Yep, here is something Aristotle was supposed to have taught to Alexander the butcher.

"Aristotle taught Alexander that a monarchy is only better than a democracy when the king knows better than all of his people. He also taught Alexander that to be a great leader he had to conquer Asia. He told Alexander, “Rule the Greeks as your equals, but treat all others like animals.”

I think Aristotle would have got on very well with Hitler. Very little editing would be required:
"Aristotle taught Adolf that a fuhrer is only better than a democracy when the king knows better than all of his people. He also taught Adolf that to be a great leader he had to conquer the world. He told Adolf, “Rule the Germans (or perhaps the blue eyed blond haired Ayrans) as your equals, but treat all others like absolute inferiors.”

I think there are many other names and titles of evil men, admired by western cultures, that could be edited easily into the above aristotelian lesson. Okay. Hitler is not admired much by Western Cultures but his historical equivalents are, from Caesar to Ghengis Khan to Napoleon!

I'm allergic to H-based arguments, but yes, that too. Influence is as influence does, and interpretation-at-a-distance is so very elastic!

The nature and spread and power of slavery, god worship, territorial war, imperialism, racism, sexism, ideological madness and even genocide, have all changed significantly since the days of Socrates.
Really? Well, they sure got bigger in the ensuing 2000 years! What is the "before" you're comparing the "since" to? And how do you measure the contribution of Socrates vs the contribution of Paul of Tarsus - or all the other men who wrote down philosophies along the way? — Vera Mont

Such is based mostly on personal interpretation, as the reliable historical evidence is almost non-existent.
It seems to me that all the issues you mentioned were worse, the further you go back in the history of our hominid species.
The biblical Paul may be interpreted as a influencer for good by some but I interpret his life as an influencer for evil. I think he was an antisemitic traitor and a Roman lacky. The Romans were forever saving his skin from angry Jews. He is probably just another made up character, just like Jesus, his brother James, his pal Peter (both rivals to Paul imo.) They are all probably parodies of real rebel Jewish leaders that existed and fought against Rome. Did you know the name Mary, literally translates to 'rebellious woman?' The Romans might have referred to you as a 'Mary!'

No question. That doesn't mean being held up as a martyr, a legend, a beacon to Bacon, or long-term influencer does you any good at all. — Vera Mont

But you are not the only judge of such Vera! I don't choose to call Alexander 'great,' I don't think you do either but I would still have a lot of work to do to convince all future mention of him to replace 'great' with 'butcher.'

Pessimists don't complain; they know it would be a waste of breath. They observe and comment and predict. — Vera Mont

Complaining is the main sustenance of all pessimists! They observe, yes, and then their comments are complaints and their predictions are doom laden and quickly become tiresome, unless they choose to finally employ some phrase such as, 'this is just my opinion guys,' or 'This is just how I feel about the situation.' etc. Then it's time to offer them some tea and sympathy whilst me, the optimist, twitches the curtain, just to check for any mushroom clouds nearby, in-case, before the blast hits, I get to shout, "YOU WERE R..........

nobody will know the correct time. — Vera Mont

As an optimist, I know that there is no correct time, as all time is relative. Time is an individual experience from cradle to grave. I like that Carlo Rovelli based, description of time.

Not plotting or intending; just prescribing. The ways and means are up to whomever I influence in my 'legacy'. — Vera Mont

So legacy does have some importance for you after all Vera. It seems to me that you have been previously touting the idea that it has no significance for those who are dead, so why acknowledge it's potential future role, now?

It seems to me that all the issues you mentioned were worse, the further you go back in the history of our hominid species. — universeness

I see. Absolute proof, then.

But you are not the only judge of such Vera! — universeness

It seems to me; therefore it is so.

So legacy does have some importance for you after all Vera. — universeness

No; hence the 'quotation marks'. It's something you held up as a talisman; as worth striving, fighting, suffering and dying for. I'm with Q on this one: "Ah, your species is always suffering and dying..."
It didn't stop for Socrates, or Zoroaster, or Jesus or Nostradamus or Gandhi or MLK. For damn sure flattening me would not retard the wheel of progress by one microsecond.

