The great men of history don't exist

[enchanted]

Not only were most great things accomplished by groups of people, Walter Isaacson, a prolific biographer and author, argues that the towering people praised in history books (Jefferson , Steve Jobs) were so effective at shaping history not because they were so empathetic and good but rather because they lacked empathy and were willing to do things that most of us common people are simply too moral to do. There is a trade off between being effective and being moral. This concept might be familiar to many people but Isaacson builds a strong case for it in this interview and in his books. 

 

[LordFall]

It's a cool thing to think about, thanks for sharing. I think there is some good nuance to this. There are some leaders that took humanity forward but it is a lot of right place at the right time. Plenty of nurses work 12 hours a day and beyond a day to save life and are pretty irrelevant in history and have no status. Status is also an engineerable thing so it's not like it's an objective way of assessing a human's worth. 

I watched Rome HBO recently and it showcases the story of Augustus the first roman emperor called the greatest politician of all time. The man was a monster who ruined the lives of his own daughter and sister to solidify his political power. 

Edited Wednesday at 06:37 PM by LordFall

[Basman]

"Great men" are remembered for their results. Not for being saints. Nobody cares how nice you are except ivory tower academics apparently. 

Vlad the Impaler is considered a hero in Romania. It probably wouldn't exist today if not for him. Certain things you can't accomplish without breaking an egg. 

Too much presentism 0/10

Edited Wednesday at 09:33 PM by Basman

[shenanigans]

Ehh, depends on what you mean by 'Great man'. Some of the greatest people in history were simply philosopheres or sages. (Buddah, Jesus, Confusius, Socraties, Enlightened thinkers, Einstin, and great scientists.). When you say great you mean politically and militarily great. Alexander and Cesar were pretty ruthless in politics and war, but were also well moraled. They simply didn't care about societies rules at the time that inhibited them and were willing to break them—Which is fine, rules are meant to serve the welfare of society. If you are just that goated, Unilateralism is actually the best form of governement. But I digress. 'Great man' is moreso an astetic and rare personality type than an actual measurement of 'Greatness' etc.

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:10 PM by shenanigans

[AerisVahnEphelia]

13 hours ago, Basman said:

"Great men" are remembered for their results. Not for being saints. Nobody cares how nice you are except ivory tower academics apparently. 

Vlad the Impaler is considered a hero in Romania. It probably wouldn't exist today if not for him. Certain things you can't accomplish without breaking an egg. 

Too much presentism 0/10

 everyone is a hero, not just to everybody !

[Leo Gura]

There is a tradeoff between survival and Goodness. Most people only care about survival, so what they call "great men" are measured by survival, not Goodness. 

Being Good and being effective are very different things. Famous people are famous because they are ruthlessly effective at the cost of Good.

You don't become famous for being simply Good.

Edited 19 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Asayake]

Gandhi is proof that good men exist, although yes just because someone is a billionaire doesn't mean they're a good person

[LordFall]

5 hours ago, Asayake said:

Gandhi is proof that good men exist, although yes just because someone is a billionaire doesn't mean they're a good person

Gandhi accomplished a lot but part of the crowd that fell for anti hedonism as a cope for rejecting healthy sexuality and his repression lead to strange actions later in his life like sleeping naked with underaged girls in his family to test his willpower lol. Just go get laid bro it's not that deep. 

Who was involved: The primary participants were his grandniece, Manu Gandhi (who was approximately 17–19 years old at the time), and Abha Gandhi (his grandnephew's wife, around 18–19 years old). His personal physician, Dr. Sushila Nayar, also participated in earlier variations of these practices.

What the experiment was: Gandhi had taken a vow of celibacy in 1906. Decades later, to test whether he had completely eradicated sexual desire and reached spiritual purity, he began sharing a bed unclothed with these young women.

No Allegations of Sexual Violence: Historical records and personal diaries kept by the women themselves (such as Manu Gandhi's diary, published as Bapu – My Mother) confirm these arrangements took place, but none of the women recorded any physical advance, overt sexual contact, or abuse.