the greatest person poll. finally.

[dai the flu]

i think its time for the poll. i've compiled the top nominees (excluding the obvious joke answers). i really am interested in the results. (though im tempted to leave out darwin just to antagonize lunchforthesky).

[open mind]

you'll never guess who i picked.

[Broken Parachute]

I voted Lincoln. Without him we have no country, and we're still probably segregated. Although he obviously had nothing to do with Jim Crow laws, the world would have been an extremely different place if he hadn't united the country and ended slavery.

[myantiyou]

lol, 3 for Jesus.

I vote Lincoln.

[Shatter590]

i vote da vinci.

but its a good list overall.

[Shatter590]

i think its time for the poll. i've compiled the top nominees (excluding the obvious joke answers). i really am interested in the results. (though im tempted to leave out darwin just to antagonize lunchforthesky).

im gonna say it: darwin wasnt all that important. he wasnt the first to propose evolutionary concepts, nor was he the only one at the time to develop the theory.

[doubletrue]

jesus is gonna own this poll...you can't beat God. :-p

[aminorthreat55]

How do we get Aristotle and Marx but no Plato or Socrates?

[Shatter590]

id vote da vinci, Ben. marx was influential, but his ideas were flawed.

this list is missing a lot. like Galileo and Copernicus

even Linnaeus could have been on here.

[FallingOut]

I figured when you said "person" it would have to be somebody who actually existed...

[Shatter590]

I did in the end. Marx indirectly caused too much wrong with the world. I'd rather stick with the church mocking, scientist, artist, genius, homosexual.

marx has great ideals, but communism was fatally flawed from the get-go.

[Spewk]

i said darwin

[Justin_stacy]

Lincoln three votes......?

[Love As Arson]

marx has great ideals, but communism was fatally flawed from the get-go.
The philosophy surrounding communism was fine. It was the application of it in countries with no industrial basis or working class to speak of, which caused the totalitarian regimes we're familiar with, though Cuba does not actually count.

By the way, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebelling states. It was not the benevolent document that it is made out to be.

[Sleepaway]

I voted for Jesus.

[Shatter590]

The philosophy surrounding communism was fine. It was the application of it in countries with no industrial basis or working class to speak of, which caused the totalitarian regimes we're familiar with, though Cuba does not actually count.

By the way, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in rebelling states. It was not the benevolent document that it is made out to be.

agreed on the Eman. Proc.

but yeah. communism only works on paper. it just cant be applied successfully.

[doubletrue]

Also it is funny how many Christians have just accepted that Jesus was a man.

what's wrong with that?

[Love As Arson]

but yeah. communism only works on paper. it just cant be applied successfully.
I would disagree, obviously, but I find it interesting that that sort of maxim continues to persist without question. That is to say, I imagine that it is beneficial to posit that communism is impossible in a capitalist society, as it limits the options of the people. I imagine if one put forth the capitalist market in feudal society, they would have told that it is impossible.

[tnwlf13]

For better or worse and everything in between Jesus has been by far the most important human in history. Our calender is even measured, albeit innacurrately, based on Christ's existence. Most major wars, and several civilizations are based on a love or hatred for Christ, Christianity and its major tennets (sp?). It seems pretty silly to me to suggest that anyone on that list was more important than Christ. There is no more polarizing or prominent figure in world history. And yes I know this is a very "western" point of view, but that does not affect its validity

[Shatter590]

I would disagree, obviously, but I find it interesting that that sort of maxim continues to persist without question. That is to say, I imagine that it is beneficial to posit that communism is impossible in a capitalist society, as it limits the options of the people. I imagine if one put forth the capitalist market in feudal society, they would have told that it is impossible.

well, the reason I say communism is impossible is because it does not take into account human selfishness and ambition. it requires for benevolence at a regulatory level that is highly unlikely in humans in positions of power.

[aminorthreat55]

How is Lincoln the greatest human ever??
Or even the greatest American? Whether he is the greatest in one country that has only existed for 230 years is questionable, nevermind the history of the world.

[aminorthreat55]

agreed on the Eman. Proc.

but yeah. communism only works on paper. it just cant be applied successfully.
I would disagree. Besides, since the publication of The Communist Manifesto several of Marx's ten goals have been achieved.

[TheOtherAndrew]

Jesus, for secular reasons.