I see. Absolute proof, then. — Vera Mont

Only in the same way that your opinions are absolute proof.

No; hence the 'quotation marks'. It's something you held up as a talisman; as worth striving, fighting, suffering and dying for. — Vera Mont

I reject your 'talisman' imagery as such is woo woo based.
I don't think that people who have lived and are completely unknown today and have left no legacy we are aware of, left no legacy. We touch each others lives and our environment in so many ways we do not even realise. To me, having lived, is a legacy on its own.
Everything that has ever lived, brought their own purpose and meaning into existence and the actions taken by that life, affected the environment and other life that that life, encountered.
I think that's pretty close to being irrefutable. It does not really matter that we have no memorialisation of their existence. Their legacy is far reaching nonetheless.

Have you followed the full Q storyline so far? Q fails much more than they succeed.
One committed suicide, which resulted in a Q civil war, which was settled by two Q reproducing!
Q introduced humans to the borg? Q is portrayed as being obsessed with, and finally afraid of humans as they conclude that humanity is the one species that could potentially surpass Q.
Perhaps Q was deliberately portrayed as what the authors consider humanity should always guard against becoming.

For damn sure flattening me would not retard the wheel of progress by one microsecond. — Vera Mont

Your life is fairly well memorialised imo. Vera. Who is trying to 'flatten you?'
I am sure you have watched the rather theistic scenes from 'It's a Wonderful Life,' when Mr Stewart, acts out the impact on the lives of his family and the people in his local 'amurican' town of his characters non-existence.
I don't like the movie but I do think there is some truth in the cause/effect that happens when individual lives interconnect. I do think you underestimate the affects your life has had, and what impact your legacy will continue to have, after you are gone.

I know the Octopus had a sublime effect on Dave Warnock. Is it completely unreasonable to suggest that the Dave/Octopus video will continue to have an impact after Dave is dead, probably even more so than while he is alive? Would Dave be deluding himself in some way, if he takes comfort in that thought? and feels that he can die a little easier due to having such memories, that he may choose to recall during the actual moments of his dying and his death?

To me, having lived, is a legacy on its own. — universeness

Fine. So what? If any one particular person's 'legacy' altered history, or left a trail of bitter vendettas, or inspired people to seek holy orders, or their recipe for christmas puddind is still boild in cheesecloth after 400 years, or somebody named a bridge, a school, a tulip after them, of if their statue is ignominiously pulled down and painted red - they don't know it; they're not harmed by or benefit from it - and they are in no condition to care. "So let it be with Caesar." So let it be with me.

Who is trying to 'flatten you?' — universeness

The wheel of progress doesn't need to try. It just keeps rolling. Anybody tries to get in its way, slow it down, change its course, gets flattened.

Would Dave be deluding himself in some way, if he takes comfort in that thought? — universeness

I don't know whether he's deluding himself and don't care: whatever makes people feel good is all right with me, so long as what makes them feel good doesn't make someone else feel bad.

Without Mahatma Gandhi, India would have most probably faced a civil war when the partition occurred that would have set in India back for decades. His life and works influenced Muslim leaders like Maulana Azad who helped temper the impact of hatred and violence. Even today, when there are those who wish to adopt a rather parochial outlook with respect to Hinduism, Mahatma Gandhi's pluralism stands as a rock that possesses great countervailing force.

Having said that, I don't think that there is some sort of obligation to do something monumental if one doesn't wish to. In my discussions with Schopenhauer1, I have routinely emphasised my belief that non-existence cannot be good or bad for anyone, which also means that what happens once we are gone is also not going to directly affect us. Concurrent with that view, however, is the truth that I am inclined to think that, if there are those whom we deeply care about, it could give us meaningful satisfaction to do whatever we can to help make the world a nicer place for them. Undoubtedly, we cannot be certain that we will do everything we wish to or have to, but it may be preferable to no good being created. The wheel doesn't merely flatten; it is also capable of carrying. I hope that you will have a pleasant week ahead.

