Welcome to Funny Games

Play top FREE games daily
Register Now

People V Person

Discussion in 'Intelligent Discussion' started by mrmystic, Jan 5, 2009.

  1. frankenfish

    frankenfish Computer Guru

    unfortunatly, nollog is right about mans development and inventions. everything we do or say is caused by some other outside influence. if you grow up without any stimulation of any kind you turn into a vegetable. every "new" idea, invention, or theory didnt just pop out of nowhere. no one has an original thought. the caveman who first learned you could control fire didn't discover fire. he saw it burning and thought "hey i'l just take this with me". the wheel most likely was thought of from seeing rocks rolling down a hill. people man WAY to much credit. all we are is hairless monkeys with language. language is all that separates us from other creatures because language allows for the transfer of ideas instead of them just being forgotten. different peoples experiences from external stimulus builds upon an idea. you can have the smartest person in the world but if no one listens to them its pointless. individuals can be great with the help of the masses. with no leader there are no masses. with no masses there cant be a leader. they go hand in hand
  2. mrmystic

    mrmystic MoreAkwardthanaJewateastr

    I see your point Noel. You're absolutely right, lots of famous people steal for their jobs. Look at Architecture. However, I feel that the maker of the wheel didn't build it so that it could be used for an airplane, the guy who tamed fire didn't do it build a steam engine, astronomers didn't stare at stars or the sun to become famous. These people didn't create to please the masses nor to control them. They did because they felt they had to, they had the desire, and that is why they should be held above the mediocre mass. People may use paint made in a factory, and a brush made by a suburban housewife and canvas medium first used centuries ago, but when a painter puts them together they become more than the sum of their parts, they become art.

    Of course men are influenced by their environment. As you put, you would have to be a "vegetable" not to be. However, what I feel separates great men from everyone else is that they do not desire to stay in the same environment. They use that desire to create or to change to rise above what an average human accomplishes.

    Is it really pointless to be right if no one listens? Look at all the historical figures who were punished for believing the world was flat, or that the sun was the center of the universe or that mercury wasn't a cure for venereal disease etc. Was their work pointless? Perhaps, in our society which is indoctrinated to revere the masses over the individual, it was.
  3. frankenfish

    frankenfish Computer Guru

    as to your first part. sure they can choose to strive to rise above the normal man. but they didnt come up with that ambition themselves. they look at past "great" men and say "hey i'm gonna be like them". and if they do strive and accomplish a higher than the average man status somehow, but no one knows, or cares, or believes them, it really doesnt matter. it would only matter to that person who would be distraught that no one cares.

    to your second part. yes, it is incredibly important that people listen. you site all these people who were punished for believing the earth was flat. that was the dominant theory for hundreds of years. of course people were listening wen people were being prosecuted for sharing their beliefs. all the examples you've given were at one time the dominant theories. everybody believed them. so i'm not sure what your point is. no their work was not pointless because it influenced millions of people. now wat if they hadn't shared these theories and their work was destroyed. would it still matter? even if they had been right yet no one knew?

    man it feels great having an intelligent discussion on these forums again. its been so long:rcain:
  4. TubaDude

    TubaDude Guest

    Ok. I think I get that Mysitc is trying to say. Believe me when I say this, both of your views make hell of alot more sense then anything I could dish out. But think of it in a more inspirational or maybe even an artistic point of view. Frankenfish was right about people being inspired about other peoples work and really, we wouldnt be here at all today if people didnt try which examplifies Mystics point. A great man myabe just is simply someone who has the will, and tried to make a difference in this work at all. Even though those inventions were stacked upon eachother, it still took an individual that was inspired or motivated enough to actualy put forth the effort to create those inventions at all. And im actualy surprised none of you brought up Rome yet. Rome was just dishing out all these new inventions for everyone and when Rome fell, we entered the Dark Ages. Now from what I see there are two views you can look at this as: Either look at Rome as a whole and say that because we entered the Dark Ages is because Rome fell OR the people who actualy invented who just happened to be roman. And then again, those individuals inside Rome would have to be influenced by something. Either by the people or the will to actualy create something new. Its just how you look at it I think. But both of you make very good points. Im nuetral on this and will say that it is a two way road thing.
  5. mrmystic