[Love As Arson]

well, the reason I say communism is impossible is because it does not take into account human selfishness and ambition. it requires for benevolence at a regulatory level that is highly unlikely in humans in positions of power.
Human selfishness and ambition does not exist in a vacuum. In all historical periods, which thrive upon specific values, something is ascribed to human nature. In reality, that nature is something that is resultant of socialization of society. If one lives in a society, in which competition and selfishness is determined to be a value, of course, they will acclimate to it. However, the world has found numerous societies that have been egalitarian and have focused on the well-being of the community, rather than producing wealth for the few. It is not as though they are a simple aberration, as opposed to it being a product of their prescribed values.

For better or worse and everything in between Jesus has been by far the most important human in history. Our calender is even measured, albeit innacurrately, based on Christ's existence. Most major wars, and several civilizations are based on a love or hatred for Christ, Christianity and its major tennets (sp?). It seems pretty silly to me to suggest that anyone on that list was more important than Christ. There is no more polarizing or prominent figure in world history. And yes I know this is a very "western" point of view, but that does not affect its validity
The list has nothing to do with whether or not he is important, rather, it is whether or not he was the greatest person to exist.

[Broken Parachute]

I don't care, I liked Lincoln and I think he was important.

[Shatter590]

Human selfishness and ambition does not exist in a vacuum. In all historical periods, which thrive upon specific values, something is ascribed to human nature. In reality, that nature is something that is resultant of socialization of society. If one lives in a society, in which competition and selfishness is determined to be a value, of course, they will acclimate to it. However, the world has found numerous societies that have been egalitarian and have focused on the well-being of the community, rather than producing wealth for the few. It is not as though they are a simple aberration, as opposed to it being a product of their prescribed values.


The list has nothing to do with whether or not he is important, rather, it is whether or not he was the greatest person to exist.

see, truly egalitarian societies do exist, but always on the small scale. as population increases, the potential to remian true to those core values decreases with size. you see this in antropology all the time: stratification, which is the bane of a true egalitarian society, must develop in order to maintain order within the growing society. Even within a modern context, socieities that develop based on shared economics remain small, simply because if they were any larger, they would need to rank or perish, as it were. This is not just a human construct either, you see it in all primates and most animals. Amibition is part of the suite of traits we inherit from our ancestors. Its a survival mechanism.

[Love As Arson]

see, truly egalitarian societies do exist, but always on the small scale. as population increases, the potential to remian true to those core values decreases with size. you see this in antropology all the time: stratification, which is the bane of a true egalitarian society, must develop in order to maintain order within the growing society.
Anthropological studies suggest that stratification does not begin with the size of a society, but rather a surplus in the in food, as managers are anointed to deal out the surplus to a given society. These societies, however, were limited by their material conditions, whereas modern society has created the tools with which to achieve actual communism, especially with regard to the training of individual workers through unions.

Even within a modern context, socieities that develop based on shared economics remain small, simply because if they were any larger, they would need to rank or perish, as it were.
They remain small, because they have largely been marginalized by society. Further, it strikes me as particularly paternalistic to argue that individuals, in some form or another, need overseers, rather than being able to determine decisions within their own communities.


This is not just a human construct either, you see it in all primates and most animals.
Man differs from animal in that the expressed traits and may change nature as necessary, rather than being subject to it.
Not only do the objective conditions change in the act of reproduction, e.g. the village becomes a town, the wilderness a cleared field etc., but the producers change, too, in that they bring out new qualities in themselves, develop themselves in production, transform themselves, develop new powers and ideas, new modes of intercourse, new needs and new language.

. Amibition is part of the suite of traits we inherit from our ancestors. Its a survival mechanism.
Survival is the necessity, however, under capitalist conditions, ambition becomes the means to survive. It can be said that the need to survive can be transformed through a change in economic foundations of society.

[dai the flu]

Cause some dumbass made the poll who thinks Plato is the that planet/non planet at the end of our solar system.
i didn't pick the nominees. everyone did. not sure why you're trying to insult me?
and i like how you take issue with darwin on the list, even though you're the one who nominated him.

[love_american_style]

no, Colonel Sanders?

fuck this list.

[love_american_style]

but in all seriousness...Ghandi.

[Shatter590]

Anthropological studies suggest that stratification does not begin with the size of a society, but rather a surplus in the in food, as managers are anointed to deal out the surplus to a given society. These societies, however, were limited by their material conditions, whereas modern society has created the tools with which to achieve actual communism, especially with regard to the training of individual workers through unions.

food plays a role, but in many cases, resources are sought after birth rates increase. resource surpluses, while playing an important role, are not the only causes for population increase.


