Philosophyking87
It Thinks For Itself
Given the relatively intense hype and rather inflated atmosphere of lamentation surrounding the recent death of Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs, many - such as myself - have been left clueless as to what specifically renders Jobs such a seemingly iconic figure in the world of technology. Consequently, the question is often asked, "What was so special about Steve Jobs?"
The following is an opinion from amazon.com which sufficiently captures my judgment on the matter:
To me, this is a fairly cogent judgment, with the possible exception of point 4. The reason is that when we are to determine a person's actual merit, how we rank them should rarely include "influence," but instead to what degree they were actually exceptional (as a perosn's influence is not a very reliable method of assesing their actual merit). Clearly, inventing an entirely new product/technology (such as alternating current, the airplane, or the telephone) and making new discoveries (such as the nature of light, how gravity works, and how to store chemical energy) are much more relevant factors when trying to determine a person's merit (and whether or not they qualify as a "genius").
So to me, the fact that Steve Jobs was "somewhat influential" doesn't say much about the man, at least from a larger pespective. The reason is that there are many currently influental celebrities who simply will not be noted as "exceptional" in the history books, just as there were many popular individuals in history who, though celebrated in their own times, are now considered less historically relevant (while at the same time, some of the most historically relevant individuals were not even known during their lifetimes). Thus, current influence is null, which is definitely unfortunate, as this seems to be one of the main reasons for the great hype surrounding Jobs' death. The other significant reason is that he co-founded Apple Inc, a very successul business, which - as we've seen - doesn't necessarily render someone a "genius," or guarantee a very important place in the history books. In the end, then, all Jobs seems to amount to is a fluff icon blown out of proportion by a culture addicted to new gizmos and gadgets, despite the fact that very little new computer technology has actually been created in recent years, beyond the minor tweaks and design changes made every so often.
What we can say is that he was a very successful and influential entrepreneur. And on some level, we can somewhat credit his effort for some of the products we enjoy on the market today. But to say any more beyond that is reaching. Thus, Jobs' actual merit is unlikely congruent with his current social status (which largely seems to stem from misconceptions about his actual merit), so that when someone says, "Yeah, I heard about that Apple CEO/inventor/designer who died, so what?" there's not really much that can be said. And this goes for other entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, as well, as developing successful businesses, as was already said, isn't entirely exceptional or noteworthy (and actually comes down to a lot of dumb luck).
To me, it's the creativity behind a new discovery or a revolutionar world-changing product (such as the airplane) that really makes people stand out as masters of invention. The people who merely set up businesses, and those who make minor improvements to existing technology, aren't really that significant.
The following is an opinion from amazon.com which sufficiently captures my judgment on the matter:
Here's a summary of the main points expressed in this opinion:
- Jobs was, without question, a great entrepreneur.
- A very similar entrepreneur to Jobs was Ray Kroc, who helped build McdDonald's.
- Jobs accomplishments are too recent to properly rank.
- Even if Jobs isn't ranked as highly as Edison, Tesla, or Einstein, he definitely had an influence on our culture.
- The term "genius" should properly denote some who either a) invented something significant or b) made a ground-breaking discovery.
- Building successful businesses is neither a significant invention nor a ground-breaking discovery, as successful business are created all the time.
- So people like Jobs, Kroc, Rockefeller, JP Morgan, and Sam Walton, while successful businessman, don't tend to fall under the cateorgy of "genius," despite the fact that they are often admired influential figures in their lifetimes.
To me, this is a fairly cogent judgment, with the possible exception of point 4. The reason is that when we are to determine a person's actual merit, how we rank them should rarely include "influence," but instead to what degree they were actually exceptional (as a perosn's influence is not a very reliable method of assesing their actual merit). Clearly, inventing an entirely new product/technology (such as alternating current, the airplane, or the telephone) and making new discoveries (such as the nature of light, how gravity works, and how to store chemical energy) are much more relevant factors when trying to determine a person's merit (and whether or not they qualify as a "genius").
So to me, the fact that Steve Jobs was "somewhat influential" doesn't say much about the man, at least from a larger pespective. The reason is that there are many currently influental celebrities who simply will not be noted as "exceptional" in the history books, just as there were many popular individuals in history who, though celebrated in their own times, are now considered less historically relevant (while at the same time, some of the most historically relevant individuals were not even known during their lifetimes). Thus, current influence is null, which is definitely unfortunate, as this seems to be one of the main reasons for the great hype surrounding Jobs' death. The other significant reason is that he co-founded Apple Inc, a very successul business, which - as we've seen - doesn't necessarily render someone a "genius," or guarantee a very important place in the history books. In the end, then, all Jobs seems to amount to is a fluff icon blown out of proportion by a culture addicted to new gizmos and gadgets, despite the fact that very little new computer technology has actually been created in recent years, beyond the minor tweaks and design changes made every so often.
What we can say is that he was a very successful and influential entrepreneur. And on some level, we can somewhat credit his effort for some of the products we enjoy on the market today. But to say any more beyond that is reaching. Thus, Jobs' actual merit is unlikely congruent with his current social status (which largely seems to stem from misconceptions about his actual merit), so that when someone says, "Yeah, I heard about that Apple CEO/inventor/designer who died, so what?" there's not really much that can be said. And this goes for other entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, as well, as developing successful businesses, as was already said, isn't entirely exceptional or noteworthy (and actually comes down to a lot of dumb luck).
To me, it's the creativity behind a new discovery or a revolutionar world-changing product (such as the airplane) that really makes people stand out as masters of invention. The people who merely set up businesses, and those who make minor improvements to existing technology, aren't really that significant.
