4 ms·

Even if he was an antisemite at one point in his life or even his entire life, how does that change what the original poster said about him - that he was brilli

Even if he was an antisemite at one point in his life or even his entire life, how does that change what the original poster said about him - that he was brilliant? I'm genuinely curious because I've seen this kind of knee-jerk response across many avenues (e.g. x is an antisemite, is hitler, is a facist, is a commie, is a trump supporter) and I don't understand it. In the medieval era most people participating in European civilization would qualify for the modern definition of antisemitism. Should I simply disregard the good works of writers and thinkers from that time period and geography? If anything I am pro-semite but it's a struggle for me to grasp why the antisemitism of an individual should affect my opinion of their work or ideas. Even though I don't approve of their opinions regarding a people group it simply does not follow that I ought to dismiss everything they have ever said.

gre 5y ago
Was Elizabeth Holmes brilliant for defrauding Silicon Valley for over a decade with Theranos? By your standards, yes. If Solzhenitsyn writes a brilliant but mostly exaggerated and fictitious account of Communist Russia, do you really want to celebrate this achievement? I do not and that's why I posted.
- powerslacker 5y ago
  > Was Elizabeth Holmes brilliant for defrauding Silicon Valley for over a decade with Theranos? By your standards, yes. It's not just my standards. I could be wrong here, but I think most people would find her brilliant. That's part of why her fraudulent behavior was so successful. Not sure you meant to, but you've dodged my main question. Why should I factor in his antisemitism (alleged or not) when considering his brilliance? You originally said Solzhenitsyn was antisemitic, now you are claiming he wrote an exaggerated account of Communist Russia. Either or both of those claims may be true. I don't know the veracity of either and I'm not arguing those. I'm asking *why I should disregard his purported brilliance altogether even if those claims are true*? Washington owned slaves. Edison likely exploited his workers for his own gain. Martin Luther was an antisemite. Nelson Mandela had ties to terrorists. Joan of Arc was a heretic. Theodora was effectively a prostitute at one point. These men and women all did and said things we would not approve of, and yet there are qualities they held and actions they took which we celebrate to this day. I don't see how some corrupt part of their character gives cause to dismiss them entirely.
  - gre 5y ago
    He is brilliant, sure. This is the problem.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  Even if The Gulag Archipelago was mostly fictitious, which it certainly is not, it would still be a staggering work of literary brilliance. There is quite literally no other work I'm aware of in Western literature that is even comparable. The prose is incredible, moving, at times dark and punishing, and in a turn hilarious and you really feel the wight of the exercise of having written the thing while reading it. The broad facts are well supported by what's come out of Soviet archives since the 90s and further details are supported by the Mitrokhin Archive. The surviving Stasi archives also paint a similar picture.

gre 5y ago

Was Elizabeth Holmes brilliant for defrauding Silicon Valley for over a decade with Theranos? By your standards, yes. If Solzhenitsyn writes a brilliant but mostly exaggerated and fictitious account of Communist Russia, do you really want to celebrate this achievement? I do not and that's why I posted.

powerslacker 5y ago
> Was Elizabeth Holmes brilliant for defrauding Silicon Valley for over a decade with Theranos? By your standards, yes. It's not just my standards. I could be wrong here, but I think most people would find her brilliant. That's part of why her fraudulent behavior was so successful. Not sure you meant to, but you've dodged my main question. Why should I factor in his antisemitism (alleged or not) when considering his brilliance? You originally said Solzhenitsyn was antisemitic, now you are claiming he wrote an exaggerated account of Communist Russia. Either or both of those claims may be true. I don't know the veracity of either and I'm not arguing those. I'm asking *why I should disregard his purported brilliance altogether even if those claims are true*? Washington owned slaves. Edison likely exploited his workers for his own gain. Martin Luther was an antisemite. Nelson Mandela had ties to terrorists. Joan of Arc was a heretic. Theodora was effectively a prostitute at one point. These men and women all did and said things we would not approve of, and yet there are qualities they held and actions they took which we celebrate to this day. I don't see how some corrupt part of their character gives cause to dismiss them entirely.
- gre 5y ago
  He is brilliant, sure. This is the problem.
ch4s3 5y ago
Even if The Gulag Archipelago was mostly fictitious, which it certainly is not, it would still be a staggering work of literary brilliance. There is quite literally no other work I'm aware of in Western literature that is even comparable. The prose is incredible, moving, at times dark and punishing, and in a turn hilarious and you really feel the wight of the exercise of having written the thing while reading it. The broad facts are well supported by what's come out of Soviet archives since the 90s and further details are supported by the Mitrokhin Archive. The surviving Stasi archives also paint a similar picture.