Archived Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 (en.wikipedia.org)
submitted ago by Joe_McCarthy
Posted by: Joe_McCarthy
Posting time: 3.1 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 2/14/2018 10:00:00 AM
Views: 235
SCP: 13
13 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)
Archived Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950 (en.wikipedia.org)
submitted ago by Joe_McCarthy
Sort: Top
[–] WhySoFalseFlag ago
Eh stupid list. Where is Nikola Tesla? Literally none of your electronics except light bulbs would work without him.
[–] KosherHiveKicker ago
It is interesting that the author has intentionally chosen to begin his list of "accomplishments" at the late date of 800 B.C.
Considering that we know multiple civilizations prior to that date pioneered major contributions to "the ascent of man".
[–] Master_Foo ago
I imagine that's because it becomes harder to determine provenance the farther back in time you go. I mean, we should probably include the invention of fire as the single most important advancement in human achievement, but, it's pretty much impossible to attribute that to any one person, or even any given proto-civilization.
A quick glance puts Homer as the oldest figure I could find on the list, and that's pretty iffy. We really don't have any historical record of Homer actually existing. We just have works that are generally attributed to Homer, but are likely the work of generations of verbal history.
Pretty much anything older than Homer is going to be the same thing. Prior to that, written history is usually about the accomplishments of a king who won a battle, or will be attributed to someone who is more likely a legendary hero as opposed to a historical person, for instance, Abraham. According to legend, Abraham invented the concept of monotheism, which might make him worthy of being on the list of Philosophy, but the historical provenance is highly questionable as to whether he actually existed.
[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] ago (edited ago)
Murray had a reason for doing that. Off the top of my head though I can't remember what it was. The book is a survey of individual geniuses based on verifiable data though as much as it is anything else. Go much further back and it can be hard to separate history from legend - especially as it relates to artistic and scientific advances pertaining to individuals.
[–] Master_Foo ago
Homer makes the list and I'd argue he doesn't belong as he can't be historically verified. But, I'm not going to throw too much of a fuss, It's an interesting list. Maybe a good place to start reading some biographies I haven't gotten around to yet.
[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] ago
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/282085.Human_Accomplishment
[–] [deleted] 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago (edited ago)
[–] Joe_McCarthy [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Except that Murray doesn't disregard contributions by non-Europeans. His list is Eurocentric but only because human accomplishment is Eurocentric from 800 onward. I think about 80% of his list are 'dead white males'. Not sure as it's been over a decade since I read it.
[–] [deleted] ago (edited ago)