• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Who is the most famous person in human history?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I mean at a certain point that is true all historical figures. This is a spectrum. You can draw a line, but because it is a spectrum it will ultimately be arbitrary.



What about people we know less about but are more sure they existed? That's the root of the issue. The conception of a person and the person themselves are not the same thing, and I don't believe there is a way out of that problem. We know very few of the things that happened in Ceaser's life, and much of what we do know is filtered through a variety of means.

The other problem this runs into is that it would work against all famous people, since something that comes along with fame is having things misattributed to you. Look at all the fake Einstein quotes for instance.



What does it mean to believe that the "fictional version was the real person". I assume you mean people accepting that the movie was a record of events that happened, which is the sticking point I doubt people would do that, and that the character he played was not a character being played by someone. Without knowing the alternative, i.e. people aware that the character itself was a fabrication, he would have to be taken seriously as a historical figure. That's the nature of our knowledge of the past.

What about somebody who is widely believed to have existed yet historians largely question if not outright deny the person existed? If enough people believe a person was real does that justify them as an answer? Especially if it's based on religious which inherently asks a person to put faith in their teachings and religious texts.

Because if not, is it not a reasonable next step to view people with scant but existing historical evidence skeptically when the majority of the perception of their lives has little historical evidence to support it if not evidence that refutes many of the beliefs?

We can't say for sure what happened during the life of Alexander the Great, but there's most evidence that backs up the broader events in his life as well as fewer reasons to question the primary sources (at least in comparison to the Bible and how it was written).

I get that we are talking about a grey area where there isn't a great line to draw. I do. It just seems weird to lump in traditional historical figures with religious figures with enough evidence to presumably have existed in some form.
 

Santiako

Member
Is he really? is he?



But still, Messi is not even the best known soccer player, is he more famous than any of the Ronaldos, Pelé or Maradona?

Worldwide? Right now? Yes. He is incredibly popular. There's an entire generation that has no idea who Ali is and most people in Europe, South America and Asia will know who Messi is.
 

Numb

Member
Is he really? is he?



But still, Messi is not even the best known soccer player, is he more famous than any of the Ronaldos, Pelé or Maradona?
Messi getting treated like discount Maradona relating to fame


----

Someone posted Elvis?
Human history dude not American history
 

tapedeck

Do I win a prize for talking about my penis on the Internet???
Jesus Christ.
First post etc.

I mean it's JC by a landslide.

In the immortal words of Louis CK...what year is it? 2017AD...and the entire Earth (except China kind of) regardless of religion goes by that.
 
Jesus even if he didn't actually exist or was just based on various other dudes. Louis has that bit about the fact that we measure time based on his life and death. That's pretty famous.
 

Tyaren

Member
I feel like Hitler's infamy will wane sooner, rather than later. He's a big deal now because he just happens to be the most recent evil conqueror type, but when comes someone else that evil, he will be replaced by that new person.

If Hitler 2.0 comes to power today, there will be soon no one left on earth to remember him.
 

Numb

Member
John the Baptist.
Jon Batiste?

JB_harmoniboard.jpg


Yes
 

Cocaloch

Member
What about somebody who is widely believed to have existed yet historians largely question if not outright deny the person existed? If enough people believe a person was real does that justify them as an answer? Especially if it's based on religious which inherently asks a person to put faith in their teachings and religious texts.

I wouldn't say that they would make a good answer, but that's because I'm a historian and at a certain level the arbitrary line from before must be drawn. For Historians to believe such a person did not exist would probably involve them having evidence that he was fabricated. That's far enough for me to draw my arbitrary line, but I would still acknowledge it as arbitrary. This ends up being a problem with what the point of the question is that won't be settled because it isn't a very useful or interesting question really.

The issue with the line is more the other way around I think. It's the people that we are a little more sure of, and in fundamentally different ways, than these religious figures.

Because if not, is it not a reasonable next step to view people with scant but existing historical evidence skeptically when the majority of the perception of their lives has little historical evidence to support it if not evidence that refutes many of the beliefs?

Viewing them skeptically isn't the problem, its the implied not viewing people we have more evidence of skeptically that is. Skepticism should be a spectrum here. The problem I'm seeing is making a stark divide between people we know about and so are okay and people we don't know about and so aren't.

We can't say for sure what happened during the life of Alexander the Great, but there's most evidence that backs up the broader events in his life as well as fewer reasons to question the primary sources (at least in comparison to the Bible and how it was written).

Obviously we know his life better, it certainly was better documented, but this is a question of degrees. Alexander is far close to Jesus on this spectrum than he is to say FDR. That being said I would certainly complicate the idea that there are fewer reasons to question the primary sources involved. That requires a pretty nuanced argument.

I get that we are talking about a grey area where there isn't a great line to draw. I do. It just seems weird to lump in traditional historical figures with religious figures with enough evidence to presumably have existed in some form.

Where we seem to be disagreeing is that I'm saying this isn't just one grey area. All of our historical knowledge is different shades of grey.
 

PSqueak

Banned
Worldwide? Right now? Yes. He is incredibly popular. There's an entire generation that has no idea who Ali is and most people in Europe, South America and Asia will know who Messi is.