At least your pessimism tries to emerge within a GSOH (good sense of humour) framework.
People often ruminate using a trigger thought such as 'I wonder what Vera Mont would have said about that,' then they go on to offer their opinion. That is part of my answer to your 'so what?'
I could go on with more of my examples of "that's what!" or 'this is what!' but you could probably predict most of them and you have probably already raised shields.
You keep insisting that the only important impact that matters to you is that which directly impacts you and if, before you were born, or after you are dead, means, that you cannot be impacted, then, that's all that REALly matters. But you are sooooooo wrong in that imo, for all the reasons I have already mentioned.

The wheel of progress doesn't need to try. It just keeps rolling. Anybody tries to get in its way, slow it down, change its course, gets flattened. — Vera Mont

Even if that imagery has some objective truth value to it, why is that not a cause for celebration?
Why can we not be riding comfortably atop this wheel, until we die, and naturally fall of and get replaced? rather than be crushed between it and the surface you imagine it rolls on.

I don't know whether he's deluding himself and don't care: whatever makes people feel good is all right with me, so long as what makes them feel good doesn't make someone else feel bad. — Vera Mont

I broadly agree, unless the people feeling bad are those that Dave considers deluded and the bad feelings they experience, results in them beginning to question their theism as Dave wants them to.

"GSOH"

I was, sadly, unaware of this crucial philosophical concept. Happily, I know about this now. Application might be shoddy, but knowledge always has value.

:lol: Yeah, It's used a lot on dating sites where they request contact from folks with a GSOH.
I have never been involved in any way with on-line dating. I don't condemn anyone who does however.
It seems to be the modern way, regardless of my personal lack of attraction to such a system.

:up:

Without Mahatma Gandhi, India would have most probably faced a civil war when the partition occurred that would have set in India back for decades. — DA671

Etc, etc. I know.
Lots of people were influential in their time, and for decades after... and maybe the centennial outcome will be nuclear war between India and Pakistan, or just the same old on-going land-war. In any case, some the Muslim population didn't fare so well since, and nor did some part of the remaining Hindu population. Maybe a civil war then would have resulted in a federated India, or a less nationalistic one than right now --- or something else. Meanwhile, in Uganda... meanwhile, in Chile....
Whatever way each milestone event, each giant figure, steers the history of their own nation, and however that nations will, as a result, interact with other nations, the world just keeps on keeping on.

My claim was not that nobody has influence, but that none of those admired, influential men ended war, religious conflict, racism, sexism, child labour, slavery or exploitation. History flows around them in whirls and eddies, but doesn't change its nature, nor the way humans behave when there are too many of them in too small a space.
And previously, I had simply said that a legacy after you're dead does you, personally, no good. If the expectation of a positive or important legacy makes you feel good, that's a benefit, even if it turns out to be illusory.

Even if that imagery has some objective truth value to it, why is that not a cause for celebration? — universeness

Celebrate. Give the peons a day off. Stage a parade! I won't get in your way.

Why can we not be riding comfortably atop this wheel, until we die, and naturally fall of and get replaced? — universeness

Cripes!! Isn't that exactly what I've been saying?
I don't want to be a leader of any movement, because crucifixion is very unpleasant. I don't want to be a flag-bearer, because so are torture and prison. I don't want to be fighter, because they tend to get hurt. I'm an attentive rider. And thus, my life and 'legacy' won't have an impact on history. And that's OK.

The possibility of improvement does not nullify the good that does exist as a consequence of past actions. Personally, I don't think that the brutal end of the lives of people is unlikely to lead to a positive outcome. Survival, at such a cost, is hardly worth it (if a better alternative is available). Counterfactuals are always interesting, but they are not necessarily more desirable. The consequence of a war would have probably ended the dream of Indian unity and cemented a future of divisions and conflicts that would have continued to affect us for decades if not centuries. The world keeps moving on (and not irreversibly moving back) because there are always good people doing the right thing. The degree is bound to vary, but the fact of its existence is difficult to deny.

