Issue36 [Mettle 7.25] by werecat

werecatUID: 2289296

"The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries."


Can we as contemporaries judge the value and achievements of our coeval individuals? Or are we just capable of evaluate our predecessor's greatness and glories as their offspring? Some one insists that we can only give disinterested assessments about those who live before us while other people hold the contrary viewpoint. As my judgment, I would suggest that we should scrutiny great people case by case, for their characters, backgrounds and overall situations vary dramatically from person to person.

In some cases, we can give impartial opinions about people as their contemporaries, the examples sparkled in many fields of our society. First of all, let us take Bill Gates into consideration. As the establisher and navigator of Microsoft, Bill Gates achieved not only tremendous personal wealthy but also the high-technology foundation of USA. Back to the 1980's, the Japanese companies thrived in almost all fields of business and swept many American rivals, as many predicted that Japanese products would dominate the markets, Microsoft's success and the consequent success of the Silicon Valley was a great surprise and relief. Other than the commercial giants, many respectable politicians are revered during their lifetime. Regarded as national heroes, both Churchill and Roosevelt were famous for their braveness, ambitious and imperturbable. Governing during the worst time of the WWII, both of them guided their countries through numerous minefields and hardships. It is universally acknowledged that we can not accolade too much of them. Still, artist like Beethoven was applauded ever since his very first works. For all the people mentioned above, it is obvious that the present judgments are objective enough.

However, exceptions occurred frequently that the public lived with those great people can not give their judgments objectively. Honored and canonized as today, Bruno and Galileo were infamous heretics in their own time. Their theories were spitted on by almost everyone, their books were banned from publication, and they were even persecuted and sentenced to be burned publicly. What's more, genius like Van Gogh also suffered from discriminations from his surrounding people. Although the coming generations esteemed him as one of the arch masters and his works were marked as masterpieces. He was impoverished all his lifespan. In sum, there are still many pitiful great ones can not witness their deserving honors alive.

We must also notice that certain people have the power to prevent public from judging them correctly. Vivid examples are those authoritarians like Stalin, Hitler and many ancient deposits. When Hitler grasped the sovereignty of Germany, no one spared any effort hailing to him, at that time, even leaders of other countries must considered twice before blaming him. The situation is alike in the time of USSR. When Stalin ruled Soviet Union, any antagonist would disappear quickly and may never turned up again, as a result, only those who adored Stalin can maintain their seats in the government. According to these instances, we can only be assured to access the truth after certain periods of time.

To summarize, the greatness of individuals are judged by time and by the public as well, we can not hastily come to the conclusion that contemporaries do not have the ability to judge them, however, on the contrary, it is also true that some individuals can only be reviewed justly by the coming people. In a word, this is a case-by-case analysis which refuses generalization.

macawUID: 2291086

Issue36 Mettle 7.25 by werecat
"The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries."


Can we as contemporaries judge the value and achievements of our coeval individuals? Or are we just capable of evaluate our predecessor's greatness and glories as their offspring? Some one insists that we can only give disinterested assessments about those who live before us while other people hold the contrary viewpoint. As my judgment, I would suggest that we should scrutiny great people case by case, for their characters, backgrounds and overall situations vary dramatically from person to person.我觉得这句有点别扭，一个个人审查名人……

In some cases, we can give impartial opinions about people as their contemporaries, the examples sparkled in many fields of our society. First of all, let us take Bill Gates into consideration. As the establisher and navigator of Microsoft, Bill Gates achieved not only tremendous personal wealthy but also the high-technology foundation of USA. Back to the 1980's, the Japanese companies thrived in almost all fields of business and swept many American rivals, as many predicted that Japanese products would dominate the markets, Microsoft's success and the consequent success of the Silicon Valley was a great surprise and relief这个例子我没明白，怎么中间插了一个日本企业的，两头是微软. Other than the commercial giants, many respectable politicians are revered during their lifetime. Regarded as national heroes, both Churchill and Roosevelt were famous for their braveness, ambitious and imperturbable. Governing during the worst time of the WWII, both of them guided their countries through numerous minefields and hardships. It is universally acknowledged that we can not accolade too much of them. Still, artist like Beethoven was applauded ever since his very first works. For all the people mentioned above, it is obvious that the present judgments are objective enough.

However, exceptions occurred frequently that the public lived with those great people can not give their judgments objectively. Honored and canonized as today, Bruno and Galileo were infamous heretics in their own time. Their theories were spitted on by almost everyone, their books were banned from publication, and they were even persecuted and sentenced to be burned publicly. What's more, genius like Van Gogh also suffered from discriminations from his surrounding people. Although the coming generations esteemed him as one of the arch masters and his works were marked as masterpieces. He was impoverished all his lifespan. In sum, there are still many pitiful great ones can not witness their deserving honors alive.

We must also notice that certain people have the power to prevent public from judging them correctly. Vivid examples are those authoritarians like Stalin, Hitler and many ancient deposits. When Hitler grasped the sovereignty of Germany, no one spared any effort hailing to him, at that time, even leaders of other countries must considered twice before blaming him. The situation is alike in the time of USSR. When Stalin ruled Soviet Union, any antagonist would disappear quickly and may never turned up again, as a result, only those who adored Stalin can maintain their seats in the government. According to these instances, we can only be assured to access the truth after certain periods of time.
这段给人感觉最重要，很批判，ETS就好这个

To summarize, the greatness of individuals are judged by time and by the public as well, we can not hastily come to the conclusion that contemporaries do not have the ability to judge them, however, on the contrary, it is also true that some individuals can only be reviewed justly by the coming people. In a word, this is a case-by-case analysis which refuses generalization.

个人觉得前两段平铺直叙，然后举了一个不错的反例，这个反例可以在第一段提一下，呼应，应该感觉就更好了