Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Aristotle, because his idea's along with many other Greek philosophies shaped the whole of the western world to what it is today...And id say Confucius for his impact of the way of life of the people in the far eastern world
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    Well shall we start with Churchill didn't committ genocide on a trully biblical scale and plunge the world into the third world war...? True, I did pay little attention to your quote mainly due to its irrelence why should I care about the opinion of one sordid historian? There's plenty out there who say hitler was a grossly misunderstood fellow and the holocaust never happened, should we listen I them to?


    Why don't you look back at your first post after I mentioned Churchill? You might then realise the point that I'm trying to get at, which you've failed to grasp in glorious fashion. Also, it's laughable that you've created this argument based on not reading the quote that started it. That "one sordid historian" uses evidence to back up his points. If Holocaust deniers and those that say Hitler is misunderstood can provide solid and reliable evidence, then why shouldn't we listen to them?

    (Original post by cl_steele)
    I never said he was a nice person? Thus I have no need to back up anything I said as all I did was lay into your attack on him. Besides my original remark stands why bash the person whom without there's a enter than good chance your family would have been slaughtered like cattle?
    Utterly ridiculous comment. You could say that about anyone! I don't know why you're making it such a big deal. It's history; people are allowed different opinions. I'm not going to go into this "But without him X would have happened", because it goes away from the point. Your argument lacks any solid ground.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeonVII)
    Oh believe me, some people do follow Jesus and live their entire lives for him without being necessarily restricted to Christianity as an organised religion per say.

    Yes he can be blamed for the origin of religion, which isnt a bad thing. The religion then was distorted, you cant blame him for that.

    That's like blaming the fact that thousands of people a year are burnt by acid on the person who discovered acid. It's illogical.
    I've never heard of anyone being a Jesus follower, I would imagine almost everyone who worships Jesus is Christian.

    You keep saying its distorted but how do you know it is? How do you know that people who have used religion for the wrong reasons don't have the right interpretation?

    It's nothing like that, acid is natural not manmade unlike religion, most people who get burnt by acid get burnt accidentally, killing in the name of religion isn't an accident.

    (Original post by cl_steele)
    Essentially comparing the two, and the fact it was hitler if all people was just laughable... Godwin's law incarnate.
    Not especially, to scrutinise sure but he wasn't as such scrutinising him as slamming him.
    Why can't he be slammed? He wasn't the great person that history seems to make him out to be. Hitler was used to show how your principle could be applied.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    It's all very well to judge a dead man isn't it. What you're forgetting is it was quite the norm back then and perfectly acceptable to think like that, many would probably call you a filthy frothing socialist back then to boot... The fact that you'd slander the man who helped save the empire in its darkest day when he's dead is quite pathetic really. Respect the dead, especially those who without you almost certainly wouldn't be alive. And besides his beliefs weren't even especially bad for the age.
    We're looking for the greatest person in history. What was normal in his time is irrelevant. I'll bet there was a time when genocide (well, actually doing it) was normal but I'm still not going to overlook it if a supposed "greatest human in history" had committed such a thing. People in general have gotten better over the years, the fact that everybody was a **** at the time of a not quite modern thinking person's life does not excuse them.

    Anyway, **** the empire, and besides, if not for the empire, it is possible that the war he fought might not have happened in the first place as Hitler's rise to power happened as the result of the aftermath of the First World War, as Kaiser Wilhelm's empire building may not have occurred if he wasn't jealous of the British empire.

    Also, to quote Lemmy Kilmister:

    “F**k this "Don't speak ill of the dead" ****! People don't become better when they are dead; you just talk about them as if they are. But it's not true! People are still a**holes, they're just dead a**holes.”
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordVoldemort1)
    There's always going to be an idiot who bashes Islam on a thread.

    You sir, are this hours idiot :congrats:
    I'm sure you would bash me if I nominated any other paedophile for the title of greatest human in history.

    But, of course, you give special treatment to Islam...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Having an impact doesn't make a person great. I hate to make Godwin's Law violations, but Hitler had quite a big impact, yet noone in the right mind would consider him great.

    Don't get me wrong, from what I've heard at least, Jesus was quite a great man, however, the fact that he had an impact is not the reason why he was great - rather the things he taught.
    Hitler has only influenced the last 80 years, whereas Jesus has the last two thousand, and much more so.

    If not Jesus, who?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordVoldemort1)
    :bootyshake:
    I'll assume you're conceding the point
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I am Dog)
    Hitler has only influenced the last 80 years, whereas Jesus has the last two thousand, and much more so.

    If not Jesus, who?
    Alexander the Great. Man love for the win.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I am Dog)
    Hitler has only influenced the last 80 years, whereas Jesus has the last two thousand, and much more so.

    If not Jesus, who?
    I don't know. I wasn't necessarily saying no to Jesus - just the particular argument you used for him. Having an impact does not make a person great. I'll bet there were a lot of truly great people who nobody has ever heard of, which come to think about, sound like a good answer frankly - we've probably never heard of him/her.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingofNil)
    Genghis Khan- literally the ultimate rags to riches story. Founder of second biggest empire in the world.
    Yet, despite being huge, the Mongolian empire has left so little legacy. One could argue Caesar because the Roman Empire has shaped our world from politics to architecture to religion to language, but travel round Iran, China and most of central Asia today and you'd be hard pressed to see much in the way of Mongol influence.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LewisG123)
    I've never heard of anyone being a Jesus follower, I would imagine almost everyone who worships Jesus is Christian.

    You keep saying its distorted but how do you know it is? How do you know that people who have used religion for the wrong reasons don't have the right interpretation?