Also, I don't think that perfection (like stopping wars altogether) is necessary for something to be enormously valuable. Just as the German dictator did not have to end the majority of societies in order to be seen as a source of unimaginable horror, people don't have to eliminate our issues completely for their work and life to be worth appreciating. If even one life is saved/made better as a result of our actions, I think that the present (which is another name for what would become history) has been changed.

As far as legacy is concerned, I agree that the benefit at a personal level in a materialistic framework would not go beyond the grave. Nevertheless, for those who care about the well-being of those who exist and will exist, being able to make a difference can bring them a non-trivial kind of joy. This, in and of itself, can be enough of a reason to act. We cannot know everything, but the chance for a rewarding result should not be casually discarded.

The possibility of improvement does not nullify the good that does exist as a consequence of past actions. — DA671

No, of course not. And I wouldn't dream of hindering anyone's struggle for improvement.
This whole sidetrack got started with my skepticism regarding the positive effect of Socrates on subsequent European thought. Scholars scribbled, philosophers argued, poets declaimed and schoolchildren endured bum-numbing boredom.
But mayhem and carnage, zealotry and bigotry, abuse and exploitation, did not cease.

Counterfactuals are always interesting, but they are not necessarily more desirable. — DA671

They're not necessarily good or bad, any more than the factuals are; one result may be desired by a faction, a different one may be desired by another. How it did happen may be the best way it could have gone for the largest possible number - or not.
Point was: whatever did happen, history continues unhampered.

I understand. I was only trying to stress that ideas such as a legacy and a potent positive impact can be meaningful. The negatives may not have ceased, but we could have been in a much worse place if certain people had not acted in a particular way.

Yes, and the key word there is "necessarily". They could be better (and we often tend to think so), but the opposite is not out the question either. I do think that we can reasonably conclude that one outcome was better than another. For example, having studied India's past and its continual conquests as a result of internal conflicts, I find it improbable that further fragmentation (after the loss of countless innocent lives) would have been good for humanity as a whole.

It will see definitely continue, and the extent to which we are hampered will always be altered by factors that are both within and outside our control.

Celebrate. Give the peons a day off. Stage a parade! I won't get in your way. — Vera Mont

Will you join in, as you are one of the peons or would you join in and tell the peons to start a revolution, or would you not join in, in case you get reported to big brother?

Cripes!! Isn't that exactly what I've been saying?
I don't want to be a leader of any movement, because crucifixion is very unpleasant. I don't want to be a flag-bearer, because so are torture and prison. I don't want to be fighter, because they tend to get hurt. I'm an attentive rider. And thus, my life and 'legacy' won't have an impact on history. And that's OK. — Vera Mont

No, to me, you have been suggesting that come what may, we are unable and incapable of gaining full control over this wheel of progress, you imagineer.
You sound like a big fearty Vera! and that's ok to. As I have suggested before, you are not able to know the impact your legacy will have.

No, to me, you have been suggesting that come what may, we are unable and incapable of gaining full control over this wheel of progress, you imagineer. — universeness

I'm not suggesting. I'm stating flat out: Nothing I have seen, read, heard or experienced leads me to believe that any one person, no matter how wise, determined and brave, and no valiant, steadfast band of "us", can ever gain control of history, whether history is progress or a big bad ship-train.

History is the cumulative effect of all the humans in all the times they have occupied this planet, theorizing, plotting, working, fighting, inspiring and conspiring, inventing, praying and preying, sabotaging, remodelling, revising, preening and lying; constantly in conflict or competition, working at cross-purposes, unable to agree on means even when they hope to accomplish the same ends, while another bunch, over there, is arguing over the means of accomplishing the opposite - tearing down structures to build new things and blowing up stuff others have built.
I don't believe it's controllable.

Maybe someday, when the human population is down to a number that can occupy much smaller, better-distributed spaces, they'll get their act together and create a purposeful civilization.
But not at this point in the cycle.