    mrmystic MoreAkwardthanaJewateastr


    Sorry FFish, I meant the theory that the earth was round. I'm fighting a cold, and it was early in the morning for me, totally changes the meaning of my statement, so I apologize. What I was trying to show was that a man, a "great" man, was willing to stand against the masses because he was right, whether people recoginzed it or not. Glad you're intrigued by the discussion. I'm quite impressed that it hasn't degenerated into a flame war at this epoch. Anyway,,,,:

    As to the first part of your post....You really believe that the only motivation for being "above average" or "messing with the curve", to put a more scoalistic twist on it, is that one desires to be "great" in the eyes of the masses? You don't think that some people invented or created some object, e.g. the wheel, the airplane; the steam engine; for the simple fact that they had it in their head and it had to be fleshed out, they had to build it or they would be destroyed by their unrealized vision?? If you are right, where then would the original ambition come from, the original "greatness", that one would strive to emulate?

    I feel that it takes a great man to understand that the world will not accept what he (she) has to offer, even when it is the truth, and still "fight the power". They don't do it to be "famous" or "great" (whatever your definition of the word), but simply because they have the desire and the ability to display the truth.

    As to the second part: Yes, a man who can control the masses should certainly be considered great. Don't get me wrong, I recognize that. However, I feel that one who can stand against the masses, when he is right, or even when he believes he is right, should be held to at least a high a post. It takes a certain greatness to "stick to ones guns" not with the intention of being "different" or of "change for sake (sic?) of change", but because you are right and true.

    Tuba, you take the best arguments from both sides and mash them together into a big ball of nothingness. I have to admit, your insights into each side are quite good, no argument there. However, taking a middle road on this issue is quite a cop-out. Take a look at the original question, before anyone's arguments have had a chance to influence you, and let me know what you really think. That's the nice thing about this forum is there is not right or wrong (unless you disagree with me ;) ) answer as long as you can articulate your reasons.
  6. TubaDude

    TubaDude Guest

    What I mean by nuetral is that I think that you need the people to influence the man. And that the great men that were influenced by the people, will influence the people. I think that you need both to have people want to become and make an effort to become greater than the average man in the first place.
  7. SexyDan92

    SexyDan92 The Clansman

    the problem is that man is inherently screwed, there can be no perfect democracy, 'all for one and one for all' is just fairytales. To be able to have a working society, you have to have a mix of pain and pleasure, a mix of good and evil. You should have a fair society, but that society must have sects, and these sects must have places in society, for example, im no hitler, but people who are disabled in forms which mean that they are unable to be of use to society, need to be controlled, i dont know how, but you get the point, too much manual labour and money is spent on them, when this money could be finding a cure to cancer.

    Im not harsh, i just have a different viewpoint
  8. TubaDude

    TubaDude Guest

    Um that was off topic. We arent talking about the problems of society. We are talking about whether individuals are better than people in general, or if it is the other way around. Look at the first post.
  9. SexyDan92

    SexyDan92 The Clansman

    no it wasnt off topic, these people are the 'mob', therefore im saying that you need a person to control the mob, not a democracy, because that would be people controlling the people, it has to be singular
  10. mrmystic

    mrmystic MoreAkwardthanaJewateastr

    So does that make the mob greater than the person, or the person greater than the mob? What about people who didn't ever lead "mobs", can they still be great? Or is the mindless masses the only thing to be revered?
  11. Can I get a defeniton of mob"?". I know the term to a degree but have not fully learnt it.
    The masses, if that was what was meant, is made of individuals.

    The "Vast group of individuals" that co-exsist together with similar views is what makes up a specific group. Therefore the masses are the man.

    How's that for something probably already posted and missed by me "as I" skimmed through.

