You could fit in most senior directors, consultants and sales VPs into that bucket comfortably.
The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History
11–20 of 86 posts
Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History
#12> If it was the social and political forces of the French Revolution that made Napoleon successful, the logical conclusion is that it would have made no difference to the course of history should he have, say, suffered a fatal stroke in 1801, a premise few would accept. It is clearly untrue when applied to specific cases. Not only who ends up in power, but the specific decisions they make are deeply consequential. Who would really contend that the 20th century would remain unchanged had Hitler been killed in WWI?
Isn't the idea more that the large-scale political forces are what allow those supposedly "great men" to become "great" in the first place? Yes, once Napoleon was in power, a lot of the details of history were dependent on his individual decisions - but the forces that led to the French Revolution were what gave him that power in the first place. An if he had actually died of a stroke, or if Hitler had been killed in WWI, then the specifics of history would have been different, but probably not the large-scale trajectory: Post-revolutionary France would still have been there and the deep divisions, senses of injustice and reactionary and capitalist influence in post-WWI Germany that gave rise to the Nazi movement would also still have been there. And chances are, other "great men" would have emerged and captured those forces.
As such, I see the relationship more like the one between lightning strikes and wildfires: Yes, a particular wildfire might have been caused by that particular lightning strike (or careless hiker or whatever), but the reason why that particular local event could spiral into a blaze that burns down acres and acres were the larger environmental conditions, i.e. hot weather, wind and dryness. And if firefighters could take a time machine and prevent that particular cause, then it's likely another random event would trigger a slightly different but still extremely similar wildfire - so not much would have been won.
Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History
#13Reflect on this in the context of the US right now. Makuthink.
Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History
#14When you look at white noise from up close, you see dramatic changes, periods of calm, and what seems like patterns.
Only when you step back, you realise all that drama you read is mostly inconsequential. What will be the impact of Napoleon 1000 years from now? Of Columbus? If instead of Hitler Germany had Rohm? It’s all monkeys and typewriters all the way down. What matters are the structural forces, the natural resources, the geography, and so on. Chances are it’ll be all forgotten in a billion years.
Now, on a more serious note, did anyone else, at some point, started wondering whether the article was really about Wilhelm II?
Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History
#15Reflect on this in the context of the US right now. Makuthink.
It was filed under “unintentional allegory”. Or intentional, it’s hard to say.
Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History
#16This point of view implies that the revered "great men" should be stripped of their wealth and power as much as possible. They're not necessary for history, so no need to disproportionally allocate resources to them.
Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History
#17some interesting ideas but something feels off with the language used.
"as su," indicates a lack of editing.
LLM? Any verbose, struggling to focus article now looks generated rather than the work of somebody with better ideas than technique. Or they’re being paid by the word. I wonder whether there is a jargon problem with the word “great”…. These’s no way Trump or Cameron would be considered “great” but the world changed through their direct actions. One could argue that they just happen to be there when underlying forces interact and that the lone actor model of history is naive.
Many of us have written the “was Hitler inevitable” paper at uni and elsewhere. His particular phobias were extensive, but that time and place was ripe for such rule to appear.
Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History
#18You could fit in most senior directors, consultants and sales VPs into that bucket comfortably.
Organisations have evolved to deal with them. In fact, all the rules and procedures, checks and compliance procedures are there precisely to allow the organisation to survive despite its members.
Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History
#19One factor here is how systems become more or less prone to creating great or mediocre men. Inbreeding, isolation, over romanticism of emotions, all these are factors that can make a dangerous inconsistent person more likely to appear in the halls of power
Re: The Kaiser and a "Mediocre Man" Theory of History
#20When you look at white noise from up close, you see dramatic changes, periods of calm, and what seems like patterns. Only when you step back, you realise all that drama you read is mostly inconsequential. What will be the impact of Napoleon 1000 years from now? Of Columbus? If instead of Hitler Germany had Rohm? It’s all monkeys and typewriters all the way down. What matters are the structural forces, the natural res…
We still speak today of Charlemagne, Muhammed, Caesar, Alexander.
Napoleon and Columbus have secured for themselves their seats in the pantheon of history and it will take longer than a thousand years for mankind to forget about them.
All these men built our world.