to work - with some meaningfull and important stuff ... |
|
Nov-29-04
| | BishopBerkeley: Incidentally, owing to <Willem Wallekers>' post, I discovered that Wikipedia.org has a presentation of this list along with a phrase describing the historical person in question. Quite nicely done! Hart's "The 100" list, annotated at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100
(: ♗B :) |
|
| Nov-29-04 | | acirce: <The book was reprinted in 1992 with several noticeable revisions made to the original list of 100 people and their associated rankings. Chief among these revisions was the demotion of figures associated with Communism like Lenin and Joseph Stalin, and the introduction of Mikhail Gorbachev> |
|
| Nov-29-04 | | acirce: <Poulsen> Why would Benz and Daimler have been as influential as Ford? The point is not, I'd think, as much car production per se as the manufacturing ideas, perfecting the assembly line concept for mass production etc .. But yes, I agree that the list is speculative and subjective, it's hard to imagine how it could be otherwise. |
|
| Nov-29-04 | | percyblakeney: And including Edward de Vere seems to be the most speculative thing on that list... I agree with http://www.shakespeareauthorship.co... "A man named William Shakespeare, from Stratford, was a member of the acting company which put on the plays. Heminges and Condell in the First Folio explicitly say that their 'friend and fellow' Shakespeare was the author of the plays, and a monument to his memory was built in the Stratford church. [---] Shakespeare of Stratford was consistently recognized as the author after his death and throughout the seventeenth century." |
|
| Nov-29-04 | | Poulsen: acirce: i agree with you - i don't want to exclude Ford from the list - but Benz and Daimler were pioneers in carproduction as fathers of the gasoline engine thus creating the outspring of the modern car, which transformed the world. In my opinion they are even more important than the Wright-brothers, that just "were lucky" to be the first to have a controlled and confirmed motorized flight in fairly close "race" against inventors from France and other countries. |
|
Nov-29-04
 | | keypusher: I probably would have flipped Homer and Euclid on the list, because Homer was the foundation for literary and political education in the pre-Christian Mediterranean world, as Euclid was for mathematics, and I think he had somewhat greater effect on human conduct and hence subsequent history than Euclid -- not least on #33 on Mr. Hart's list! Coming up with an apposite quote from the Iliad in any situation was the mark of an educated man in antiquity. Thanks for a very interesting coversation piece, Bishop B. |
|
| Nov-29-04 | | Willem Wallekers: Thanks Bischop, most of my questions are answered,
I find some of them still rather obscure though, like
Mani founder of Manicheanism
Emperor Wen of Sui China Unified China, founder of the Sui dynasty
Menes unified Upper and Lower Egypt
Mahavira founder of Jainism
Speaking for myself I don't think I want to know much about manicheanism
or jainism.
Unifying Egypt and China, those monarchs were famous long ago, but then again relevance for present times may not have been the main criterium. As could be expected the list is somewhat biased towards English speakers
with for example
Elisabeth I vs. Louis XIV
Lister vs. Semmelweiss
Locke vs. Spinoza |
|
| Nov-29-04 | | suenteus po 147: <biased towards English speakers> It's a terrible American conceit. We believe English speakers are always more influential for two reasons: 1.)There's an appalling lack of knowledge concerning non-English contexts, and 2.)We see English as the world language, thus English speakers will always have a greater world influence. |
|
| Nov-29-04 | | Benzol: <suenteus po 17> Shouldn't that be terrible British conceit.
It was the establishment of the British Empire that lead to the dominating position of the English language. The British were too lazy and/or arrogant and imposed themselves upon the local populations. The locals were treated as second-class citizens in their own countries. This also included America BTW. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 28 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
