Data:2/18/2008 Word:613 Time 55min
Can the greatness of individuals be only decided by those who live after them with somewhat sense of history or critical thinking, as the speaker maintains？From my point of view, though I concede in some particular fields such as physical science and engineering, it is the case. However, when it comes to other social subjects who focus more on our feelings and emotions such as art and other literal fields, the greatness of individuals can be justified by their contemporaries. This principle can also be applied to business and political world.
We don’t require a rear-view mirror to evaluate the greatness—whether in music, painting or literature. The reason is simple and obsolete that these areas are focusing more on person’s emotions without any researches to prove or disprove like other subjects on human’s intellectual needs. After all, even the birth of these areas is through the clashes between our ideals of harmony and beauty and our enduring suffering, then spark a light—the light conveys the special or magic power to call for something deeply rooted in our heart, such as a chase for freedom, a desire to love or be loved and long for a rich mental world. According to this criterion, artistic greatness can be easily judged; some apt examples illustrate this point of view in any fields of art. Does not it arouse our sympathy and admiration to Scbinddler who use up every coin in his pocket to rescue Jews in War Two when we are indulged in Spielberg’s special made story? Or is not it an intelligent baptism when we listen to Beethoven’s Symptom 9? Few would dispute that such intense feeling is the same whether in their contemporaries or in those who lives far behind them.
However, in the science or other areas whose aim is to solve human’s lasting problems and sufferings, and to enlighten our hidden inspirations and enthusiasm to explore the unknown. Considering that our understanding of a particular phenomenon or a certain issue is increasingly deeper, all the principles or laws in textbook might be proven to be wrong, at least partially wrong in some respects which demean its status in science history. Take a look at our understanding of universe for example. Copernicus’s theory of sun-centered system totally change our attitude towards universe which is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church for thousands years; and have a chain effect both on physical and philosophical world. However Copernicus was labeled as crazy for this, then is described as a hero or forerunner in science, tomorrow he might be the footnote of textbooks due to the emergence of new theories. Given the discussion above, there are no eternal idols or heroes in science; yesterday’s advancer might be tomorrow’s impediments, so even history can provide a comparatively objective evaluation on such person, let alone some contemporaries who wit their birth and growth with either blindly appreciation or rejection.
In the realm of business, in some cases great achievement is recognized immediately while others need time to prove. Take Bill Gates for example who on one hand lifts American technology out of the doldrums in the 1970s,while his far-reaching monopoly still be waiting to full evaluate to the development of IT areas. The latter one has to leave to our progenies. A far more controversial one is the evaluation on Stalin. He rescued Soviet Union from Hitler’s hands, it is also his dictation that strip thousands hundreds innocent’s lives who shared different political opinions.
In sum, the speaker unfairly generalizes while overlooks many great individuals and achievement in every aspects of our society. Considering the complexity of this issue, I insist a case-by-case basis.