They remain small, because they have largely been marginalized by society. Further, it strikes me as particularly paternalistic to argue that individuals, in some form or another, need overseers, rather than being able to determine decisions within their own communities.

its not that individuals need overseers, its when those individuals become part of a "machine" that haveing regulation becomes necessary. individuals can accomplish regulation as individuals, but njot as a collective workforce

Man differs from animal in that the expressed traits and may change nature as necessary, rather than being subject to it.

perhaps, but we have more in common with our primate relatives than we notice.

Survival is the necessity, however, under capitalist conditions, ambition becomes the means to survive. It can be said that the need to survive can be transformed through a change in economic foundations of society.

collective survivalism is the base concept. its personal survivalism that breeds ambition. unfortunately, we as a society value the individual more thyan the collective whole. i know its very capitalist to say, but its how we have managed to evolve socially. it would take more than a marxist uprisign to change that, it would require a complete and total alteration to our most fundamental concepts of social order.

[Love As Arson]

collective survivalism is the base concept. its personal survivalism that breeds ambition.
There is a tendency in society to ascribe, retroactively, the ideals of itself to past ages. Ambition is one of those things. This is not to say I disagree with your point regarding the desire to survive, but I would not state ambition is characteristic of it, rather, I would say the characteristic expresses itself differently according to each period in time or each society.

i know its very capitalist to say, but its how we have managed to evolve socially.
Social evolution is not the result of any individual doing, but is a matter of the developing technologies. Further, the argument that society has only cared for the individual is a misstatement, as there are numerous instances through history, in which institutions and groups have been formed to deal with the inequities of society. If human nature were static, as you seem to suggest, there would be no desire to start of charities or create things like welfare, as they do not emphasize the individual.

it would take more than a marxist uprisign to change that, it would require a complete and total alteration to our most fundamental concepts of social order.
That is what a socialist revolution entails.

food plays a role, but in many cases, resources are sought after birth rates increase. resource surpluses, while playing an important role, are not the only causes for population increase.
The surplus is derived from the transformation into a sedentary society, which is founded upon agriculture. The birth rates, generally speaking, increased after this, as did the mortality rate for infants-which, by comparison to our own, do not look very appealing, but is high for that period in human history.


its not that individuals need overseers, its when those individuals become part of a "machine" that haveing regulation becomes necessary. individuals can accomplish regulation as individuals, but njot as a collective workforce
Why are collective groups unable to regulate themselves within the realm of production?

perhaps, but we have more in common with our primate relatives than we notice.
There are also large gulfs between ourselves and our primate relatives, one of those things being the malleability of instinctual traits.

[Shatter590]

There is a tendency in society to ascribe, retroactively, the ideals of itself to past ages. Ambition is one of those things. This is not to say I disagree with your point regarding the desire to survive, but I would not state ambition is characteristic of it, rather, I would say the characteristic expresses itself differently according to each period in time or each society.

matter of perspective

Social evolution is not the result of any individual doing, but is a matter of the developing technologies. Further, the argument that society has only cared for the individual is a misstatement, as there are numerous instances through history, in which institutions and groups have been formed to deal with the inequities of society. If human nature were static, as you seem to suggest, there would be no desire to start of charities or create things like welfare, as they do not emphasize the individual.

again, perspective. technology is not always the catalyst that leads to social evolution. particularly within mesopotamia and mesoamerica, technology followed the progression of social order. human nature is not static at all, as it is an ever evolving condition. it has little to do with the individual, everything to do with the society. what i was saying is that within modern society we are more self-centered than we once were, to the ends that the needs of the few tend to be prioritized over the needs of the many. we have stalled in terms of physical evolution, and unfortunately its beginning to extend to social order

That is what a socialist revolution entails.

im sure, but it must be more massive than what most people believe it to be

The surplus is derived from the transformation into a sedentary society, which is founded upon agriculture. The birth rates, generally speaking, increased after this, as did the mortality rate for infants-which, by comparison to our own, do not look very appealing, but is high for that period in human history.


Why are collective groups unable to regulate themselves within the realm of production?

large scale production requires some type of organization. im not talking about small scale, im talking about mobilization of a national force of sorts, like a fully regulated farm system

There are also large gulfs between ourselves and our primate relatives, one of those things being the malleability of instinctual traits.

again, not as much as one may think. our closest primate relatives use tools, coordinated tactics, and have complex systems of social organization.

