6 ms·

The pattern is: * politicians * travelers * scientists In many cases, their names are attached to something that sticks around: locations, laws (of nature o

The pattern is: * politicians * travelers * scientists In many cases, their names are attached to something that sticks around: locations, laws (of nature or in legal sense), inventions. Musicians, actors, sports people need not apply. What writers wanted to say will not make sense in a thousand years, with some minor exceptions. Painters may be remembered by experts and some art lovers, which is not a lot. Religious figures, hopefully, will lose their relevance.

ars 9y ago
> Religious figures, hopefully, will lose their relevance. People have been saying that for thousands of years. Hasn't happened yet, and isn't going to later. That's essentially what the story of Hanukkah is all about. The Assyrian Greeks wanted the Jewish culture, but not the religion. Instead they got a religion that persisted despite pretty much the worst humanity has to offer - and has flourished despite it all. If they couldn't do it, no one in the future can either (and science was just as important to them as it is to us, so don't try to use that as a "this time it's different"). It's also really not a nice sentiment. Virtually every single thing you consider a positive can be traced to ideas that came from religion. (Charity, helping your neighbor, community, law, proportional punishment (i.e. [the value of an] eye for an eye, instead of life for an eye), praising being a good person instead of a powerful person, the desire to give life meaning instead of hedonism - the list is almost endless.)
- soperj 9y ago
  >traced to ideas that came from religion None of those ideas necessarily came from religion.
- sp527 9y ago
  It's shockingly ignorant and quite offensive to assert that fundamental tenets of morality and ethics originated in or necessarily had to be promulgated by religious doctrine.
  - lamarpye 9y ago
    Why? I don't find it offensive. I don't you can maintain morality long-term without religion.
    - 8note 9y ago
      Religions don't impose morality on societies; they're a marketplace competing to communicate the society's morals. when society decided human sacrifices weren't moral, they ditched those religions in favour of ones without human sacrifice. it doesn't have to be a relgion that communicates what the morals are; some other structure can do that. morality itself seems to be good for societies ability to reproduce, so it'll probably stick around regardless.
- vadimberman 9y ago
  >> Religious figures, hopefully, will lose their relevance. > People have been saying that for thousands of years. Hasn't happened yet, and isn't going to later. I see. How many people worship Jupiter or Ba'al today? As the number of atheists and agnostics is growing in the West: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-a... and the Western trends are followed elsewhere, who is going to remember the mythical deities? > It's also really not a nice sentiment. Virtually every single thing you consider a positive can be traced to ideas that came from religion They didn't come from religion. They came from the social practices which worked for the society and got enshrined in some religions.
- jack9 9y ago
  > Virtually every single thing you consider a positive can be traced to ideas that came from religion. (e.g.) Charity, helping your neighbor, community, law, proportional punishment... You mean judeo-christian morality. The prevailing theory, as I understand it, is that this morality evolved from the play circuit that exists in mammals - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI9n2yC14fU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI9n2yC14fU A quote of his, which I cant find, sounds something like "For all the flaws in Catholicism, it's probably the closest that humanity has gotten [to an optimal moral framework]". I think that's overstated. The enduring religious orders that have survived thousands of years, do have a some sort of claim to such a thing. Generation after generation responding to archetypes (repeated in non-religious culture) is compelling, to me.
alexasmyths 9y ago
A) It's the power centres that we remember, because they make the decisions - most notably, Royalty. The articles comments are off on this - maybe 80% of UK Royal heads of state are almost household names in the UK. Even around the world. B) 'Religious figures, hopefully, will lose their relevance.' - as we dive into selfish consumer materialism, and narrow minded scientific materialism, the better religious figures words are more important than ever now, I for one wish some legitimate leader would come along in this regard. C) Musicians - Mozart, Beethoven and Bach are still household names. The one's that will be around: QE2, Hitler, possibly Obama - I think American academics will create a big historical thing around him and America is a 'big power' they have the ability to bend history. Think JFK but times 10, and more globally oriented. Mao especially due to his foundational status of the new Chinese state - and they are huge. Possibly Stalin. Gandhi - depending on how Indians decide to propagate his history. He has some really ugly spots that we overlook. Possibly Marx and Adam Smith as 'founders' of economics. Maybe another common thread is 'those who are the foundation of something' - because Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are taught in Music class as kind of the kings 'basic of music' (even though they were not there at the start). No matter how many music genres we go through, at music school the rudiments will likely still be interpreted with them in mind. Any serious Monarch that lasts more than 30 years will get a spot in the textbooks at least. As for Scientists - how many can the average person name past 'Einstein'? And FYI - Einstein had a marketing/branding campaign behind him that he was aware of and somewhat weary of. Niels Bohr? Oppenheimer? Walk down the street nobody knows who they are. Maybe if they get a particle or theory named after them ... Athletes not really. Actors - this is a new one - because we now have the ability to record performances for future generations. Maybe the early actors will be minted as 'the originals' and be studied for 1000 years ... The kind of history we have post 1900 will be very different than before because now everything is recorded and written down. Imagine if we could just pull up Billy Shakespeare on YouTube ...
- ars 9y ago
  I disagree about Obama. He did nothing special as compared to other presidents. He will be remembered as much as they are, but not any more than that. As I think back pretty much the only thing I remember about him is healthcare, and that's he's the first half-back-half-white president. That's really not much, as compared to other presidents. Even Trump's antics will not be remembered in detail (how many do you remember from 6 months ago?) He will be remembered in a general sort of "said lots of dumb things" kind of way, as a trope basically. Want to be specially remembered as President? Start [or end] a huge social program, or make peace in Israel. PS. For Einstein did you mean weary or wary?

