Political Crossfire Forums

[Jason.Spade]

This is the first of a series of short essays proposing questions that I plan to post. My essays are cumulative, in the sense that they build upon eachother; at least, they are intended to be as such. They are also intended for those capable of understanding them.

Due to the limitations of the language, only 'men' are referred to. Keep in mind that this refers to all of mankind, and not only men.

Also note that I used a bit of literary freedom, or poetic license, while writing.

Essay Topic: Great Men and Good Men wrote:
In the history of mankind, there are good men, and there are great men. Men such as Washington, Augustus, Genghis, Alexander, Caesar, Luther, and King would all be considered great men. In history classes, students study all the great men in history; in comparison, philanthropists and philosophers, such as Thoreau, Sartre and Locke, promote those qualities that create good men. Assuming the above, I propose the following question: is any great man a good man?

It should immediately be noted that great men are called great because they have done great deeds, but good men are called good men because their heart and mind are pure. Many qualities contribute to good men, notably a sense of humor, deep honesty, an innate sense of loyalty and obedience, and (most importantly) a profound sense of humility and a lack of pride. How many people would call a know-it-all or a show-off or a tattle-tail a good man? From an early age, those children of humanity recognize good qualities and not-so-good qualities. Of course, while it may not be necessary for a good man to have all of those traits, or rather have traits similar enough to replace the missing ones, it is important that a good man not have a strong ego or pride.

On the other hand, the idea of the existence of a great man without an innate ego, sense of self, or pride is nearly unthinkable. I consider it essential to the success of an individual in a grand and great endeavor for that individual to desire to succeed. Although this may sound typical or obvious, there is a bit to consider. This means that for Washington to have become president, he must has wanted to become president; despite his refusal to become the American monarch, he nonetheless pursued a position of power. Just as Alexander and Genghis desired to conquer, Washington conquered his own dreams. Their ambition must have been as great as the deeds they performed.

This ambition is one of the renowned qualities of Washington, Genghis, Alexander, and all other great men. Above all other traits, it is ambition that separates the good men from the great men.

There remains the question as to whether a great man can be good; the response relies upon very simple ideas. Good men are 'good' for the sake of others and seek the quality of 'goodness' as opposed to reputation. Great men, despite the outcomes of their actions, perform their actions out of their desire to succeed at the task. It is upon this question that I propose my question.

Please read the entire essay before posting, and consider my words.

[Jason.Spade]

I see that this topic doesn't really stir debate.

[SanJam84]

You're trying too hard... there's nothing more to this topic than the normal spectrum of human capacities for goodness and greatness. Since you've separated the qualities of "good" and "great" we have four combinations... good-great, good-not great, not good-great, not good-not great. There's also everything in between. The not good-great category, for warlords such as Alexander, Genghis, even Hitler, answers your question. Not any great man can be good.

On to what you were really asking. The legacy of great men is made only by others. Some permit, or even encourage their own greatness, but recognizing your own greatness is not a fault, nor does it counter goodness.

"On the other hand, the idea of the existence of a great man without an innate ego, sense of self, or pride is nearly unthinkable."

I have a strange feeling your ignorance got in the way of recognizing one who epitomizes both the great and good, but whose ambition, ego, and self-pride are none. A woman (whose gender I'm not hindered by the "limitations of this language" or any language to convey) and who put herself second to those she committed her life to. Mother Theresa, whose greatness come only from her good, would not label herself as ambitious, egotistic, selfish, or proud, nor would anyone else. Since her task was goodness, she is both great and good, hands down.

I'd think you even more ignorant if you had spelled renowned the way you did without asking for literary freedom or poetic license.

[Phædrus]

Mother Theresa !

brilliant example ...

I always thought it was a pity that after she died, her greatness and goodness were somewhat overshadowed by the putative greatness and goodness of another woman who had recently died - the ex-wife of the heir to the British throne ... and also in the same week Georg Solti - a very great conductor and musician who was married to a woman many years younger than him ... so he must have been good too

[Robin Hood]

All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. Lord Acton

* Letter to Mandell Creighton (April 3rd 1887)

[Snarf]

SanJam84 wrote: You're trying too hard... there's nothing more to this topic than the normal spectrum of human capacities for goodness and greatness. Since you've separated the qualities of "good" and "great" we have four combinations... good-great, good-not great, not good-great, not good-not great. There's also everything in between. The not good-great category, for warlords such as Alexander, Genghis, even Hitler, answers your question. Not any great man can be good.