As I have suggested before, you are not able to know the impact your legacy will have. — universeness

The dead have no possessions and no rights; they can be reinterpreted every two weeks, raised to beatitude or cast into villainy, relegated to footnotes or ignored.
Whatever I may leave behind is not my legacy.
It's a tiny part of their inheritance.

Yes - they influenced warring, racist, slave-owning, religious crusading, imperialistic, clergy- aristocracy- and banker-ridden, nationalistic, militaristic, plague-carrying, mass-murdering, European civilization, which they then forced on other peoples around the world. And that's a good thing? OK — Vera Mont

What I do not see as good is your attitude. "a settled way of thinking or feeling about someone or something, typically one that is reflected in a person's behavior." All the problems in the world are not correctly set on Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle because there are as many positives, so it is like arguing the cup is half full or half empty. All the good also comes from that past and our democracy is one of them. To be clear I am saying our democracy, liberty, and justice for all, comes from the past, but I do not like the militaristic decisions made since the end of WWII.

Really? Well, they sure got bigger in the ensuing 2000 years! What is the "before" you're comparing the "since" to? And how do you measure the contribution of Socrates vs the contribution of Paul of Tarsus - or all the other men who wrote down philosophies along the way? — Vera Mont

If I could, I would send you to 1400 Europe for a three-week vacation and then ask you if you think anything has improved. I am bored with the way you have lumped all the bad together and speak of it as though it were the only reality. This discussion of everything is a discussion of nothing. It is just two people being negative or positive and I have much more important things to do than continue such as argument.

Pessimists don't complain; they know it would be a waste of breath. They observe and comment and predict. — Vera Mont

They spread their attitude and nothing good can come from that. It just is not constructive.

↪Vera Mont I understand. I was only trying to stress that ideas such as a legacy and a potent positive impact can be meaningful. The negatives may not have ceased, but we could have been in a much worse place if certain people had not acted in a particular way.

Yes, and the key word there is "necessarily". They could be better (and we often tend to think so), but the opposite is not out the question either. I do think that we can reasonably conclude that one outcome was better than another. For example, having studied India's past and its continual conquests as a result of internal conflicts, I find it improbable that further fragmentation (after the loss of countless innocent lives) would have been good for humanity as a whole.

It will see definitely continue, and the extent to which we are hampered will always be altered by factors that are both within and outside our control. — DA671

I want to support what you said about ideas having impacts on our lives and speaking of them one at a time is much more beneficial than ignoring the good because there is bad. And I am not sure if there is a better reality to be had?

I have no desire to have an eternal heaven of goodness. There would be no great novels and movies in such a reality. We would have no problems to resolve and our existence would be totally meaningless! The thrill of life is having problems to resolve and having a sense of meaning as we struggle to determine for ourselves what is a good idea and what is a bad one. Personally, I love Socrates' contribution to democracy and discussing the importance of education and exactly what should the young be educated about? What is culture about and how is it transmitted?

I would really like this thread to be about culture, not an argument against one person's negativity because at the moment I don't see any good coming out of that argument.

Well, Athena has been typing a lot on the importance and influence of 'storytelling' in the human experience, and how it is and always has been a vital and very powerful tool in shaping the minds, and influencing the thinking of the next generation. I think that is very true, but which stories we emphasize and which fables are allowed to be peddled as true or fact, is where many of the big problems begin.
I think the story of science is 'the greatest story ever told.' I really enjoy sci-fi but we do need more sci and less fi, until enough humans become less easy to fool, all of the time. — universeness

What a wonderful suggestion! To evaluate which stories are helpful and why. The Greeks were concerned with individuals becoming the best they can be. This was not a government-enforced program and there were very serious debates about the good or bad of teaching people how to argue in such a way they win the argument, even if the idea they are pushing is very bad. Socrates would not have approved of the change in education, because Socrates was most concerned with morality, ethics, integrity, and the search for truth. You know, the culture that forms our thinking and actions.

