On Feb 21, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Arno Hautala wrote: > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 14:33, Jeffrey Hergan <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> I think of history as >> always at least trying to move toward what is better. For example, >> we want to be more civilized, more athletic, more virtuous, more >> ethical, more prosperous and so on. And the advances we look at >> throughout human history are always things that we say have made a >> contribution to the good, in some way or another. But when I push >> the issue, it strikes me that "the good" or "what is better" turns >> out to be "what is more human". And _that_ turns out to be, for >> example, more altruistic, more intelligent, more creative, more >> loving, more understanding, more just, more wise. > > You've already picked a subject, but you could also go in the other > direction and pick someone who has been negatively influential.
Yes, exactly! The whole idea of "having an historical influence" is so vague. There are scientific ways of measuring the amount of _time_ saved, or wasted. But what makes time valuable is how we use it. Right? Thanks, Arno, Jeff _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
