3 ms·

Yes there are people who will be "remembered" for a very long time. People will likely know artist's depictions of Julius Caesar and George Washington for a whi

by britch 8y ago

Yes there are people who will be "remembered" for a very long time. People will likely know artist's depictions of Julius Caesar and George Washington for a while. We know some ancient people's names. We can imagine some depiction of them. We may even know what they supposedly did. How much of it is accurate at this point? Can the average person, off the top of their head, explain who Attila the Hun was, what he did, and why it mattered with any degree of accuracy? Even the VERY rare few who are remembered for 1000s of years are remembered more as myths than as the people they were and what they accomplished.

cableshaft 8y ago
At the very least, those that were writers we can still read their words, and can get a feel for who they were as people (or at least how they wanted to be presented as people), their ideas, and what they cared about. George Washington, for example, was a prolific writer. Here's a link to 14 volumes of his writings (mostly letters, journals, and speeches, it looks like): https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/washington-the-writings-of-george-washington-14-vols https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/washington-the-writings-o... As an example, here's an interesting letter I ran into of him sending a letter to a captain telling him to sell a negro he included with the letter as a slave and fetch him certain goods in return: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/washington-the-writings-of-george-washington-vol-ii-1758-1775#lf1450-02_head_079 https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/washington-the-writings-o...
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Distinction should be made among the religious figures clearly. Moses probably was not a real historical person, or at least there is a lot of doubt. Jesus probably was a historical person, but even the rational faithful obviously don't consider the Bible necessarily to be a clear historical narrative. We know quite a lot about the various Emperors of Rome, and quite a lot about the development of Roman history. If you actually dig into the history of Rome, it's remarkable how so many of the issues we face today already existed back then, and how much they were able to achieve without Enlightenment principles. Given how much we depend on the past, how we really are just extensions of it, I find it hard to agree with the premise of the article. Though it's always good to read contrarian ideas, and I do think there is a hint of Eastern wisdom in it as well, to be considered.

by britch 8y ago

cableshaft 8y ago

At the very least, those that were writers we can still read their words, and can get a feel for who they were as people (or at least how they wanted to be presented as people), their ideas, and what they cared about. George Washington, for example, was a prolific writer. Here's a link to 14 volumes of his writings (mostly letters, journals, and speeches, it looks like): https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/washington-the-writings-of-george-washington-14-vols https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/washington-the-writings-o... As an example, here's an interesting letter I ran into of him sending a letter to a captain telling him to sell a negro he included with the letter as a slave and fetch him certain goods in return: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/washington-the-writings-of-george-washington-vol-ii-1758-1775#lf1450-02_head_079 https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/washington-the-writings-o...

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Distinction should be made among the religious figures clearly. Moses probably was not a real historical person, or at least there is a lot of doubt. Jesus probably was a historical person, but even the rational faithful obviously don't consider the Bible necessarily to be a clear historical narrative. We know quite a lot about the various Emperors of Rome, and quite a lot about the development of Roman history. If you actually dig into the history of Rome, it's remarkable how so many of the issues we face today already existed back then, and how much they were able to achieve without Enlightenment principles. Given how much we depend on the past, how we really are just extensions of it, I find it hard to agree with the premise of the article. Though it's always good to read contrarian ideas, and I do think there is a hint of Eastern wisdom in it as well, to be considered.