And I think I best use the little free time I have this morning to reassure the man I have been helping that I do care about him. I hope there is not a feeding tube in his nose, but if that is what he must have, I am glad the medical people can make that decision and take the necessary action. It is so hard to see the tears in his eyes as he must go through this ordeal again. It is his 3rd stroke and I am afraid he will not regain the physical ability that is essential to living on the street. On the good side, I think this time he is going into a facility where he will get the help he needs, but maybe his free spirit would not find that tolerable. Ouch, this hurts. The decisions are not mine but what I say will affect outcomes. Any words of wisdom for this situation?

No I have no advice to offer. It seems that you are the only one on the ground, who knows most about his situation, that is doing her best to help him. If you cannot bring anyone else in, such as a friend of his or one of his family members, to speak for him, then he has only you. What else can anyone expect from you, but your best efforts. I hope if I ever find myself in a similar predicament to this man you describe, that I have a good person like yourself, on and by my side! :clap: :flower:

Whatever I may leave behind is not my legacy.
It's a tiny part of their inheritance. — Vera Mont

What you leave behind (legacy), those who remain or are yet to arrive, inherit.
You are hair splitting Vera!

I am thankful for your gracious support. My own view on utopia (assuming it can ever be achieved, of course) is that it would have to necessarily avoid the kind of pitfall that you mentioned. Without resolving the problem of needing to solve problems, something would remain amiss. In our day-to-day lives, after a certain point, most of us do appear to require novel experiences that constitute an enduring chain of days of value. To that end, I have nothing other than admiration for the project of hope that people like you unfailingly fund with your actions.

Sometimes, effulgence is enhanced by a sojourn in a Stygian cavern.

If I could, I would send you to 1400 Europe for a three-week vacation and then ask you if you think anything has improved. — Athena

Between 400BCE Athens and 1400CE Europe? Not much. So much for Socrates' influence on culture!

They spread their attitude and nothing good can come from that. It just is not constructive. — Athena

Absolutely true. It's my bad, negative, counterproductive attitude that's caused all the trouble in the world; the alternatives I've suggested count for naught. That's what they told me when I was Cassandra. If I could bear it through 81 lives, I guess one more incarnation won't hurt any more.

What you leave behind (legacy), those who remain or are yet to arrive, inherit.
You are hair splitting Vera! — universeness

Maybe, but I refuse to hold Marx responsible for Stalin's deeds.

Influences can be big and diminutive. Although one's misunderstanding of human nature could indirectly influence someone and worsen their immoral tendencies (or give them a justification), I, too, don't hold Marx directly responsible for what Stalin did. Given the turbulent and troublesome environment he grew up in, his desire to help others (often at a great personal cost to himself) cannot be forgotten.

Maybe, but I refuse Marx responsible for Stalin's deeds. — Vera Mont

Wow!!!!! That's a mighty jump Vera! What did I post that suggested such linkage?
Marx cannot be blamed for a horror like Stalin, neither can communism or socialism, in the same way as Mahatma Gandhi cannot be blamed for opportunists like Modi.
If I created hell and horror in peoples lives, and claimed that I did so, based on my personal interpretations of Vera Mont's book, 'The Ozimord Project.'
That would not mean that Vera Mont was responsible for my actions, it would just indicate how much I had misinterpreted Vera Mont or in the case of Stalin, it would simply point to his devious means of conning people into believing he was a Marxist, or a Montist, or a communist or a socialist, instead of what he truly was, a self-aggrandising, narcissist, butcher.

I, too, don't hold Marx directly responsible for what Stalin did. — DA671

The beauty of it is, we can't hold him responsible: he's not here to answer charges, nor to be feted or abused. (Just as well for poor old Darwin, eh?)
One does whatever one is impelled to do. One leaves whatever one has made. How it's interpreted, remembered and regarded is up to the inheritors. The dead cannot own or control anything; it belongs to the living, to interpret and use as they will.

That's a mighty jump Vera! What did I post that suggested such linkage? — universeness

A whole lot of guff about influence and legacy.

:rofl: :flower: