Great People

[chairdriver]

But, this thread was about great people

 

Great in the sense of "Just too big", as in you can't fathom what would have been if they had never impacted themselves upon the world.

 

 

----

 

Freud is an interesting one, because while most of his theories were vastly wrong (He was the first person to recognise that sexuality is present in children, but made wild logical leaps that make no sense), he invented psychoanalysis and is probably one of the most important contributers to our present understand of the human psyche.

[Eenuh]

A big television audience still doesn't make football players (or any other sport person) geniuses or people who changed our lives in fundamental ways. And no, in 100 or 200 years I don't think anyone will know who Pele or Ronaldo or anyone else was.

[Shino]

Einstein ain't got shit on Cristiano Ronaldo.

[MoogleViper]

Freud is an interesting one, because while most of his theories were vastly wrong (He was the first person to recognise that sexuality is present in children, but made wild logical leaps that make no sense), he invented psychoanalysis and is probably one of the most important contributers to our present understand of the human psyche.

 

Yeah but it's hard to respect somebody that spouted as much shit as he did.

 

Einstein ain't got shit on Cristiano Ronaldo.

 

Yeah I agree. He's nowhere near as much of a prick as Ronaldo. To be that irritating takes some immense skill.

[chairdriver]

I think you are really underestimating the value of football.

 

Maybe, but will anyone remember any footballers of today in 100 years time?

 

I could just as easily post all about Bjork, who probably means as much to me as the footballer that Ramar posted, but realistically she's nowhere close to being in the greatness league as, say, Darwin, who essentially freed millions of people since 1859 from the dominance of overbearing Christianity/religion, and opened up literally too many avenues of thought.

[dazzybee]

A big television audience still doesn't make football players (or any other sport person) geniuses or people who changed our lives in fundamental ways. And no, in 100 or 200 years I don't think anyone will know who Pele or Ronaldo or anyone else was.

 

I agree with your first bit, but then you ruined it with the last bit. People who love football WILL know who Pele is probably Ronaldo is too. Football is extremely new; these people will go down as greats for ever. Like artists are to us now.

 

I think footballers should be allowed if composers and artists are...

 

Though for me the only posts that are interesting is the really incredible people like the first post.

 

And Bergkamp...pfft...you can remember Freund yeah?!?!

[chairdriver]

I agree with your first bit, but then you ruined it with the last bit. People who love football WILL know who Pele is probably Ronaldo is too. Football is extremely new; these people will go down as greats for ever. Like artists are to us now.

 

I think footballers should be allowed if composers and artists are...

 

The thing is, the act of playing football is ongoing - you can keep playing every weekend forever - where the creation of art is a distinct event - you can't paint the Mona Lisa every weekend.

 

In 20 or 30 or 40 or 100 years time they're will be a footballer than puts every footballer that's ever been to shame. Pele will no longer be relevant, because there will be a vastly greater player.

 

The same can't be said for Millais, for example. Every time I look at his work, I'm stunned. There can't be another person who comes later on and paints Ophelia better than him.

 

Nor can there be someone who writes Mozart's Requiem better than Mozart.

 

But there can be a player who scores goals better than David Beckham.

[dazzybee]

The thing is, the act of playing football is ongoing - you can keep playing every weekend forever - where the creation of art is a distinct event - you can't paint the Mona Lisa every weekend.

 

In 20 or 30 or 40 or 100 years time they're will be a footballer than puts every footballer that's ever been to shame. Pele will no longer be relevant, because there will be a vastly greater player.

 

The same can't be said for Millais, for example. Every time I look at his work, I'm stunned. There can't be another person who comes later on and paints Ophelia better than him.

 

Nor can there be someone who writes Mozart's Requiem better than Mozart. But there can be a player who scores goals better than David Beckham.

