Re: In the eye of the beholder
[quote]
I agree. It really is not a good word for this scenario that can play out.
Although most of us realize it is not one dimensional issue, you could point out the worlds strongest man. This being entirely out of context, like Hitler, to what I think the post was not intending.
A better word would have been magnanomous.
If we were to measure greatness by one’s influence on the world, as most people in this topic have, it would be insanity to say that Hitler was not “great”. The day that his name will be lost to history is a distant one indeed. Personally I feel that moral aptitude is so subjective that I would not even think of placing it into the definition of greatness. Dictionary definitions of great are:
Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent: a great crisis.
Of outstanding significance or importance: a great work of art.
As I stated before, Hitler was extremely influential.
Superior in quality or character; noble: “For he was great, ere fortune made him so” (John Dryden).
This would be the one thats up for a large amount of debate though as also stated before, morals are subjective. It should also be noted that "quality" is often used in terms of ability. Hitler had quite a great ability when it came to charisma.
Powerful; influential: one of the great nations of the West.
Eminent; distinguished: a great leader.
I think that we could all agree Hitler was both powerful and eminent.
Out of these five definitions, it's notable that only one of them subscribes to morality. I can't say I'm a fan of the terms "good" and "evil"; to me they are but words used to justify the worst of wars and offenses.
As for the most influential person, I too will choose Jesus. Though Constantine was the one to legalize the religion, therefore raising its popularity, it was still Jesus who gave him the materials in the first place.
Re: In the eye of the beholder
[quote]
Quote:
I agree. It really is not a good word for this scenario that can play out.
Although most of us realize it is not one dimensional issue, you could point out the worlds strongest man. This being entirely out of context, like Hitler, to what I think the post was not intending.
A better word would have been magnanomous.
If we were to measure greatness by one’s influence on the world, as most people in this topic have, it would be insanity to say that Hitler was not “great”. The day that his name will be lost to history is a distant one indeed. Personally I feel that moral aptitude is so subjective that I would not even think of placing it into the definition of greatness. Dictionary definitions of great are:
Remarkable or outstanding in magnitude, degree, or extent: a great crisis.
Of outstanding significance or importance: a great work of art.
As I stated before, Hitler was extremely influential.
Superior in quality or character; noble: “For he was great, ere fortune made him so” (John Dryden).
This would be the one thats up for a large amount of debate though as also stated before, morals are subjective. It should also be noted that "quality" is often used in terms of ability. Hitler had quite a great ability when it came to charisma.
Powerful; influential: one of the great nations of the West.
Eminent; distinguished: a great leader.
I think that we could all agree Hitler was both powerful and eminent.
Out of these five definitions, it's notable that only one of them subscribes to morality. I can't say I'm a fan of the terms "good" and "evil"; to me they are but words used to justify the worst of wars and offenses.
As for the most influential person, I too will choose Jesus. Though Constantine was the one to legalize the religion, therefore raising its popularity, it was still Jesus who gave him the materials in the first place.
If the Greatest man would befall on someone infamous then so be it. That is not what I am saying.
Hitler had a nation that needed direction. He was in the right place a the right time. He was a very good speaker. When you add that to masses of people that are willing to follow anything that promises to get your nation out of the crutch that Germany was in at that point will no doubt be successful.
What acclimates did he have?
I would like to here them.
He handed over Military power and other responsabilties to friends rather than people that were qualifies. That proves two things. One, he was not capable himself of the task and two, and more sadly, he could not even appoint someone worthy of such tasks.