Originally posted by Moldy CrowI don't dispute the third point, merely the claim that Edison did all of the synthesising of technical ideas he's often credited with. He didn't -- his employees did, and I can't name any of them without a Google search, because in the public mind, he is credited with their work.
This is complete idiocy.
First - the "others who did it better" stood on his shoulders.
Second - what's wrong with being an opportunist and prospering from it?
Third - No inventor, scientist, thinker works in a vacuum. In this case, invention is not cojuring up something from nothing. Most of invention is taking that which is already there and p ...[text shortened]... and having the vision of taking that which has been abandon by others and finding it's use.
Second -- I didn't say anything was wrong with being a prosperous opportunist, but it's so common that it can hardly be called 'great'.
First -- What? Edison's work was analagous in many ways to Bill Gates'. In what non-trivial way has Bill Gates stood on Edison's shoulders any more than on thousands of others?
Originally posted by rbmorrisFfs, I didn't say any of the things you've implicitly accused me of saying. In fact, I said that doing these things is 'not necessarily not great'. I made no mention of the virtues of being rich or poor.
Getting paid for something, doesn't make you a bad person. I think people should be judged on the impact they've made on society, not the paycheck they recieved for it. Just because you're rich, doesn't mean you're a bad person, and just because you're poor, doesn't mean you're virtuous.
You should check out the greatness of whoever invented Hooked on Phonics.
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenRelax chief. It's just a discussion, not a personal attack.
Ffs, I didn't say any of the things you've implicitly accused me of saying. In fact, I said that doing these things is 'not necessarily not great'. I made no mention of the virtues of being rich or poor.
You should check out the greatness of whoever invented Hooked on Phonics.
Originally posted by rbmorrisI didn't condemn Edison. I suggested that it's silly to call him one of the greatest 10 Americans ever, because many other people (specifically, more than 10), accomplished similar things.
How can you have Ayn Rand on your list and condemn Edison. Isn't that a bit incongruous?
At risk of hijacking, I think the economic aspect of Objectivism is overstated by most. Rand's protagonists embody the idea that the individual should strive to be as good as possible according to his or her own standards of goodness. If they happen to become wealthy in so doing, then so be it, but anyone who views wealth as anything other than a means to some other ('good'😉 end should probably find new standards of goodness.
Rand is on the list because I believe it is important that we remember that societies exist to serve their individual members, and not vice versa.
1 edit
Originally posted by rbmorris... wouldn't want you getting lonely, MonkeyBoy 😀
...and here you are.
I have a nice long 6-day Easter Weekend and it's blowing a howling southeaster today (...flatulation & other hot airs from the 10 greatest narcissists in the Excited States to the south of us?). I'm gearing up to go out and spade up a row in the garden for spinach seeds anyway 😉
Originally posted by jareyesBecause "blood and guns" enabled the kind of society that could give birth to Hemingway, Steinbeck, Thoureau, Faulkner, etc., and allow them to flourish.
Damn!... where are Hemingway, Steinbeck, Thoreau, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Betty Friedan, W. Lippmann???? :'(
Edit. Why only blood and guns? pfff... now I feel like watching some South Park 🙂
Originally posted by widgetFor once, I agree with you. There are many aspects of "greatness", and in my opinion it's completely meaningless to compare the "greatness" of politicians, musicians, scientists etc. That's like asking what's best, bread, music, or glasses.
This whole thread [b]is completely idiotic 😕 [/b]
Originally posted by NordlysI don't like to put butter on my glasses 😛
For once, I agree with you. There are many aspects of "greatness", and in my opinion it's completely meaningless to compare the "greatness" of politicians, musicians, scientists etc. That's like asking what's best, bread, music, or glasses.
Originally posted by NordlysPerfectly true, Snorty! 😲 Only very few politicians achieve greatness, in any event. Most of today's musicians and TV personalities are transient and trivial. We just love to judge people, don't we?
For once, I agree with you. There are many aspects of "greatness", and in my opinion it's completely meaningless to compare the "greatness" of politicians, musicians, scientists etc. That's like asking what's best, bread, music, or glasses.
PS: 😉 'Glasses' are best ~ particularly when they contain wine 😵
Originally posted by widgetrec'd! 🙂
Perfectly true, Snorty! 😲 Only very few politicians achieve greatness, in any event. Most of today's musicians and TV personalities are transient and trivial. We just love to judge people, don't we?
PS: 😉 'Glasses' are best ~ particularly when they contain wine 😵