• 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.

Cocaloch

Member
But it's not like Buddha fell out of favor after Jesus.

Right, but Jesus is probably more well known at most points, especially since the 17th century when the Earth's population exploded. If I'm wrong about that and Buddha is more well known in the period since Jesus's birth then that's the reason he's more well known. The margin probably isn't thin enough for 500 years of low population and low information exchange coupled with a relatively slow rate of diffusion to make a difference.

Historical records.

Except the records we have, and the records that would feasibly exist, don't mention his appearance. It wasn't a common thing to do in ancient records for anyone. When appearance is recorded in ancient societies it's often a mixture of vague, i.e. large, tiny, massive, giant, or dwarf, or ephemeral, like the sorts of clothes people wore.
 

Stromlord

Member
cc_kane_shotxbowg.jpg
 
Right, but Jesus is probably more well known at most points, especially since the 17th century when the Earth's population exploded. If I'm wrong about that and Buddha is more well known in the period since Jesus's birth then that's the reason he's more well known. The margin probably isn't thin enough for 500 years of low population and low information exchange coupled with a relatively slow rate of diffusion to make a difference.

Yeah but Buddhism spread from India to China, Southeast Asia and Japan during its first 500 years. I wouldn't call that a thin margin or slow rate of diffusion.
 

digdug2k

Member
Right, but Jesus is probably more well known at most points, especially since the 17th century when the Earth's population exploded. If I'm wrong about that and Buddha is more well known in the period since Jesus's birth then that's the reason he's more well known. The margin probably isn't thin enough for 500 years of low population and low information exchange coupled with a relatively slow rate of diffusion to make a difference.
Even if we're integrating all of himan history, China and Indias modern populations is so huge they'd destroy the early years. They're also the countries where I don't really have any doubt there's huge populations who only vaguely know about Christianity or Jesus.
 

Cocaloch

Member
Even if we're integrating all of himan history, China and Indias modern populations is so huge they'd destroy the early years. They're also the countries where I don't really have any doubt there's huge populations who only vaguely know about Christianity or Jesus.

That's a better argument to be made, but I have a feeling it's wrong. One key element here is probably penetration, which Christianity and Islam lend themselves to better than East and South Asian religions because of their evangelizing focus.
 

kswiston

Member
That's a better argument to be made, but I have a feeling it's wrong. One key element here is probably penetration, which Christianity and Islam lend themselves to better than East and South Asian religions because of their evangelizing focus.

I also think in this case that people are over-emphasizing the size of China/India, and under emphasizing the areas of the world where the Abrahamic religions have a share of active and lapsed practitioners approaching 100% (The Americas, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East). That's a population of over 3 billion people, where practicing Buddhists are estimated to account for something like 5 million people total.

Is there an argument to be made that Jesus is less known in India or China than Buddhism/Siddhārtha Gautama is known in Africa or Latin America? India has over 150 million Muslims, and was under English rule for a long period of time. And as you say, Christianity and Islam both have a large focus on converting non-believers to their cause.
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
Paul's earliest letters date closer to Jesus than the gospels.

Woops.

When did I say they didn't?

How is Paul's writings being better sourced than gospels good evidence for Jesus? In fact, it's the opposite...

Also, people referencing Tacitus, when there's clear debate regarding his random, out of place, strangely dictatorial line about Jesus is a forgery or a regurgitation...

Jesus being based on some original preacher who may have been crucified is not really a controversial position. The character as depicted in the bible, even without supernatural stuff, has little to no support.

The rest of the sources merely acknowledge existence of early Christians... which doesn't tell us much about the character or historical figure...
 
When did I say they didn't?

How is Paul's writings being better sourced than gospels good evidence for Jesus? In fact, it's the opposite...

Also, people referencing Tacitus, when there's clear debate regarding his random, out of place, strangely dictatorial line about Jesus is a forgery or a regurgitation...

Jesus being based on some original preacher who may have been crucified is not really a controversial position. The character as depicted in the bible, even without supernatural stuff, has little to no support.

