If I Could Meet And Mingle With Any 5 People, Dead Or Alive, They Would Be...

  • Mark Twain
  • Sam Peckinpah
  • Raymond Chandler
  • Larry David
  • Boston Corbett
Author Comments: 

soon i may articulate as to why, but for now i would say most need no justification.

Albert Einstein
William Shakespeare
Oscar Wilde
Winston Churchill
Princess Diana

Actually, delete them and replace with ... Jesus Christ

he'd be there, but i have no reason to believe he's not fictional, so jesus is sort of a conditional pick... princess diana? what could you possibly want to meet her for? not that any of my choices are any more interesting, but i fail to see any reason to, maybe you could explain.

no i take that back... I rank those 5 ahead of jesus, real or not.

Queen Elizabeth I
Duke Ellington
Abraham Lincoln
John Locke
Mary Wollstonecraft

honest abe was my second choice behind Teddy when i was trying to think that there must be at least 1 great president worth meeting... and i'm not much interested in career philosophers, much more interested in artistic philosophers, in other words the ones who put their beliefs in fiction rather than text books.

TR is certainly an excellent choice but I think he would try to dominate the conversation. Then he and Twain would get into a shouting match, ruining your very nice brunch (if the cigar smoke hadn't already done the trick.) I tried to pick extroverted listeners. I chose a "virgin," two bisexuals, an unwed mother and... John Locke. I guess that he's the "father of the founding fathers" but that is sooo dead white men patriarchal... not that there's anything wrong with that. I wanted to mix and mingle to the jingling beat of people in the running for greatest/most important of five different centuries.

If I didn't want to mingle but wanted to just listen, transfixed with fork betwixt plate and mouth, I'd love to sit at a table with Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Dorothy Parker, Mark Twain and Oscar Wilde. Assuming that Lincoln, Parker and Twain weren't in their depressive periods there would be unstoppable laughter... Franklin would drink enough for Parker (and vice versa.) Boy! that is fun to think about. Thank you for that.

I think that Locke would be shocked to learn that he was in textbooks and Wollstonecraft would be shocked to learn that she wasn't.

is mary wollstonecraft the mary shelley that wrote frankenstein or am i confused?

you are right though... i didn't take into account interaction and it is interesting to think about, with the 5 i chose it's pretty certain i'd have a war on my hands... oh but what a fun and interesting war it would it be!

It's confusing because Mary Wollstonecraft died shortly after giving birth to the daughter who would be named... Mary Wollstonecraft (soon to be) Shelley.

It is tough to come up with interesting/great people who'd make an unmangled mingle.

so then who is mary wollstonecraft? other than being the mother of mary shelley

Born in London 1759. Lived all over the place... even in Wales. Opened a school for girls in 1784 and wrote Thoughts on the Education of Daughters: With Reflections on Female Conduct, in the More Important Duties of Life in 1786. Helped Joseph Johnson to found the Analytical Review which he had wanted to call JJ's Guide to Life on £2 a Day.

In 1790 she wrote Vindication of the Rights of Man which attacked Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France which was itself an attack on the French Revolution and a defense of inheirited monarchy. It was part of a whole big He said/He said/She said thing started off by a Richard Price sermon praising the French Revolution and arguing that British subjects had the right to remove a bad king from the throne. Wollstonecraft also wrote against slavery, game laws, the treatment of the poor and the division between Russian and Thousand Island dressing.

By 1791 she was a year older and two years wiser so that, when 1792 rolled around, she could write her most famous work. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (With Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects) was the first feminist treatise and certainly no way to get a man. She held that men and women were equal and held the same rights. She said that education for women would lead to that equality being realized. She also attributed the low condition of women to the kind (and the lack) of education that they received and the scarcity of comfortable footwear.

Early in her life she tended to her ill mother. Later in life she refused to marry the father of her first child in order to avoid him becoming responsible for the debts that her family owed. Shortly before she died she married an anti-romance, anti-matrimony atheist and they were very happy, by god. The rest of her life was spent being a goody-two-shoes to everyone and their daughter... especially their daughters. Her personal life was what caused early suffragists to distance themselves from her (nobody likes an unwed goody-two-shoes.) Her condemnation of abortion may be what keeps her from getting big feminist props today.

