"Who was the most influential of them all"
Even now I am unable to understand the idea behind asking such a futile question. Was it to test our knowledge of history, because the answer to such a question does not tell you anything other than that.
Influence can be both good as well as bad. The degree of influence does not tell us anything about the kind of influence. “Measurements have no value significance – and acquire it only from the nature of that which is being measured.”
That was around a year back during the GD/PI sessions. Today I heard a stronger version of the ‘influence-greatness’ theory, as I call it. It says that the person who is able to speak up his mind, convince and make followers out of people is a great person. Greatness is defined by the degree of influence. The great masses of people who are lost in the oblivion of anonymity are not great regardless of the greatness of their individual acts. And the most despotic of dictators is great because he can rule over everyone.
The argument taken to its logical extreme implies that Hitler was one of the greatest persons of the last century. Whereas the honest businessman who is driven by self interest and has no ambitions to brain wash his fellows is worst person on the face of the world. Now assuming that the examples correctly illustrate the true definition of greatness, the question is what such a concept aims to achieve?
Concepts are tools we use to classify and categorize knowledge, to make it more amenable for usage. The importance of such classification can be encapsulated in a single statement, the one made by Prof. RamC in the competition and strategy lecture – “All knowledge is about classification”.
Now accepting such a definition for ‘greatness’ as given by my friend, the consequences are ghastly. First, there ceases to remain any difference between great leaders like Winston Churchill and evil leaders like Hitler. Second, the one word which appreciates the greatness of all extraordinary achievers such as Edison, Bill Gates or Pele is obliterated forever.
So much for the usefulness of concepts!!
Influence can be both good as well as bad. The degree of influence does not tell us anything about the kind of influence. “Measurements have no value significance – and acquire it only from the nature of that which is being measured.”
That was around a year back during the GD/PI sessions. Today I heard a stronger version of the ‘influence-greatness’ theory, as I call it. It says that the person who is able to speak up his mind, convince and make followers out of people is a great person. Greatness is defined by the degree of influence. The great masses of people who are lost in the oblivion of anonymity are not great regardless of the greatness of their individual acts. And the most despotic of dictators is great because he can rule over everyone.
The argument taken to its logical extreme implies that Hitler was one of the greatest persons of the last century. Whereas the honest businessman who is driven by self interest and has no ambitions to brain wash his fellows is worst person on the face of the world. Now assuming that the examples correctly illustrate the true definition of greatness, the question is what such a concept aims to achieve?
Concepts are tools we use to classify and categorize knowledge, to make it more amenable for usage. The importance of such classification can be encapsulated in a single statement, the one made by Prof. RamC in the competition and strategy lecture – “All knowledge is about classification”.
Now accepting such a definition for ‘greatness’ as given by my friend, the consequences are ghastly. First, there ceases to remain any difference between great leaders like Winston Churchill and evil leaders like Hitler. Second, the one word which appreciates the greatness of all extraordinary achievers such as Edison, Bill Gates or Pele is obliterated forever.
So much for the usefulness of concepts!!
posted by The Lone Footballer @ 7:43 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home