 

But you're wrong The best footballs have 'moments' of greatness that can't ever be replictaed (something which CAN'T be said of all art); and footballs don't neccessarily get better - Pele is STILL considered the best player ever, Maradonas goal is STILL considered the best goal ever scored (though clearly "they" didn't see my volley last week in 5 a side!!) goals and moments don't get better and better through time....

[MoogleViper]

In 20 or 30 or 40 or 100 years time they're will be a footballer than puts every footballer that's ever been to shame. Pele will no longer be relevant, because there will be a vastly greater player.

 

But there are and have been plenty of players vastly greater than Pele. But he's remembered for how good he was at the time.

 

But there can be a player who scores goals better than David Beckham.

 

I think you need to improve your football knowledge.

[chairdriver]

This deviates from the point that football is the most fucking irrelevant thing in the grand scheme of humanity and history.

[Ramar]

See, Beckham was the best 8 years ago, now he's not.

 

-----

 

Still, this deviates from the point that football is the most fucking irrelevant thing in the grand scheme of humanity and history.

 

No he wasn't.

 

---

 

You forgot, "in my opinion".:wink:

[Roostophe]

This deviates from the point that football is the most fucking irrelevant thing in the grand scheme of humanity and history.

 

You've just lost the debate. Ending on a strop is never the way to go.

[MoogleViper]

This deviates from the point that football is the most fucking irrelevant thing in the grand scheme of humanity and history.

 

That is an incredibly stupid and ignorant thing to say.

 

What if I said that art was "the most fucking irrelevant thing in the grand scheme of humanity and history."

[chairdriver]

It's just a bit sad that when a thread is started so we can learn about the people who've forged our lifestyles as we know it, footballers are brought up.

 

Fair enough if you mentioned the person who envisioned football and created it [i doubt such a person exists though], but even then...

 

 

Someone mentioned it's disrespectful to disacknowledge footballers - surely it's more disrespectful to categorise footballers alongside the greatest thinkers of our history? I might as well mention Jade Goodie - she's done more to "publicise" (I'm struggling to think of the word I actually mean) cancer than anyone else in our country, and therefore encourage people to get routine check-ups.

 

----

 

Plus, the mere fact opinion is divided says alot.

 

If anyone argued that Newton or Darwin or Shakespear didn't deserve to be mentioned, it would just be like "... GTFO."

Edited February 22, 2010 by chairdriver

[Fierce_LiNk]

Great in the sense of "Just too big", as in you can't fathom what would have been if they had never impacted themselves upon the world.

 

Well, then I dare you to ask a footballer face to face what the sport would have been like today without the likes of those players that I mentioned. It wouldn't be the same sport. Like Ramar initially said, Bergkamp changed the way Arsenal played. They are not the same team anymore, and it is purely down to him and his influence. He has influenced many others, and inspired others.

 

A big television audience still doesn't make football players (or any other sport person) geniuses or people who changed our lives in fundamental ways. And no, in 100 or 200 years I don't think anyone will know who Pele or Ronaldo or anyone else was.

 

That point was to further explain how much of a cultural impact football has had on us over the years. To a large portion of people on this planet, football is very important to them, which is why so many tuned in to watch the World Cup Final.

 

Yeah I agree. He's nowhere near as much of a prick as Ronaldo. To be that irritating takes some immense skill.

 

Haha, he is skillful in more ways than one. Very hated, but at the same time, he is great at what he does.

 

Maybe, but will anyone remember any footballers of today in 100 years time?

 

I could just as easily post all about Bjork, who probably means as much to me as the footballer that Ramar posted, but realistically she's nowhere close to being in the greatness league as, say, Darwin, who essentially freed millions of people since 1859 from the dominance of overbearing Christianity/religion, and opened up literally too many avenues of thought.

 

The thing is, the act of playing football is ongoing - you can keep playing every weekend forever - where the creation of art is a distinct event - you can't paint the Mona Lisa every weekend.

 

In 20 or 30 or 40 or 100 years time they're will be a footballer than puts every footballer that's ever been to shame. Pele will no longer be relevant, because there will be a vastly greater player.

 

The same can't be said for Millais, for example. Every time I look at his work, I'm stunned. There can't be another person who comes later on and paints Ophelia better than him - because the creation of art is a personal thing, and varies from person to person.

 

Nor can there be someone who writes Mozart's Requiem better than Mozart.

 

But there can be a player who scores goals better than David Beckham.

 

There have been brilliant players over the years, and its down to taste whether you consider one player to be better than Pele, for example. But, the names I mentioned will always be remembered in the sport because they are the pioneers of the game. Because of their contribution, they have made the sport what it is today. Its still a game with two opposing sides where you aim to score goals. But, some of the stuff the likes of Pele, Zidane and Van Basten did are things that the audience has never seen before. Think of the stadium as a Colosseum. They gave the audience something that they had never seen before. They transformed football from being a game into being an art form.

 

Yes, you can play football every weekend, but not every game is a classic. The Mona Lisa is a classic. In the same way, the 1966 World Cup Final is a classic. The 1999 Champions League Final is a classic. They are important moments in the sport, but also huge moments in history. Not every game is a final, but there are some games that have been talked about for over half a century that will be talked about for the next half and so on.

 

To really see what I mean, you need to like the game for a start. I think a lot of you probably resent the sport, and I'm not going to judge you on that because that you're own opinion of it. Much like your argument about Mozart, I think we'll be waiting for some time before we can even question if someone plays the game that Bergkamp plays better than he does. Football is a tribal thing, and these names do get passed down from generation to generation. Sure, there will always be great footballers coming on the horizon, but there is a difference between being a skilled or great player and being Dennis Bergkamp or being Paul Scholes or Marco Van Basten. What these people do is something that goes way beyond simply being good at the game. In the same way that Mozart is simply not just a musician. They are re-inventing and re-exploring the rules, creating and breaking along the way.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Fierce_LiNk

[Supergrunch]

It's a bit annyoing that this thread has turned into an argument about whether footballers can be great, when it should be about introducing (and explaining, for those who haven't given descriptions or even names) people you think are great, be they footballers or otherwise. While some individuals have had massive impacts on history, this surely isn't the key criterion for greatness - it should be about the accomplishments rather than the consequences. Otherwise, you'd have to largely reject any artistic achievements as being less great than scientific ones, as the latter almost always have a greater effect on the world. Ultimately this means greatness is in part a personal thing, but consequences of this are that opinions given should be justified.

[Fierce_LiNk]

It's a bit annyoing that this thread has turned into an argument about whether footballers can be great, when it should be about introducing (and explaining, for those who haven't given descriptions or even names) people you think are great, be they footballers or otherwise.

 

You are spot on, and I wouldn't have got into this debate had Ramar not been prompted or questioned over his choice of great person. I mean, the fact that 6 people actually thanked Emashers post questioning Ramar's choice was not on, in my opinion. Not only that, but Oxy's post just did it for me and I felt compelled to reply.

[Shorty]

It's a bit annyoing that this thread has turned into an argument about whether footballers can be great, when it should be about introducing (and explaining, for those who haven't given descriptions or even names) people you think are great, be they footballers or otherwise.

 

Are you kidding? This thread would be way less interesting if it was just

 

[image]

 

"Text I copied from Wikipedia and reworded to make it seem like I had it memorised"

 

Repeat.

 

Debates like this are what forums were made for. Look at all the multiquoting and bantering, people are really getting fired up. I love watching this stuff.

[Ramar]

Are you kidding? This thread would be way less interesting if it was just

 

[image]

 

"Text I copied from Wikipedia and reworded to make it seem like I had it memorised"

 

Repeat.

 

Debates like this are what forums were made for. Look at all the multiquoting and bantering, people are really getting fired up. I love watching this stuff.

 

I didn't quote wiki I used only my own words. ;_;

[Pyxis]

I do like George Orwell, but his books are a bit in your face. 1984 was a brilliant read and he did have Communism summed up pretty well. This guy probably did a lot of good with his literature/brainwashing.:p

 

Darwin is my personal hero. He wasn't just the guy behind evolution, but he challenged what everybody and himself believed in and the monkey man made everybody else look like monkeys. He had an enormous sense of clarity and could see so much that everybody else was blind to.. It's amazing that a guy like him could have existed when he did.

 

I also really like David Attenborough, I have so much to thank him for. He taught me about this world that we live in and he is such a big campaigner for the preservation of this planet. His story is kind of like Darwins.. His career started off with him catching animals to put on display in zoos and through his life, he became enlightened about our planet and the role we ourselves our playing in the destruction of it. When he dies, it will be a really sad day for me and the whole of humanity will be at a loss.

[Daft]

[Supergrunch]

Are you kidding? This thread would be way less interesting if it was just

 

[image]

 

"Text I copied from Wikipedia and reworded to make it seem like I had it memorised"

 

Repeat.

 

Debates like this are what forums were made for. Look at all the multiquoting and bantering, people are really getting fired up. I love watching this stuff.

Lol, I guess the argument can be fun too, but I'm still interested in seeing who other people consider to be great.

[ipaul]

I appreciate the following aren't in the same league as Darwin or the other great thinkers, but still:

 

Tony Benn

For being pretty much the definition of integrity and never holding back. More politicians should be like this, instead of the spineless rats in the cabinet.

 

Clement Attlee

For creating the welfare state and overseeing the introduction of the NHS. Obviously this wasn't all down to him, but he was PM at the time and played a good part of stabilising the Labour party through the 1930s. Obtained a landslide for Labour in 1945 and pushed the policies through.

 

Harold Wilson

Along with Roy Jenkins, he oversaw the abolition of the death penalty, the legalisation of homosexuality and abortion, and the relaxing of divorce laws. Revolutionary legislation that needed to happen.

 

 

Pipes are awesome.

[The Bard]

Yeah but it's hard to respect somebody that spouted as much shit as he did..

 

Well no, it wasn't all shit, Freud had a lot to say that wasn't just to do with sexuality, and while a lot of it was him finding patterns in things that weren't always derived from sexuality has been found to be misdirected, what Freud is most definitely worth lauding for is not his "scientific" tropes, but because of the mode of interpretation he created. I mean, we do not know anywhere near enought about the brain to come to exact causal determinations about its computations, so we have to rely on huge aggrigations, or what we see in daily life, interpreted as proof of fact. I mean, Freud was immensely accurate in a lot of his psychological theories (as modern neuroscience and psychology have at times determined), but even when he wasn't, it is HIS mode of interpretation that caused us to even develop branches of knowledge such as psychology, or sociology. The modern study of human behaviour is his child.

 

A genuis and an inextricable part of the 19th/20th/21st centuries.

 

 

I donno. I'm mega monged out right now, so some of that might not have made sense.

Edited February 22, 2010 by The Bard

[ipaul]

 

Well no, it wasn't all shit, Freud had a lot to say that wasn't just to do with sexuality, and while a lot of it was him finding patterns in things that weren't always derived from sexuality has been found to be misdirected, what Freud is most definitely worth lauding for is not his "scientific" tropes, but because of the mode of interpretation he created. I mean, we do not know anywhere near enought about the brain to come to exact causal determinations about its computations, so we have to rely on huge aggrigations, or what we see in daily life, interpreted as proof of fact. I mean, Freud was immensely accurate in a lot of his psychological theories (as modern neuroscience and psychology have at times determined), but even when he wasn't, it is HIS mode of interpretation that caused us to even develop branches of knowledge such as psychology, or sociology. The modern study of human behaviour is his child.

 

 

 

A genuis and an inextricable part of the 19th/20th/21st centuries.

 

 

I donno. I'm mega monged out right now, so some of that might not have made sense.

 

It actually made as much sense to me as anything you've ever posted (that's a lot of sense right there)