Is the "Great Man" theory of history legit?Who is the next "Great Man" we're waiting for?
>>18027826I'd argue the "Great Men" of today are transnational megacorporations which are legally designated as individuals and, through their machinations, instruct the further unraveling of history more than any politician can.
>>18027826If you describe someone perfectly, you control them. Therefore it's preferable not to describe living people, or at least not particularly well. It's very possible to describe the world in terms of human actions because people are the functional unit of civilization, but you would then presume control, a paradox. People will continue to be the motive force, attempts at control will have (at best) a knock-on effect of greater intellects fighting one another, and realistically control will never be complete. Description will never be complete. The design of one creator will never replace the rest of nature.
>>18027882>If you describe someone perfectly, you control themNo you don't lol
>>18027886They're just a tiny piece of your world summed up in words. They can't exceed what you've said, they're powerless.
>>18027826It's a lie promoted by the ruling class so you focus on a literal nobody and not the entire class and system that's in charge of everything.They're just joe bidens and donald trumps with a hundred or thousand years of positive PR.
>>18027826AntiChrist
>>18027826do you think Napoleon would have become important without the french revolution? if not you do not subscribe to great man theory
>>18027882Holy mother of MEDS.
>>18027826For every Great Man of history, there was a thousand aspirants who fell short.>>18027903>It's a lie promoted by the ruling class so you focus on a literal nobody and not the entire class and system that's in charge of everything.Yeah that's why they killed Caesar and the Gracchi, to make the proles worship them, not because they were a threat to the gravy train.
>>18027940The French Revolution would have sputtered out a lot sooner without Napoleon
>>18027951thats not GMT. GMT claims napoleon did not need the french revolution for greatness. Do you think so?
>>18027826The decision to use nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was Truman's alone.
>>18027866FPBPGreat Man Theory is true in the sense that history is determined by the powerful. But that doesn't necessarily mean one man.
>>18027886that just means you didn't describe them right. For example, if I say Trump will die in the next 3 decades that's correct description, but not perfect. If I were to state the exact date and time of Trump's death, correctly, that would amount to control over his destiny.
>>18027969No it doesn't
We will never have another Napoleon because of nukes. For a great man in history to win wars, you need great powers to fight each other and thats not possible now because everyone has nukes.tl:dr - we are living in a gay ass world because of nukes, Great man theory breaks down
>>18027826Great Man theory is true but secondary to material conditions
>>18027826>Is the "Great Man" theory of history legit?No, the "Great Man" theory is a narrative spread by the delusional and the selfish to create justification for inequalities and priviledge. It's a massive cope. It's a fable that tugs on people's desire to be comic book characters. The hundredth monkey effect however is completely factually and observably true. Changes or developments in society (both culturally and technologically) aren't dictated by singular charismatic or powerful men, but by reaching a certain threshold of understanding in the public conscious. Great changes in history were caused by mental thresholds being met in communities that lead to new ways of thinking, living, and faggots trying to claim credit the efforts of an entire populations.
>>18028648No thats retarded no matter how you try and spin it. If I point out that a piano is about to fall over your head because its falling down towards the position where your standing that doesnt mean I control you, you fucking idiot. I can tell the thing that is going to happen by necessity, thats all.
>>18027826'Great Man Theory' is babies second attempt at historical pattern finding (the first being 'the Whig view of history'). It's retarded, and taking it seriously should remove someone from the conversation.
>>18028691>great men, or heroes: highly influential and unique individuals who, due to their natural attributes, such as superior intellect, heroic courage, extraordinary leadership abilities, or divine inspiration, have a decisive historical effect. Don't see anything about "viven the right circumstances", just acting on inherent greatness
>>18029357Nor can you decide who is and isn't great. That's the point ultimately. Great men exist both historically and in the present but it doesn't do any good to try and locate the ones in the present and future.
>>18027826I think to do understand it better you have see history like a chain reaction which because it is recorded by people in such way that there is emphasis on certain characters and instances where if one looked at from that specific angel it would seem bigger or more important than the rest, but in reality it simply part of the chain not bigger nor smaller. That is so on account of it being the only way we know to write history, we put a lot of lot of wight on characters because it is easier to understand and write otherwise it would be far more complicated which it is in reality. That's why there is no great man right now but only in the future when things are written down there could be one.
>>18027882>if you describe someone perfectly, you control themNot true and you also cant do it.
>>18027826Yes but you have to read Carlyle because the superman bullshit your history professor will tell you GMT assumed is a bit more nuanced.I think Past and Present does it best. He has written about a certain great man of history - Abbott Samson of Edmundsbury. If it wasn't for a single chronicle that quite miraculously survived about 600 years before it was found by an antiquarian we wouldn't even have heard he existed. A great man doesn't have to be Genghis Khan, a great man is someone who's agency allows him to bring order to a sort of entropy that Carlyle saw as a natural force in history. Whether it means conquering most of continental Europe or turning dilapidated abbey into well run enterprise is to some extent irrelevant or writing a great poem is irrelevant.
>>18029287>certain threshold of understanding in the public conscious.Can you measure this threshold? What if society is divided in some legal way and one part of it reaches the threshold, hell it reached 5 steps above the threshold and the other doesn't? Will the society fail to level up?
>>18029864He can't, because he is a leftist, thus the goal of all of his inane arguments is always just to Defeat the Chud. When pressed, he won't be able to explain anything or even why he believes the things he parrots. Watch.
>>18027826The current "great" man is Trump and he will be remembered for destroying american democracy and possibly saving the white race.
>>18027951>>18027969Napoleon wasn't even relevant to the Revolution. Without it, he'd have been another guy writing brilliant letters to his superiors, which they very much enjoy reading before they ignore them.
>>18029894He's not even a Sulla, because that guy could get women to pay him for sex.
>>18029467and that's why it fails, without the circumstances and the opportunity to use talents to further their greatness, there is nothing to go with, it makes a good story for selling books. For instance, France had effectively crippled itself going into the revolution but there were still enough pushing for a constitutional monarchy like GB's, the failed escape still barely managed to put that down. Even Nap's coming in to seize power from the Republic later on was still a retarded didn't think this through for everyone, even himself. Had those not lined up nicely he still would have been an underling with lots of bad press, under some retard blue blood.