The rest of the sources merely acknowledge existence of early Christians... which doesn't tell us much about the character or historical figure...
Am I right in summarizing you as saying that yes, a historical Jesus likely existed, but that there is little to no non-biblical evidence for this person being like how he is described in the Bible?
 

petran79

Banned
Lets unpack this. Who in English speaking countries does this? Laymen? That might be correct. If you're going to say academics you might have been correct before the 80s, but not anymore. There is an issue of perception here, but that's actually the problem that I've been getting at since this thread took an odd turn.


Ironically now I think you're going to far in favor of the social sciences. It's not that they are more versatile, it's that they are fundamentally different tools for fundamentally different questions. History can't explain, or perhaps I should say would not give a very good answer to the question, the relationship between the speed of acceleration of a falling object and its space, that's a question for physics. Meanwhile physics would not be a very good tool for answering the question of whether or not the Glorious Revolution was revolutionary, that's a question better suited to history.



Uh what does this mean? Please unpack this for me. I can't parse this in a way that seems reasonable despite the fact that everything else you said was reasonable enough. Sociology asks different questions and gets different methods. Sociology also often uses historical methods, while history often uses sociological ones. I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here unless it's history sucks.

America in particular after WW2 was hugely influenced by Talcott Parsons' structuralism that favoured using positivism and scientific methods to explain social phenomena.
His methods were criticised for being too ethnocentric and conservative and a counter movement took place in France.

Things did change but overall in English countries Sociology is regarded as something more practical. It also has to do that universities and work force there are connected differently than in Europe.

We could discuss this in dozens of pages.
As for the last paragraph, I mean that despite mingling history and sociology,each discipline is different. A historian would use the data differently than a sociologist. Eg life in Ancient Greece. Too simplify, a sociologist would rely more on how and a historian on why.

Paul's earliest letters date closer to Jesus than the gospels.

Woops.

Even Paul is doubted as a historical figure. His writings may have been written much later by others.

Early Christian history is not so well documented due to lack of historical data. There are even rifts between Christians,eg the ones that supported the trend of John the Baptist,prior to Jesus.
 

Cocaloch

Member
America in particular after WW2 was hugely influenced by Talcott Parsons' structuralism that favoured using positivism and scientific methods to explain social phenomena.
His methods were criticised for being too ethnocentric and conservative and a counter movement took place in France.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Positivism was quite banished from the academy. It's beginning to creep back into society, but now instead of an intellectual movement it's a popular one.

Things did change but overall in English countries Sociology is regarded as something more practical. It also has to do that universities and work force there are connected differently than in Europe.

You didn't address my point at all. Who is regarding it as more practical? It isn't historians, and as far as I know I've never met a sociologist that claims this. Who are you talking about here exactly?


We could discuss this in dozens of pages.
As for the last paragraph, I mean that despite mingling history and sociology,each discipline is different. A historian would use the data differently than a sociologist. Eg life in Ancient Greece. Too simplify, a sociologist would rely more on how and a historian on why.

That is essentially what I said phrased in another way, though historians focus quite a lot on the how and historical sociology as a discipline is in many ways dormant.

But you didn't say the disciplines are different, you said one goes "further". You aren't addressing that quite problematic line of sociology going further. In what direction? And why does that matter?
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Lol. Did Aristotle live?

The earliest copy of one of Aristotle’s manuscripts is from 1100 A.D. (1,400 year time span).

40 years is considered amazing attestation by any legitimate historian's standards.

Jesus being a real human being is a fact corroborated by any real, serious historian. Please don't spread this nonsense.

You're conflating "latest established copy" with "originally written".

It's not like Aristotle's manuscripts were first written in 1100AD. They were written much earlier, but this is just the latest copy we have. This is different than St. Paul writing about Jesus decades after he lived. It's not as if we expect an earlier copy: St. Paul never met Jesus in his time.

Usually, I'd expect people to compare the historicity of Jesus to that of Socrates, not Aristotle (who was Alexander the Great's tutor, near impossible to fabricate and definitely a figure who made waves in his time). Socrates was only written about by Plato who was preserved by the prominence of Aristotle, so people like to say "do you doubt Socrates exists?" But even then... Socrates was referred to by two different sources (Plato by way of Aristotle and Aristophanes). Even Socrates made a dent in history enough to be mentioned by two separate contemporary sources.

