3 ms·

There's probably some of that in there too, but the context is history, so when I read 'great men', for instance, there is an implied 'great men of history' in

There's probably some of that in there too, but the context is history, so when I read 'great men', for instance, there is an implied 'great men of history' in there. I think Acton was saying our view of events and actions naturally lean towards making excuses and we need to be aware of that. You probably have a point there, but I think the corruption of authority on the rest of us is certainly a major theme.

kbenson 10y ago
> Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority That implies great men have influence and/or authority to exercise. You may read it as 'great men of history', but if to you that set of people includes those who accomplished a lot without authority of influence (at the time, otherwise it would not be possible to be exercised), then the set of what you and Lord Acton consider 'great men of history' likely have different conditions for inclusion. A simple example of this is probably Srinivasa Ramanujan, whose genius was largely unrecognized until very late in his life, and his notebooks were later studied for his many results. A man of great influence after his death. That's not to say your interpretation isn't useful, or possibly even correct, just that I think this isn't a piece of supporting evidence for it. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan
- humanrebar 10y ago
  > just that I think this isn't a piece of supporting evidence for it The context is a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887. Acton read some work of Creighton's and thought Creighton wasn't critical enough of certain popes. The context is exactly about why the bishop was too uncritical when looking back on the powerful men of history. It wasn't a narrative of a pope and how he turned to the dark side after he started wearing white robes. And I'm sure Acton wasn't referring to men like Ramanujan in his quote, though he may indeed have been a great man in other dimensions.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    We are both seeing the same evidence as pointing to a (slightly) different conclusion, and even each others interpretations of our reasoning about that original evidence is seen as supporting our own conclusions. I'm not sure how to get out of this as I suspect it will get far too off-topic before it gets on-topic, if it ever does, other than to note that I think this is generally an indication that we aren't really in disagreement, just arguing over a mistaken perception of the other's position.

kbenson 10y ago

> Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority That implies great men have influence and/or authority to exercise. You may read it as 'great men of history', but if to you that set of people includes those who accomplished a lot without authority of influence (at the time, otherwise it would not be possible to be exercised), then the set of what you and Lord Acton consider 'great men of history' likely have different conditions for inclusion. A simple example of this is probably Srinivasa Ramanujan, whose genius was largely unrecognized until very late in his life, and his notebooks were later studied for his many results. A man of great influence after his death. That's not to say your interpretation isn't useful, or possibly even correct, just that I think this isn't a piece of supporting evidence for it. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

humanrebar 10y ago
> just that I think this isn't a piece of supporting evidence for it The context is a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887. Acton read some work of Creighton's and thought Creighton wasn't critical enough of certain popes. The context is exactly about why the bishop was too uncritical when looking back on the powerful men of history. It wasn't a narrative of a pope and how he turned to the dark side after he started wearing white robes. And I'm sure Acton wasn't referring to men like Ramanujan in his quote, though he may indeed have been a great man in other dimensions.
- kbenson 10y ago
  We are both seeing the same evidence as pointing to a (slightly) different conclusion, and even each others interpretations of our reasoning about that original evidence is seen as supporting our own conclusions. I'm not sure how to get out of this as I suspect it will get far too off-topic before it gets on-topic, if it ever does, other than to note that I think this is generally an indication that we aren't really in disagreement, just arguing over a mistaken perception of the other's position.