Well as for literature, Homer may have been the greatest for hundreds of years but he was surpassed. Shakespeare is damn hard to beat and I don't think either Doyle or Dickens have managed to do it. Doyle, in particular is populist by comparison. The point is that Shakey, as a contemporary did do better than Homer as a person of the past, so it is possible that history may well find a new literary genius.
As for philosophy there is a thread of progress (ugh! I hear you say). Really, Plato's time is over and although we may still rely on him for things he was the first to say, most of his work is no longer useful or relevant. None of the philosophers "outclass" contemporary philosophers as they no longer have the power to respond to up to date issues. On Dec 31 2008, 4:06 am, Archetypal Columnist <[email protected]> wrote: > The prolific writers Charles Dickens,Sir Conan Doyle,Shakespeare and > whatnot is exquisitely intellectual in their enterprise,which,we,the > contemporary humanity is revering them of their optimal repertoire. > > Confucius,Lao Tzu,Homer,the philosophers,had outclass us in light of > ethics and morals which we hitherto assimilate them.I perceive I am > marginally inferior,like having penury and being destitue. > Vying with the past is apparently downright inimitable. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
