Please take a look at my Issue 36 and give some advice

[gre_newbie]

TOPIC: ISSUE36 - "The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries."
WORDS: 552 TIME: 00:44:10 DATE: 2008-7-2 14:24:57

I cannot agree the assertion that individuals' greatness can merely be determined by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.

The greatness of individuals varies considerably. Some people are great because they leave to society invaluable heritage that they have created; others help to make far-reaching breakthroughs that do good to mankind; still others struggle for the welfare of a large group of people or for the world as a whole. History is replete with examples of these different giants of arts, science and politics.

In art world, it is true that some artists' greatness is only recognized after they have faded away for a long time. Van Gogh, for example, is considered nowadays as the leading artist of impressionism. His master of colors, lines, and lights excellently epitomizes his talent of painting, which was never approved by his contemporaries. In fact, art is more often than not the emotion and feeling of individual artists, and thus it takes time for other people to fully understand or appreciate their artworks. When Marcel Duchamp exhibited a bicycle wheel at an art show, few could understand why such an ordinary stuff could be called art. Yet we cannot ignore many artists whose greatness was fully recognized by their peers. Leonardo da Vinci, Luciano Pavarotti and Picasso are just three on the endless list.

In academic life, the greatness of most scientific giants is fully appreciated by their contemporaries. From Aristotle, Galileo, Descartes, to Newton, Madam Curie and to Einstein, Nash and Hawking, great scientists are great because of their contributions to important scientific findings and breakthroughs. The effect and application of such achievements is almost immediate. The atomic bomb was built during Einstein's era. And economists benefited a lot from Nash's game theory. Normally, traditional and rigorous scientific methods facilitate the process of understanding. Peers can learn what has been researched and developed through journal articles and during conferences, thanks to which honor and recognition of great scientists is usually fulfilled in the first place. Nobel Prize, for example, is probably the most famous award, which is given to those who are still alive, and therefore it is apparent that all Nobel Prize winners' greatness are decided not by those who live after them, but by their contemporaries.

In political stage, great leaders are great because of their heroic contributions to the world at the time, and thus are most likely to be recognized by their people. Military leaders, for example, are recognized because of important triumphs on battlefield. During World War II, there are numerous such great leaders, such as Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton and Douglas McArthur, to name just a few, whose records and contributions were applauded almost immediately after their success on D-Day, in Norway's forest, or on the Pacific islands. Deng Xiaoping, former chairman of China Communism Party, was beloved by Chinese people because his decision on reforming the regime. And Winston Churchill was popular among his people because of his faith for victory. The example list can go on and on yet so far it is enough to say political leaders are very likely to be regarded as great men by their contemporaries.

In conclusion, it is not fair to claim that individuals' greatness cannot be decided by their contemporaries, since countless examples have effectively refuted such assertion.