If “legacy” is defined as something left behind that serves to keep one’s memory alive, then I don’t. I think that goal is futile, illusory, and a bit narcissistic. Even those who are “remembered” long after their deaths are not truly remembered. For example, the Alexander the Great who is remembered to this day likely bears little resemblance to the one who was flesh and blood. What we remember are products of imagination. [Which is fine, but then why tie them to people who lived as opposed to purely fictional ones?]
If I could leave behind some configuration of knowledge of the art of human living that would be helpful to anyone (without it being tied to my identity or memory) that would be a fine thing.
Tiger Riding for Beginners 
But was he flesh and blood? Weren’t his veins full of ichor? And didn’t he achieve apotheosis, or was that only the various Caesars?
His legacy was the Hellenistic world. I’m not sure he would have been pleased.
Excuse my rambling, Bernie. I’ve been drinking red wine, which I understand was also a habit of Alexander’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No problem.
I can’t say whether he would be pleased, but I suspect many would be. If we bother to remember someone, we tend toward deification. Of all the things Shakespeare is remembered for, being a shitty landlord is not one, though there seems to be some evidence of the fact.
Now I ramble.
LikeLiked by 1 person
very true. The idea of building legacy is the epitome of narcissism. i mean, even in your nohingness, you want people to think about the qualities you had? But I’d rather leave something beneficial to others when I’m gone, somthing people would find useful devoid of it’s creator.
LikeLiked by 1 person