[trindaddy]

i went with jesus do to him having the greatest influence that has reached the greatest number of people, but that poll is flawed. under no circumstances should lincoln, or mother teresa be on there. so many other people have by far had greater impact than those two. so many great philosophers and philanthropists and scientists have done by far more than those two combined. i still personally think that nobel should be on there.

sure lincoln and the mother are great people of the worlds history, but by all means they're not even top 20, let alone in the running for the greatest.

[Love As Arson]

again, not as much as one may think. our closest primate relatives use tools, coordinated tactics, and have complex systems of social organization.
I never denied this, however, I think it is intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge the large gulf between humans and the animal king, particularly with regard to the capabilities our minds.



technology is not always the catalyst that leads to social evolution. particularly within mesopotamia and mesoamerica, technology followed the progression of social order.
Technology and the economic basis of society are the pivots upon which change may occur. Take, for example, American slavery; the abolitionist movement did not begin to hold sway due to some discovery of a moral compass, rather, the industrial revolution took hold in the north, and necessitated free labor. A similar distinction can be drawn between the feudal age, in which the divine right of kings was predominant, and the emerging capitalist age, which held that rule must be justifed, and private property and individual rights were universal.


human nature is not static at all, as it is an ever evolving condition. it has little to do with the individual, everything to do with the society.
Agreed. This, in my opinion, is one of the features within humanity that allows it to achieve various socioeconomic conditions, including communism.


what i was saying is that within modern society we are more self-centered than we once were, to the ends that the needs of the few tend to be prioritized over the needs of the many. we have stalled in terms of physical evolution, and unfortunately its beginning to extend to social order
It seems that way, however, when one looks at the polling, things like social responsibility, welfare programs, charity, etc., are actually values that are held quite high. It is the framework which prevents any salient change.



im sure, but it must be more massive than what most people believe it to be
I agree. I have no illusions as to how massive the change may be, and how much work it would consist of.



large scale production requires some type of organization. im not talking about small scale, im talking about mobilization of a national force of sorts, like a fully regulated farm system
Self-management is not without organization,local or otherwise. The sole difference is it does not require a class system to sustain it.

[Justin_stacy]

sure lincoln and the mother are great people of the worlds history, but by all means they're not even top 20, let alone in the running for the greatest.

thats true for all but maybe 3 or 4 of the people listed.

[Nevuk]

i think its time for the poll. i've compiled the top nominees (excluding the obvious joke answers). i really am interested in the results. (though im tempted to leave out darwin just to antagonize lunchforthesky).
I'm voting for Einstein, but my real vote goes to Tesla.... which wasn't a joke answer.

[trindaddy]

I'm voting for Einstein, but my real vote goes to Tesla.... which wasn't a joke answer.
tesla is amazing. he helped bring in a second industrial revolution, invented the most important invention in the past century or so, the radio, and did more with a.c. current and physics that no other person has ever done.

[ResideInMyMind]

according to all the christians around here, jesus was the "son of god" and is part of the trinity and was therefore NOT a human being. now i think think otherwise, but the moment i tell christians that (jesus being a human) that is idol worshipping they flip out.


and someone was talking about all the bad that marx indirectly did on page one. what about the all the bad that resulted from christianity? we only hear about the supposed good, but we forget that christianity was/is utilized to endorse slavery, war, capitalism, etc. Hmmmm....


Vote Ghandi or don't vote at all that's what i say.

[ResideInMyMind]

Nooo, my point about christians saying that Jesus was a man and then denouncing idol worshipping was already made. damn those who posted before me.

[captainhampton]

voting Jesus just for lunchforthesky.

[doubletrue]

To ResideInMyMind:

i am one of the "christians around here" that you speak of, and the new testament clearly states that jesus was fully God and fully man (not one without the other). he was God in human form in other words. he was obviously a person, and there is historical facts to back that up, but the "fully God" belief is up for debate. i believe He is God, that is clearly the cornerstone of the Christian faith. if jesus is not God, then yes it is idol worship...and i'm not flipping out.

[aminorthreat55]

How did Gutenberg get overlooked as well?

[Nevuk]

tesla is amazing. he helped bring in a second industrial revolution, invented the most important invention in the past century or so, the radio, and did more with a.c. current and physics that no other person has ever done.
His idealism limited him, but you have to respect just how much he held to it. He even had a setup to wirelessly broadcast electric power... the man was truly one of the greatest genius to live.