    It's nothing like that, acid is natural not manmade unlike religion, most people who get burnt by acid get burnt accidentally, killing in the name of religion isn't an accident.



    Why can't he be slammed? He wasn't the great person that history seems to make him out to be. Hitler was used to show how your principle could be applied.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But killing in the name of religion is not Jesus' teaching because he never preached murder, so that's clearly an example of distortion.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeonVII)
    But killing in the name of religion is not Jesus' teaching because he never preached murder, so that's clearly an example of distortion.
    First off, how do you know that? Please don't cite the bible as your source because it proves nothing.

    Secondly, as I said, people don't follow Jesus, they follow Christianity. Without Jesus there would be no Christian religion so his legacy is Christianity which has been far from perfect in the last 2000 years


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by navarre)
    Yet, despite being huge, the Mongolian empire has left so little legacy. One could argue Caesar because the Roman Empire has shaped our world from politics to architecture to religion to language, but travel round Iran, China and most of central Asia today and you'd be hard pressed to see much in the way of Mongol influence.
    All very valid points. I'm just saying it is for me he is the greatest because of what he managed to achieve considering his origins. All othe leaders, Caesar, Bonaparte Had a leg up in terms of education, aristocratic background etc or worked their way up through an existing structure e.g roman generals from humble origins. Admittedly Genghis was from a very minor aristocratic background but his family was left to die in a Mongolian winter after his father died. He had to kill a brother during those times and went on to wrench the disparate factions of his homeland into one nation. That just resonates with me but to each their own
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Angry Spartan)
    You've never studied Cromwell, have you?


    How, exactly, did he win? By the end of his life he was essentially a monarch in all but name. He illegally disbanded the Rump Parliament, had a direct military rule and then tried to influence the results of an election to Parliament. He was worse than Charles.
    I couldn't agree more in essence he was really nothing more than a dictator. Wasn't he also responsible for 200,00 civilian deaths during the conquest of Ireland and a further 40 or so thousand captured and rounded up as slaves? I guess he was the Hitler or Stalin of his period.

    Greatest human in the History of History? Has to be Isambard Kingdom Brunel. A true genius
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Humphrey Gilbert or Stalin


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ryan_1993)
    I couldn't agree more in essence he was really nothing more than a dictator. Wasn't he also responsible for 200,00 civilian deaths during the conquest of Ireland and a further 40 or so thousand captured and rounded up as slaves? I guess he was the Hitler or Stalin of his period.
    How many deaths he was responsible for in Ireland is disputable, as is the "legality" of the massacres at Wexford and Drogheda. However his policies in Ireland displaced many thousands of Irish Catholics of their land and, if I'm correct, many were sent to the West Indies.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    We're looking for the greatest person in history. What was normal in his time is irrelevant. I'll bet there was a time when genocide (well, actually doing it) was normal but I'm still not going to overlook it if a supposed "greatest human in history" had committed such a thing. People in general have gotten better over the years, the fact that everybody was a **** at the time of a not quite modern thinking person's life does not excuse them.
    On the contrary, I would say that what was normal for the time is extremely relevant. In a society where the genocide of one particular race was the norm and expected by society, a great man would start by encouraging others to overlook the less obvious members of that race, and progress by slowly trying to change public opinion in favour of toleration.

    But to promote complete equality in that society right from the beginning would be the work of a suicidal madman with no hope of success - even though that same person might be considered a great man in our own, already equal, society.

    George Washington kept slaves. Abraham Lincoln did not object to racial segregation. Both are considered great men because in an unequal country they succeeded in making small changes for the better while other, more radical public figures, failed to make bigger changes and have been forgotten.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arbolus)
    But to promote complete equality in that society right from the beginning would be the work of a suicidal madman with no hope of success
    Does it matter if you succeed? I mean, yeah, if it jepodises one's ability for the progression to occur at all I can understand, however, I don't think that would have been the case, and even if it were, that doesn't excuse them for continuing to support the atrocity personally.

    (Original post by Arbolus)
    - even though that same person might be considered a great man in our own, already equal, society.
    I wouldn't consider our society to be entirely equal. We are getting there, but still.


    (Original post by Arbolus)
    George Washington kept slaves.
    And was therefore a ****. Even if it were that the reason he didn't speak out against it was because he was afraid of the repercussions, that still doesn't excuse him for owning slaves himself.

    (Original post by Arbolus)
    Abraham Lincoln did not object to racial segregation. Both are considered great men because in an unequal country they succeeded in making small changes for the better
    Okay. Now let's imagine you had a time machine and you went back in time to meet them. Call me crazy, but I don't think most people would be too happy discussing politics with a slave owner or an extreme racist. You might still enjoy talking to them about other stuff and perhaps even praise them for it, however I don't know about you but the moment they brought up support for slavery and racial segregation would the moment my capacity to listen to them would end.

    (Original post by Arbolus)
    while other, more radical public figures, failed to make bigger changes and have been forgotten.
    But the fact is they at least tried, and THAT is what makes a person great - not pandering to social convention.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Oh lord, what a question! there are so many humans who are worth to mention. In my point of view, philosophers, scientists, artists, freedom fighters and lyricists are the ones who should be count, but that is subjective. My favorites are (in an indefinite order):

    Isaac Newton, Marie Curie, Otto Hahn, Michael Faraday, Immanuel Kant, Albert Einstein, Gregor Mendel, Karl Landsteiner, Mahadma Ghandi, Leonardo Da Vinchi, Benjamin Franklin, Graham Bell, Heinrich Hertz, Wright Brothers, Alessandro Volta, Nelson Mandela, Hippokrates, Aristotle and so on.

    This list is endless. Each and every one of them made a contribution to the mankind. It is difficult to compare them.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.