4 ms·
This is a confusing question if we are considering the results of someone's life mainly because of procreation. If Hitler, for example, can be thought of as bei
by ForrestN 13y ago
This is a confusing question if we are considering the results of someone's life mainly because of procreation. If Hitler, for example, can be thought of as being at the beginning of a causal chain that made a big difference, wouldn't his mother be even more important? She can as much claim Hitler's actions as a result of her behavior as he can the behavior of his armies and subsequent generations and so forth. She has set in motion the Hitler chain but also a number of other small irrelevant chains that nevertheless help her overtake Hitler in impact.
- sanoli 13y agoSo you're saying that the 100 people who most changed the world were the mothers of the 100 people who most changed the world?
- ForrestN 13y agoor their mothers, right?
- sanoli 13y agoActually, in your example, Hitler's mother can't really claim she is the person responsible for Hitler's actions, unless she was there with Hitler as his senior advisor or strategist or something. Well, unless she specifically raised him (bred him?) to be some great cruel dictator or warmonger, in that case... or should we blame WWII on the Vienna Academy of Art, for not accepting him?
- ForrestN 13y agoWhy? What does intent have to do with causation?
- sanoli 13y agoBecause the question was 'Who are the 100 people who most changed the world?', as in 'who are the 100 people who directly changed the world?'. I think this is understood in the question. Everyone named was directly involved in the change they made, as in they made/changed/invented/came up with whatever it is they did. So what if they had a mother? Everybody else in the whole world had one too.
- sanoli 13y agoIntent doesn't have to do with causation. What I'm saying is that actually doing whatever it is that caused some effect does.