[Love As Arson]

according to all the christians around here, jesus was the "son of god" and is part of the trinity and was therefore NOT a human being. now i think think otherwise, but the moment i tell christians that (jesus being a human) that is idol worshipping they flip out.
The doctrine of the Holy Trinity posits that Jesus is, both fully human and fully divine.

[walshknilb281]

Edison, without Edison this poll doesn't exist plus I did a project on him back in the day

[squared82]

i went with jesus do to him having the greatest influence that has reached the greatest number of people, but that poll is flawed. under no circumstances should lincoln, or mother teresa be on there. so many other people have by far had greater impact than those two. so many great philosophers and philanthropists and scientists have done by far more than those two combined. i still personally think that nobel should be on there.

sure lincoln and the mother are great people of the worlds history, but by all means they're not even top 20, let alone in the running for the greatest.

I just read Mother Teresa's autobiography My Life For the Poor (its small enough for an afternoon read if you wish). Anyway. I do believe she is one of those great philanthropists that you mentioned. She founded many many locations all across India where tens of thousands of starving, sick, lonely and dying people can seek aid and comfort. She also saw to it that similar locations were founded in Mexico, New York, and many other cities/ countries. She did all of this with a love of people, and without a heart that sought out attention. I find her life, heart, and mind fascinating.

Anyhow, I voted Jesus. but Ghandi and Mother Teresa were next on my list.

[Love As Arson]

John Brown > Lincoln

If you are unfamiliar with him, I suggest researching. He is one of my favorite historical figures, not only for his acts, but for his foresight regarding the Civil War.

[Nevuk]

Haha, the painting of John Brown is awesome.

[myantiyou]

Also it is funny how many Christians have just accepted that Jesus was a man.

That's because he was.

[Love As Arson]

Haha, the painting of John Brown is awesome.

http://www.educ.ksu.edu/edetc864/Mel/john-brown.jpg

[doubletrue]

So he was 200% being. That makes perfect sense.

God in human form...yes. you're just jealous that nobody else was ever 200% being. jk

[doubletrue]

i believe it because i believe jesus is God. it's all about faith.

you only believe what you see, and thats perfectly fine. i don't blame you for that.

[lew_1987]

a lot of these people were not what they appeared to be. there are a lot of things people don't know about them.

[open mind]

i didn't pick the nominees. everyone did. not sure why you're trying to insult me?
and i like how you take issue with darwin on the list, even though you're the one who nominated him.

haha, our poster with a history degree is just funny like that dude.

[somesortofidiot]

is this poll trying to figure out who had the greatest effect on mankind, or, who did the most good?

[SanePsychotic]

It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who went with Da Vinci.

A lot of votes for Jesus. Can't blame you. I just can't figure out if he really was the son of "God" or a nice Jewish kid with a hammer.

[tambam]

It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who went with Da Vinci.

A lot of votes for Jesus. Can't blame you. I just can't figure out if he really was the son of "God" or a nice Jewish kid with a hammer.

Haha, I go with the latter.

[Shatter590]

with all the contributions da vinci made, he should have more votes.

but then again, this is a biased poll, with people admitting they vote one way just to annoy another person.

[Nevuk]

It's not that annoying and gives me an opportunity to feel superior to people.
Just go to general then, its great for that.

[Yes. And?]

I picked Dr. King because Jesus is above this poll.
:-p

[richter915]

wait wait wait...you put up Einstein but not Newton? This poll should come down to Newton vs. Darwin.

[littletinyfish]

How did Gutenberg get overlooked as well?

Who knew the guy from Police Academy invented moveable type? A great man indeed.

[Shatter590]

General is where retards go when they have lost the will to live.

were this the old days, id say that was totally sig-worthy.

[SanePsychotic]

I think this poll would be so much more interesting if you took out Jesus. It'd be fun to see who would win then.

DA VINCI PEOPLE! DA VINCI!

[Nevuk]

were this the old days, id say that was totally sig-worthy.
Eh, its sig worthy for me... I'd forgotten all about that even existing.

[DaGaR]

i voted for Jesus Christ.

[SemiFict10n]

Had to vote for Jesus.

[feigningapology]

I was torn between Da Vinci and Aristotle since I was a general science and political science double major. Since I enjoyed poli sci more I went with Aristotle just for myself, and as sort of a joke to spite those shitty science teachers, though there could be said many good ideas came from Da Vinci.