In the Hollywood film, “The Bad and the Beautiful” there is a discussion between an actor named Gaucho and a bit-part actress on the make named Lila. Gaucho tells her that his producer friend Jonathan (Kirk Douglas’s character) is a great man. But world-weary Lila laughs and replies “There are no great men, buster, there’s only men.”
So, are there any great men? Were there ever any? Is a Caesar or a Napoleon great? Or were they just great generals. Was Einstein great or was he merely a genius? Was Socrates a great man or merely annoying? How about St Paul?
It seems to me that the definition of a great man is one who is both intelligent and moral. So, it’s not enough to be brilliant if the use of your intelligence is to do evil. And it’s not enough to be a saint if you cannot somehow use this moral sense to benefit humanity as a whole or at least a significant chunk of it.
Framed the way I have here it’s not that easy to pick out these exceptional beings. I guess religious leaders like Jesus, Buddha, Moses stand out. They’ve had an outsized impact on the world. They understood the problem of living in the world of men. It’s so very hard to know what is the right thing to do in the multitude of decisions we make as we negotiate the confusing and frightening human world. How often we choose the easier thing instead of the “right” choice. We compromise our morals and standards to avoid pain or discomfort or even embarrassment. How much more will a leader compromise because the stakes are just so incredibly high.
I guess the only leader that comes to mind is Marcus Aurelius; the philosopher king. Not that he was perfect or that none of his philosophy was misguided. But without a doubt he was intelligent and he used his powerful office to provide the best government he could to the millions who lived within the Roman empire in the second century AD. Maybe this is an example of a great man.
So which Americans were great? Washington, Jefferson? Maybe. In the last one hundred and fifty years I don’t think there’s been much greatness. FDR had a large impact on the country but I don’t think he was wise. And so many of our recent presidents are neither moral nor wise. Some were truly awful, like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and especially Joe Biden.
So where does that leave Donald Trump? Well, morality is not his forte. His private life is a mess. You need look no further than the “Stormy Daniels” episode to see that he does not restrain his baser nature at all. Then again do any of the wealthy ever do better? As for intelligence, he’s not a stupid man. He is an ambitious businessman who knows how to market himself. Is he wise? Well, he’s no philosopher king. But I think he does feel affection for his countrymen. I think he does want to make America a better place and make life better for Americans.
So, let’s just say that if he succeeds, Donald Trump will perform a truly great service for the United States of America. He will save it from the forces that are currently destroying it. He can vanquish the managerial bureaucracy that rules over us and is leeching away our strength and vitality. He will succeed where a century of American presidents has failed to save their country. That would be great.
“There are no great men, there are only great challenges that ordinary men are forced by circumstances to meet.”― ADM William F. Halsey
Yes.
Implying that greatness is forced upon humans rather than innate.
But it takes more than force, I think that greatness is beyond most of humanity.
TomD what you say is definitely true. I could never do what Einstein or Napoleon did. But circumstances are also critical.
“Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.” I wonder if skating by without doing any real work can be considered greatness. If so, then one day the world may recognize my genius.
Some rise to the challenge, while others crash and burn. I believe most Great Men and Women are anointed after death. But some in their own time. Julius Caesar, Scipio Africanus, Marcus Aurelius, Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, George Washington, Saladin, Einstein, Bohr, Turing, Newton, General Patton, Eleanor Roosevelt, Alexander the Great, Emperor Ming, Florence Nightingale, Genghis Khan, Marie Curie, Jonas Salk, etc. While a few are regaled for actions in science, medicine and other peaceful pursuits, such as Socrates, most are known for ruling and/or war. I believe greatness must last past the lives… Read more »
“It is said a person dies two times: when the body gives up their spirit, and the last time anyone speaks their name.” There is something in that.
“Mama always said that great is as great does.” -paraphrase F. Gump
Churchill?
Forrest Trump?
Photog wrote: “So where does that leave Donald Trump? Well, morality is not his forte. His private life is a mess.” I would edit the last sentence: His private life WAS a mess. From what I see of Melania, she will not tolerate another Stormy type incident. I think he has curbed his baser instinct and has entered a later part of life we used to call “Statesmanship”. IIRC, this was the case for Churchill as well (I consider Churchill to have been a great man.) Reagan was a statesman as well. So many other people could have been statesmen: Harry Reid,… Read more »
I guess I was expressing that he’s no saint. Now I’m not trying to say he’s any worse than most men. When I look back over the course of my life I see plenty of mistakes and sins; some pretty awful. But I was trying to objectively identify what is this thing we call greatness. Is it more than skill?
It must be at least skill, such as Einstein and Curie, but most have the personality to match. Omar Bradley was superior to Patton, but who is more famous, who is greater? Patton. The Caesars all had the cult of personality. If you wanna see personality, look at Hitler. He was not the tall, strong Aryan, but he exuded confidence and personality. He was able to bully men much stronger and more skilled than he. Plus he was able to sway millions with the spoken word. A mass murderer to be sure, but skilled in leadership. Some achieve greatness through… Read more »
I don’t deny the genius of generals like Napoleon, Alexander and Julius Caesar. But were they great or terrible. Can even the economic advantages of capturing an empire compare to the death and destruction that war wreaks on a people? Has France ever recovered from Napoleon’s endless war?
Greatness makes no difference between what we currently define as good and evil. Good and evil is redefined by every generation, anyhow. Alexander killed hundreds of thousands at least. Sherman’s march to the sea is still studied in military academies across the globe, as are Geronimo’s tactics. There are arguments made both ways over the nuking of Japan. While Salk’s work is seen pretty much universally as good, even Hitler’s actions are not universally despised. Indeed, most of the Middle East would gladly finish Hitler’s work and kill out every Jew on the planet. Remember, your enemy never sees himself… Read more »
I guess my definition of greatness is restricted. Genghis Khan was the “greatest” conqueror of all time by area and by % of human population under his rule. But I personally cannot consider him a great man. I consider him as a scourge against humanity; a monster. His armies committed atrocities from which certain areas of Asia have still not recovered. I guess I’ll have to qualify my definition as benevolent greatness.