ars 9y ago

> Religious figures, hopefully, will lose their relevance. People have been saying that for thousands of years. Hasn't happened yet, and isn't going to later. That's essentially what the story of Hanukkah is all about. The Assyrian Greeks wanted the Jewish culture, but not the religion. Instead they got a religion that persisted despite pretty much the worst humanity has to offer - and has flourished despite it all. If they couldn't do it, no one in the future can either (and science was just as important to them as it is to us, so don't try to use that as a "this time it's different"). It's also really not a nice sentiment. Virtually every single thing you consider a positive can be traced to ideas that came from religion. (Charity, helping your neighbor, community, law, proportional punishment (i.e. [the value of an] eye for an eye, instead of life for an eye), praising being a good person instead of a powerful person, the desire to give life meaning instead of hedonism - the list is almost endless.)

soperj 9y ago
>traced to ideas that came from religion None of those ideas necessarily came from religion.
sp527 9y ago
It's shockingly ignorant and quite offensive to assert that fundamental tenets of morality and ethics originated in or necessarily had to be promulgated by religious doctrine.
- lamarpye 9y ago
  Why? I don't find it offensive. I don't you can maintain morality long-term without religion.
  - 8note 9y ago
    Religions don't impose morality on societies; they're a marketplace competing to communicate the society's morals. when society decided human sacrifices weren't moral, they ditched those religions in favour of ones without human sacrifice. it doesn't have to be a relgion that communicates what the morals are; some other structure can do that. morality itself seems to be good for societies ability to reproduce, so it'll probably stick around regardless.
vadimberman 9y ago
>> Religious figures, hopefully, will lose their relevance. > People have been saying that for thousands of years. Hasn't happened yet, and isn't going to later. I see. How many people worship Jupiter or Ba'al today? As the number of atheists and agnostics is growing in the West: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-agnostic-secular-nones-rising-religion/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160422-atheism-a... and the Western trends are followed elsewhere, who is going to remember the mythical deities? > It's also really not a nice sentiment. Virtually every single thing you consider a positive can be traced to ideas that came from religion They didn't come from religion. They came from the social practices which worked for the society and got enshrined in some religions.
jack9 9y ago
> Virtually every single thing you consider a positive can be traced to ideas that came from religion. (e.g.) Charity, helping your neighbor, community, law, proportional punishment... You mean judeo-christian morality. The prevailing theory, as I understand it, is that this morality evolved from the play circuit that exists in mammals - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI9n2yC14fU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI9n2yC14fU A quote of his, which I cant find, sounds something like "For all the flaws in Catholicism, it's probably the closest that humanity has gotten [to an optimal moral framework]". I think that's overstated. The enduring religious orders that have survived thousands of years, do have a some sort of claim to such a thing. Generation after generation responding to archetypes (repeated in non-religious culture) is compelling, to me.

alexasmyths 9y ago

A) It's the power centres that we remember, because they make the decisions - most notably, Royalty. The articles comments are off on this - maybe 80% of UK Royal heads of state are almost household names in the UK. Even around the world. B) 'Religious figures, hopefully, will lose their relevance.' - as we dive into selfish consumer materialism, and narrow minded scientific materialism, the better religious figures words are more important than ever now, I for one wish some legitimate leader would come along in this regard. C) Musicians - Mozart, Beethoven and Bach are still household names. The one's that will be around: QE2, Hitler, possibly Obama - I think American academics will create a big historical thing around him and America is a 'big power' they have the ability to bend history. Think JFK but times 10, and more globally oriented. Mao especially due to his foundational status of the new Chinese state - and they are huge. Possibly Stalin. Gandhi - depending on how Indians decide to propagate his history. He has some really ugly spots that we overlook. Possibly Marx and Adam Smith as 'founders' of economics. Maybe another common thread is 'those who are the foundation of something' - because Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are taught in Music class as kind of the kings 'basic of music' (even though they were not there at the start). No matter how many music genres we go through, at music school the rudiments will likely still be interpreted with them in mind. Any serious Monarch that lasts more than 30 years will get a spot in the textbooks at least. As for Scientists - how many can the average person name past 'Einstein'? And FYI - Einstein had a marketing/branding campaign behind him that he was aware of and somewhat weary of. Niels Bohr? Oppenheimer? Walk down the street nobody knows who they are. Maybe if they get a particle or theory named after them ... Athletes not really. Actors - this is a new one - because we now have the ability to record performances for future generations. Maybe the early actors will be minted as 'the originals' and be studied for 1000 years ... The kind of history we have post 1900 will be very different than before because now everything is recorded and written down. Imagine if we could just pull up Billy Shakespeare on YouTube ...

ars 9y ago
I disagree about Obama. He did nothing special as compared to other presidents. He will be remembered as much as they are, but not any more than that. As I think back pretty much the only thing I remember about him is healthcare, and that's he's the first half-back-half-white president. That's really not much, as compared to other presidents. Even Trump's antics will not be remembered in detail (how many do you remember from 6 months ago?) He will be remembered in a general sort of "said lots of dumb things" kind of way, as a trope basically. Want to be specially remembered as President? Start [or end] a huge social program, or make peace in Israel. PS. For Einstein did you mean weary or wary?