    Of course this splits into diffrent sections of masses. The masses are made up of little groups which are made up of diffrent numbers of men.

    You heard it.

    What one mass thinks is right is not nessac'rily what another group of masses thinks is right, and therefore the masses are the man as the man is that which has his own views.

    Erm. Wait. I'm just "Repeating" my point.

    Monarchy is an example of the person leading the masses. This person stands out from the masses, as they are the defined leader.
    The masses follow the leader.
    The leader leads the rest.
    The leader decides how the masses will

    Has someone pointed out something like that before"?".
    Well. Something sim'lar yet not quite the same.

    Have I just lost my trail of thought again.
    Masses: Made up of individuals.
    Monarchy based leader: The one that acts as the leader of the masses of indivudals.
    I love the monarchy system. And I think that my nation, Great Britain has had great monarchs, and still does.
    Yes. Thats a random fact.
    Why bother arguing with that.

    The term "Greater than the sum of its parts" is also appliable here.
    The individual does exsist with the masses. And the masses exsist with the individual, as pointed out before.
    The leader leads them. I like the monarchy system. I also like saying that.

    I'm allowed to repeat that fact right"?"
    Ah. Good ol' Monarchs of Great Britain.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 31, 2009
  12. Agreed.
    And control of the masses comes through inspirations of great deeds. In many cases.
    Man and woman of course.
    Yes I realise that the term man was meant to mean human, rather than gender specfiic man, but I'm just being silly.
  13. Ah British Monarchs.
    That's something I'll do a lot.
    Anyway. On with the post.

    For some reason I'm not able to edit my posties from before. Must be something of this site I'm not used to.
    Anyway. Control isn't prehaps the right word for all situations. Varies dep'nding on what is meant by control.

    Let's say. For the sake of random example so I'm not having to bring up any real groups, that Cult A had 200 followers. They then commited horrible crimes and such, as we see in worst case scenario's.

    The leaders of Cult A is a random person from a random country.
    Can that person be said to be great"?".

    Ther'fore, the situation of greatness varies.
    Some leaders in history have been great.

    So actually. Not agreed. My opinions change rapidly. Or rather I'd meant it in another sense of agreed-ness. Agreed with it in some aspects. Then thought of further things to add her'.
    Greatness comes from many diffrent aspects.
    Now British Monarchs.
    Ah. Need I say more.

    I'm incredibly pro-Britain.
    How can that be wrong"?"
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 31, 2009
  14. mrmystic

    mrmystic MoreAkwardthanaJewateastr

    So....how high where you when you posted this, Justfor? I mean, really, on a scale from incredibly baked to stoned stupid? Just wondering.
  15. templarnight

    templarnight ...physcosocial


    In most cases, the masses are more important then the individual.
    However, in the case of war, a intel officer or a person with captued intel is worth thousands of lifes. The PODUS or a King, for example, is worth MANY more lifes.

    Then again, its the masses that makes the individual, but the individual rules the masses..

    Truly it is madness

    Is man not entitled to the sweet of his brow?
    Money is needed to run a well organised government.
    but its your money, not theres, why should you pay it?
    You live in the contry, able to sleep at night because you know your safe, you have freedome, and thats not free.
    But I EARNED this! what if i dont feal like paying?
    Thats fine, just know there will be concoquences.

    thats simple.

    Necesity is the mother of invention.
    There was no NEED for the AK-47, the most reconisable small arm of the 20th centery. there was no need for guns with a fully-automatic triger, they where just wanted!

    Generals plan wars, but young boys fught them
  16. the disciple

    the disciple not good=not the end

    one person should be no more important than another. People are all different. They ahve the right to have diferent ideas and thoughts than others around them. they can be wotever they like as long as it does not break the law. they can doa s they please as long as its not breaking the alw or puuting otehr epopel under pressure and such as.

    People vs Persons = both the same,though a group of people e.g. a jury can convict,and such,another person.

    So in conclusion it depend on the circumstanses.

Share This Page