On to what you were really asking. The legacy of great men is made only by others. Some permit, or even encourage their own greatness, but recognizing your own greatness is not a fault, nor does it counter goodness.

"On the other hand, the idea of the existence of a great man without an innate ego, sense of self, or pride is nearly unthinkable."

I have a strange feeling your ignorance got in the way of recognizing one who epitomizes both the great and good, but whose ambition, ego, and self-pride are none. A woman (whose gender I'm not hindered by the "limitations of this language" or any language to convey) and who put herself second to those she committed her life to. Mother Theresa, whose greatness come only from her good, would not label herself as ambitious, egotistic, selfish, or proud, nor would anyone else. Since her task was goodness, she is both great and good, hands down.

I'd think you even more ignorant if you had spelled renowned the way you did without asking for literary freedom or poetic license.
Mother Theresa was hardly a good woman. Her goal was souls for God. She denied women birth control and abortion, keep money from a donor who ripped off poor Americans as part of investment scams, and spread poverty in her quest to do 'God's will'. She started her own order out of her own ego and reveled in the accolades the world so freely passed her way. She may have bordered on ‘great’ in the case, but she was in no way ‘good’…

[Ch33kY]

I love the chauvinistic spin on it!

There may be good men and there may be great men but women are inferior. They are an after thought and thus are at mans service. You mentioned Jean-Paul Sartre in the essay. He'd be laughing at the chauvinistic litterary you mention his name with.

"On the other hand, the idea of the existence of a great man without an innate ego, sense of self, or pride is nearly unthinkable" - Nearly. But I just thought it. Again, I love the religious spin. God created these people with innate qualities eh? Again, I suggest you read some of Jean-Paul Sartre's work.

Also, good and great are both value judgements. I wouldn't expect everyone to believe that same way. I believe many of those characters mentioned to have made great impacts on the world and the way we understand it, however, I'm in no position to make judgements on them as personal characters.

Praise the Lord!

[Preechr]

Snarf wrote: Mother Theresa was hardly a good woman. That’s the thing about greatness and goodness. Both titles have to be anointed by others to have any sort of validity. What makes a person great to you may not make a person great to me. The same goes for good people. For that reason Jason’s question is unanswerable. The qualities that make a person great to Jason, may preclude that same person from being judged by Jason as being a good person. If greatness and goodness are being judged my me, that may not be the case. If greatness and goodness are being judged by you, you may agree that people can be both great and good, but disagree with any of the people I think are great and good.

I will leave one name for people to play with: Jesus Christ.

[Jason.Spade]

Dear gents, this essay had already been concluded on other forums before you decided it beneath your... intellectual scope. Perhaps others simply think your trash is their treasure. In any case, sufficient amounts of debate have already occurred for the follow-up essays.

I thank you for your additions and commend you on your willingness to adhere to the previously stated opinion as opposed to responding to an open-ended question; I would also like to thank you for your dedication to the forum, even if the stones of your constructs are thrown instead of stacked.

[Ch33kY]

Jason.Spade wrote: Dear gents, this essay had already been concluded on other forums before you decided it beneath your... intellectual scope. Perhaps others simply think your trash is their treasure. In any case, sufficient amounts of debate have already occurred for the follow-up essays.

I thank you for your additions and commend you on your willingness to adhere to the previously stated opinion as opposed to responding to an open-ended question; I would also like to thank you for your dedication to the forum, even if the stones of your constructs are thrown instead of stacked.

:lol:

Watch out, he's a Scollar.

Women are inferior. There, thats a new title for the essay.

[FDG]

Jason.Spade wrote: Dear gents, this essay had already been concluded on other forums before you decided it beneath your... intellectual scope. Perhaps others simply think your trash is their treasure. In any case, sufficient amounts of debate have already occurred for the follow-up essays.

I thank you for your additions and commend you on your willingness to adhere to the previously stated opinion as opposed to responding to an open-ended question; I would also like to thank you for your dedication to the forum, even if the stones of your constructs are thrown instead of stacked.

BOOM BOOM BOOM BOM I WANT YOU IN MY ROOM WE'RE GOING TO IBIZA

PLEASE Strip your thight ass a bit!

Yeh I'm not good.

Anyway, back on topic. You essay is somewhat ridicoulous, since:

1 - You set the defining qualities of great and good
2 - From this totally unvalidated premise, you build up a logical argument not backed up by any evidence
3 - You conclude that all great and good are unconciliable qualities. Thanks!
If I set great = ! good, then then point 3 is the only possible logical outcome of the premise.

[social]

Precisely