Would I expect an obscure cult leader like Jesus to have more contemporary sources? No. But just know that who we are dealing with: an obscure cult figure. The "certainty" we have about Jesus is not as solid as conventionally understood, and is certainly bolstered by his later religious importance in society. The whole "all historians say.. everyone knows...." sentiment about Jesus is derived from cultural bias. His existence could certainly be questioned.

But again, I take the echoes of his existence to mean there was a run of the mill cult figure behind it all. It's simplest. But that's an inference based on the murky history of this character... not some witness of the obvious facts. Because nothing is obvious about a man written about decades later by one cultic source.
 

Khrno

Member
I'd argue anyone with a crossover. Brock Lesnar is well-known by UFC fans, while Andy Kaufman was a celebrity in his own right in the 1980s.

But the crossover thing would make Dwayne the most famous ever and no one would even come close. For example no one knows Lesnar outside of combat sports. Kauffman was a star in an era that cannot compete wirh today's mainstream global reach.
 

NEO0MJ

Member
Is Hawking even being discussed in schools?

Heck, even in popular culture Einstein is way more famous. He's the scientist. The reason Hawking is as popular as he is due to his story of overcoming his disease and how unique he looks and sounds. Heck, the man intentionally kept his current robotic tone is how much it adds to his brand.
 

petran79

Banned
I don't understand what you're getting at here. Positivism was quite banished from the academy. It's beginning to creep back into society, but now instead of an intellectual movement it's a popular one.

Depends which country's academy you are speaking off and which university you are referring too. Social Sciences are kinda more liberal when it comes to theoretical approaches.


You didn't address my point at all. Who is regarding it as more practical? It isn't historians, and as far as I know I've never met a sociologist that claims this. Who are you talking about here exactly?

Various businesses, statistical agencies, councils, government agencies etc are also taking advice from sociologists. They are focused more in the practical side of sociology.

That is essentially what I said phrased in another way, though historians focus quite a lot on the how and historical sociology as a discipline is in many ways dormant.

But you didn't say the disciplines are different, you said one goes "further". You aren't addressing that quite problematic line of sociology going further. In what direction? And why does that matter?

Further in terms of analysis and theoretical and statistical models used. Nothing more

Socrates was only written about by Plato who was preserved by the prominence of Aristotle, so people like to say "do you doubt Socrates exists?" But even then... Socrates was referred to by two different sources (Plato by way of Aristotle and Aristophanes). Even Socrates made a dent in history enough to be mentioned by two separate contemporary sources.

Also Xenophon, one of Socrates' disciples. He wrote his own version of Socrates' Apology which is considered more authentic than Plato's, who idealised his teacher
 
But it's not like Buddha fell out of favor after Jesus.

He did.

When is the last time you've seen a copy of a book about Buddha in a hotel?

No seriously, ask yourself what is the most-read book in the history of human civilization.

This topic has carried on for as long as it has because of contrarianism.
 
Not sure if anyone mentioned but what about Abraham? Sure not the most popular or thought about but Jews, Christians and Muslims know him.
 

Cocaloch

Member
Depends which country's academy you are speaking off and which university you are referring too. Social Sciences are kinda more liberal when it comes to theoretical approaches.

We were talking about the Anglosphere academy. I'm not sure what your second sentence here is saying with regards to positivism. Either way its dead in the academy.

Various businesses, statistical agencies, councils, government agencies etc are also taking advice from sociologists. They are focused more in the practical side of sociology.

Okay, I'm willing to believe that this is somewhat true. I acknowledged that saying lay people are more prone to accept sociology than history seems reasonable to me. That being said you seem to be overestimating the degree to which this is true. I can't speak as to statistical agencies, but businesses, [town/city?] councils, and government agencies all often consult with historians as well.

Further in terms of analysis and theoretical and statistical models used. Nothing more

You can maybe make somewhat of a case for statistical models, though again historians use a lot as well. But I can't imagine just declaring that they have more analysis and use more theory. It'd be impossible to measure, and honestly it isn't a good question anyway. Both sociology and history make use of theory and analysis is core to essentially every academic discipline.

That being said do you not see how the unqualified word further is a pretty blatant value judgement?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom