Which of the following persons really existed?
Which of the following persons really existed?
Agamemnon, Jesus, Confucius, Solon, George Washington, Mohammed, King Artus ? Well, never mind. It does not really matter, in the sense of "making a difference", which one from the list above really existed, as a person of flesh and blood, and who was a legendary figure, invented by some people or a community.
All that matters is that what they did or said, or what we ascribe to them, has become an element of cultural tradition, that it has had - and for some of them still has - effects in how we look at things and how we act.
Whether figures like Jesus or Mohammed really existed - their words and deeds have had an enormous impact, and in practical terms it does not make a difference if this impact is based on a person of flesh and blood (dead a long time ago) or on a legend invented by a group of like-minded people. The only thing that really matters: that enough people today still believe in what X or Y said or did, because it is shared beliefs that make the cultural world go round.
Just imagine historians would come up with reliable evidence that George Washington never really existed , that he was a kind of King Artus-like figure invented by the founders of the USA? What difference would it make to the lives of Americans? The discovery would cause a turmoil among scholars, that's for sure, but the reality of life in the USA would continue unscathed.
6
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I'm glad to see all these posts. I can tell you do a lot of deep thinking. It makes me want to do the same! I could learn quite a bit from everyone here. Things I've never thought or learned before.
MarvinaSmith
Level 2
Mar 19, 2019
0
I could not agree more a figures existence or none existence is unimportant compared to their effects on the ongoing culture, which stand on their own merits.
Excepting one small point with some figures and some belief systems, like Jesus, a literal belief in their reality has to be assumed before a literal belief in some things like miracles can be assumed. Sometimes therefore it is not the figure whose credibility is the main issue when asking questions about existence are made, but the credibility of the accounts, which are questioned indirectly.
Though I suspect that a lot of the speculation which people do into the reality of figures from the past is done, simply because it is fun, and as long as they are up front and honest about that, there is no harm in it.
Fernapple
Level 9
Mar 19, 2019
0
This makes sense to me in a certain way. The time was ripe for something like the Christian message to burst upon the scene—the revolution would have come forth in any event and the names of the players are not important. That message is constantly being corrupted—and it is constantly being renewed through new expressions, new media. It’s not something that happened in year zero and is over—it is still happening.
The same forces are seen in the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the rise of Islam, New Thought, science, commerce—the list goes on and on, but the impetus behind all of those changes is the same. It is growing self awareness on a universal level.
There is no particular reason why I am me and you are you. The sensation of separateness is an illusion. Individual humans are players in the drama, but that drama would go on in any event—the names of the actors are not important.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Mar 19, 2019
1
The Christian message did not "burst upon the scene". It was just one of many cults and if it had not been adopted as the Roman state religion we may still all be pagans. Islam was spread by military conquest and then by favourable treatment of Muslims such as lower taxes.
Yes, this is, in part, why I regard the traditionalist / mythicist debate concerning the historicity of Jesus as a potentially fun side debate but ultimately of no consequence. I have a view about it, but not one that matters to my take on life.
It makes a big difference to literalist / fundamentalist actors of course, but that's their problem. As @luckytobealive points out, if your acceptance of the teachings ascribed to Jesus rely on him being an actual historical figure, then it's a game-changer of a question.
Personally my path out of that thought process involved figuring out that Jesus was a lying sack of shit, long before I decided he didn't exist to begin with, so again, it doesn't matter.
mordant
Level 8
Mar 19, 2019
1
If every effect has a cause then pragmatically the effects of Christianity. Islam, et al must have a cause. If you want to say these people never really existed, or didn't exist in a historical manner, that still does not explain the phenomena that describes the effects.
cava
Level 7
Mar 19, 2019
2
I regard the Abrahamic faiths as an interlocking set of self-perpetuating memes. They do not require the existence of their founders to succeed or to be rendered explicable, only belief in their existence or even in just the validity of the teachings ascribed to them. Whether Jesus founded Christianity or it was a group effort (e.g. the Jerusalem Council hiding behind their own concocted Jesus mythos), doesn't really matter.
The explanation is simply that most humans are still more comfortable with ideologies that cater to their confirmation bias around mortality and transcendence. People want something that affirms their hopes and dreams and aspirations and soothes their fears. Religion has delivered this, and largely still does. So it endures.
cava:
@mordant This question could be framed differently....as in the Great Man Theory
[en.wikipedia.org]
@cava Even historically existent Great Men were not necessarily or clearly all that great, it is the mythos around their lives that confers "greatness" upon them. They are symbols at least as much as they are people.
For example, we ignore that Lincoln was given to terrible depression and suspended habeus corpus and played dirty politics with the best of them and was still rather a product of his times in how he regarded the personhood of Negroes or their fitness to have full human rights. Instead we cherry pick his brilliant moves, his compassionate side, and his martyrdom as powerful symbols.
cava:
@mordant OK that's fine but regardless of Lincoln's frailties he had the skills required to hold together a Union in the face of a civil war, and emancipate the slaves and he left us with some great ideas about who we are and where we came from. Sure he was a man of his times, he was the perfect instrument for his times...A Great Man.
@cava My point exactly. The Lincoln mythos distills his greatness. We don't hold up his failures, only his successes. I'm not denying that Lincoln had greatness in him, and that it positively shined in important and historic ways ... I'm simply saying that there's a divergence between Lincoln the symbol and Lincoln the actual man. The cause of the emancipation of slaves wasn't Lincoln, it was some of Lincoln's ideas, advanced by Lincoln's charisma and persistence and leadership skills, in spite of Lincoln's human weaknesses and blind spots.
To my original point, then, it's hardly controversial that the enduring aspect of the influence of Jesus on culture and society isn't Jesus himself, or his historicity, but the ideas and concepts and principles attributed to him and the parts of his life as presented and commonly understood.
cava:
The question is "What difference would it make..." if any of these people did not exist...think about Lincoln...if he was never President...
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
World Music
1360 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.