Hmmm, it's hard to judge, i think people who don't have an understanding or following of Soccer would be familiar with figures like Ronaldo or Pelé even if they're not current, while there would be a bigger degree of knowledge to know who Messi is.

While i think more people have the nebulous idea of who Ali is even if there is a complete disconnect of them with Boxing history.

Then again, im completely disconnected from both sports but i know who both Ali and Messi are.

Unrelated: im suprised by all these "Jesus isn't real" drive by posts, i mean, come on guys, no one is asking you to convert to cristianity or accept the guy as your lord, just accept the fact there was at one point in history a man called "Yesua of Nazareth" who happened to have a religion formed around him.
 

Cocaloch

Member
It's still disputed and there is no undeniable evidence, unlike Caesar or Genghis Khan, so no, it's not "edgelord fuckery".

There is definitely a degree of contrarian edge to it, it's also a fairly ahistorical way of thinking about the past at that. People already know what they are looking for in the past, otherwise the strongest statement anyone can make is that the evidence we have simply isn't sufficient to convince people he exists instead of he was fictional, for which no evidence exists.
 
I wouldn't say that they would make a good answer, but that's because I'm a historian and at a certain level the arbitrary line from before must be drawn. For Historians to believe such a person did not exist would probably involve them having evidence that he was fabricated. That's far enough for me to draw my arbitrary line, but I would still acknowledge it as arbitrary. This ends up being a problem with what the point of the question is that won't be settled because it isn't a very useful or interesting question really.

The issue with the line is more the other way around I think. It's the people that we are a little more sure of, and in fundamentally different ways, than these religious figures.



Viewing them skeptically isn't the problem, its the implied not viewing people we have more evidence of skeptically that is. Skepticism should be a spectrum here. The problem I'm seeing is making a stark divide between people we know about and so are okay and people we don't know about and so aren't.



Obviously we know his life better, it certainly was better documented, but this is a question of degrees. Alexander is far close to Jesus on this spectrum than he is to say FDR. That being said I would certainly complicate the idea that there are fewer reasons to question the primary sources involved. That requires a pretty nuanced argument.



Where we seem to be disagreeing is that I'm saying this isn't just one grey area. All of our historical knowledge is different shades of grey.

It's weird because I believe Jesus existed and I don't know that I've disagreed with anything you've said; yet for some reason there is this divide in my mind between Jesus/Muhammad/Buddha and other historical figures. I suppose I'm conflating my belief that the majority of these people's lives are fictitious with the entirety of their existence being fictitious subconsciously but it's odd because consciously I'm able to draw that distinction.

It's...frustrating kind of.
 

Gaminar

Banned
Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.

This is throughout recorded history.

Those naming people currently... just no. This includes Hitler.
 

PSqueak

Banned
It's weird because I believe Jesus existed and I don't know that I've disagreed with anything you've said; yet for some reason there is this divide in my mind between Jesus/Muhammad/Buddha and other historical figures. I suppose I'm conflating my belief that the majority of these people's lives are fictitious with the entirety of their existence being fictitious subconsciously but it's odd because consciously I'm able to draw that distinction.

It's...frustrating kind of.


Just gotta remind yourself, acknowledging these people existed to some capacity doesn't equal to you having to believe what the religious texts says about them.
 

Cocaloch

Member
Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.

This is throughout recorded history.

Those naming people currently... just no. This includes Hitler.

The key element you're missing is that we need to weight the modern era much more heavily due to demographic reasons as well as the availability of information. There are simply far more people, in addition to people being more likely to know more people from outside of their locality.

That being said Jesus and Muhammad are probably the top two anyway.
 
It's Jesus. If not that then my vote goes to Christopher Columbus. Go ask a 5-6 year old who Julius Caesar or Hitler is..they won't know. Columbus though, easy.
 

PSqueak

Banned
It's Jesus. If not that then my vote goes to Christopher Columbus. Go ask a 5-6 year old who Julius Caesar or Hitler is..they won't know. Columbus though, easy.

Christopher Columbus only is relevant in the Americas, doubt even europe cares much about him, and all countries in the Americas, with the sole exception of the USA, have been working hard to minimize Columbus' notoriety.
 

Emerson

May contain jokes =>
Jesus is the obvious, pretty much inarguable answer.

Whether he was actually historical or not, he's perceived to have been a real person and that character is indisputably the most famous in history. Even if you allowed other "fictional" characters, he'd still win.

All that aside, the majority of historians agree he existed as a man.
 

Cocaloch

Member
Nahh I'm pretty sure it's all of western society.

Based on? I mean with your logic I could extrapolate from France and suggest that everyone knows who Vercingetorix is. That would be silly though wouldn't it.

Central and South America, Spain, and Italy at a minimum too

In my own experience Italian Americans are far more concerned with Columbus than Italians in Italy are. This makes sense as Italians in Italy don't need to prove that they are important to Italian history.
 

Crayolan

Member
I would be shocked if even 25% of Americans have even heard of him. Outside of children's leagues and the World Cup, soccer is practically nonexistent over here.

Americans knowing something is not exactly a good indicator of how well known something or someone is worldwide. Out of the ~7b people on earth only ~300m are Americans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom