3 ms·
The point is not to re-evaluate Fuller, but to become aware of our vulnerability to taking such persons at their own estimation of themselves. There have been
by FrankWilhoit 2y ago
The point is not to re-evaluate Fuller, but to become aware of our vulnerability to taking such persons at their own estimation of themselves. There have been a vast number of examples, down history, many with extremely harmful consequences. We should have learned by now to spot this category of error and train ourselves out of it. It is at least as important, as a universal baseline skill, as elementary mathematics.
- dylan604 2y agoIn order for someone to gain enough notoriety for people to even get curious, that person has already snookered greater than 1 people. SBF, Madof, Holmes would all qualify to me
- _yb2s 2y agoI'm more worried about the opposite- categorizing these type of manic visionaries as "charlatans" ignores the value of being able to advocate and try new ideas, and think radically outside of the box. I think this dissertation operates from the attitude that "nothing is possible, nothing is worth trying" and then extrapolates that taking risks and being innovative is charlatanism. It is what Nietzsche calls the philosophy of the "last man" - someone that takes no risks, is tired of life, and has goals of only comfort and security.