The Great Men of History (2 Viewers)

[Tolstoy]

To what extent do the choices of individual men and women determine the course of history?

 

[jb_nc]

none[--------------x--------------]heaps

 

[Groucho Marxist]

to a large extent.

 

[Rainie]

Your answer is here.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[КГБ]

Gandhi was a racist.

 

[КГБ]

Stalin, Hitler, Mao

 

[rasengan90]

ARRRG Modern History personality studies ahoy!

 

[xeuyrawp]

Insert:
* proponents for,
* retorts,
* references,
/thread.

 

[KFunk]

Determinism, yo. What do the choices of the individual even amount to?

 

[Gerald10]

Serious answer?

Truly influential changes, whether in a democratic system or not, require a large (or significantly powerful) portion of society to be behind such changes.

Individual can (and do) influence society to a certain extent and can lead them in certain directions to bring about change.

So the real question is how much can one person influence popular opinion? The answer to this relies upon the potential for the people to be influenced. This in turn relies heavily on the societal context.

 

[Silver Persian]

Insert:
* proponents for,
* retorts,
* references,
/thread.

Yes but what do you think sir?

 

[Silver Persian]

Determinism, yo. What do the choices of the individual even amount to?

Determinism by who or what?

 

[xeuyrawp]

Yes but what do you think sir?

I think that the Great Man Theory is not only a bad methodology for analysing history, but is also a methodological flaw unto itself:

If you actually read the works of the GMT proponents, you'll see that they don't really think that great men are central to historical events, but rather that great men are central to historical works (in the sense of books, articles, films, series, cartoons, etc) about these events.

Once you see this, you realise that the GMT is really misplaced on history when it should be placed on secondary historical discourses. The theory that historical works have traditionally been about 'great men' is definitely a valid arguments, and one hard to argue against.

I personally see the above as the biggest strike to the theory itself, although other arguments - namely that GMT simplifies history to easily-understandable characters and events - is also valid.

 

[Iron]

I agree with Pwar that the individual is meaningless w/o reference to greater truths

 

[xeuyrawp]

I agree with Pwar that the individual is meaningless w/o reference to greater truths

I agree, but that's not my main point.

People who advocate the Great Man Theory are mistaking 'actual' history with secondary historical accounts.

 

[georgefren]

good old mhistory.

 

[Iron]

I agree, but that's not my main point.

People who advocate the Great Man Theory are mistaking 'actual' history with secondary historical accounts.

Yeah, so basically it's not PopeXVI who's great, it's the book he's reading from

 

[xeuyrawp]

Yeah, so basically it's not PopeXVI who's great, it's the book he's reading from

Olol. (Stop trolling me)

 

[Iron]

...
/lick

 

[KFunk]

Determinism by who or what?

A long causal chain (of which great men are part, granted).