When she is read today the most common reaction is, "She was right." Now ain't that a woman?

The New York Times has a fine review of what is, evidently, a good biography of Mary Wollstonecraft which is, obviously, easier to read than the 562 page book itself.

...although both use the phrase "hyena in petticoats."

Phwhew. You had me scared for a few weeks there, 0dysseus! Hope all is well!

Thank you. It was a down time but it is so nice to be noticed, even in absentia.

From what I can tell by looking back... erm, catching up? or... blundersearching, Shadow Syndromes has gone from making you think that "now that I'm aware of 'the situation,' I can more consciously effect change. This is why I read." to "just because I didn't read some chapters doesn't mean I got nothing from it." Somewhere along that journey Eeyore has come down (or is it come up?) with ADD. Wouldn't this transform Eeyore into Tigger?

Which is all just a way to deflect attention from me saying "Whoops! Sorry 'bout that." I hope that I still have a chit for pointing to the earliest known citation of Gladwell's The Tipping Point . "Tipping Point salad" indeed! (Well, "earliest known" to me.)

You know, Eeyore always was my favorite resident of the 100 Aker Woods. "I don't want to mention it, but I just mention it. I don't want to complain, but there it is. My tail's cold."

The early section that included Eeyore was one of several chapters that spoke to me. If ADD gave me Tigger's "fun fun fun fun fun!" attitude, that'd be great. I'm glad you recommended Shadow Syndromes because of what I pulled from the parts I did read.

I don't want to mention it, but I will. I don't want to complain, but here it is: we don't get enough of your lovely posts.

Hmmm...much tougher to limit myself to five than I thought it would be, but here goes:

Jonathan Swift
Capt. James Cook
William Blake
Babe Didrikson Zaharias
Orson Welles

I trust there wouldn't be any awkward silences here;)

Johnny Waco

The (real) Babe is such an excellent choice. You would be part of an awesome foursome in golf. Orson could stay on the cart while Swift could caddy and make "lilli-putt" jokes until Cook and Blake went all brobdinag and started beating him with their nine-irons.

For whatever reason I thought it would be great to meet a great athlete from the past, and it came down to either Babe or Jim Thorpe, and from everything I've read, Babe had a pretty gregarious personality, not to mention she didn't take any s--- from anybody! I think Jim may be a little sullen, but I could be wrong.

And with Babe, we could play not only golf, but just about anything. If you left out Orson (who could be the coach or something) it might make a pretty good basketball team;) I don't know if we would play as a team though--Blake might be a real ball-hog...

Johnny Waco

This thread leads me to ponder the question - do you think pessimistic philosophers, such as, say, Thomas Hobbes (who is known for saying that natural human life is "poor, nasty, brutish, and short") were actually a real drag to hang out with? Or do you think they were able to keep their work and their social lives separate, that Hobbes might have actually been a pretty fun guy? I could see it going both ways. I could see Hobbes standing in the corner of the party in deep thought, never talking to anyone, and if someone asks him if he wants some punch, he says, "Sure, as long as I don't have to die a violent death to get it." Or I could see Hobbes as someone who puts that all aside when he's among friends - he cracks a few jokes, he has a few beers, he has a good time.

that is an interesting thought... i always assumed that even the most pessimistic of people, specially those who are able to communicate their beliefs to many, would be fairly normal in person, sure they would still have the same beliefs but i don't think it would define them... i mean think about it, if you were to write a philosophy book after philosophy book would you see yourself as, under normal circumstances, being the same person that you may portray yourself as in your writing?... i definitly don't think i would, it would be like two completely different people... i have my beliefs and i have my actions, they may compliment each other but i doubt many have molded both together that tightly.

I don't think I'd want to hang out with any kind of misanthrope no matter how gregarious. After a couple of glasses of punch it could get very ugly.