The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their Contemporaries.
When we tie the significance of men and women to the judgment of others, those who will live in the future can make decent judgments while contemporaries might not be able to do so. But the statement above takes an extreme position by claiming that only by people who live after an individual can the value of the individual be determined.
To begin with, future generations have a privilege of time over contemporaries, as the magnitude of characters can be judged better with the passage of time. Especially individuals with their long-effect contributions, need time to be fully perceived. This period exceeds their own lives, and in the meantime the figures of influence may not be appreciated deservedly. Take the post humus fame of Mendel for instance. The scientific society of his time, as there were lots of questions that Mendel could have not answered them, did not accept the Mendel’s laws of inheritance of features. Yet, no sooner had the scientists attained the knowledge to use this discovery in addressing the genetic diseases than Mendel’s greatness became fully realized.
The same scenario happens, especially for those men and women who are ahead of their time and might not be recognized properly by the contemporaries. Usually people are reluctant to the changes. As the contributions of the great individuals bring forth the changes, their contemporaries_ either from being jealous, or not being able to understand the necessity of the change_ do not appreciate the greatness of the individuals. Think about Van Gogh when he introduced a genre of painting, and was not appreciated an iota during his lifetime.
Furthermore, in many instances, the greatness of the individuals is not perceived by the contemporaries to the point that they even disparage the work of their great people. Such a Jealousy wanes after the great one dies, as his/her reputation is not a threat to the future careers of the same field.
However, contemporaries are not unable to attribute magnitude to somebody. Someone who contributes something helpful that is not far from the understanding of his/her coevals, can be recognized decently. Fleming, the discoverer of antibiotic was one of the magnificent personages who established and proved his outstanding level both among coevals and the future generations. Due to his self-evidently priceless work was that he immediately became recognized as a great person.
In short, when we include others idea whether to attribute high value to someone or not, the future can have better judgment. Nevertheless, coevals are also able to evaluate the one definitely, whose great contribution is understandable for contemporaries.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2020-01-18 | JENIRSHAH | 50 | view |
2020-01-18 | JENIRSHAH | 50 | view |
2020-01-08 | stevewang1007 | 58 | view |
2019-12-06 | chapagain08 | 58 | view |
2019-12-05 | Dipper | 50 | view |
- 2. Claim: Major policy decisions should always be left to politicians and other government experts.Reason: Politicians and other government experts are more informed and thus have better judgment and perspective than do members of the general public.Write 73
- We can learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own. 80
- The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals."In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria population than did t 50
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could. 60
- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a Batavia newspaper."The department of agriculture in Batavia reports that the number of dairy farms throughout the country is now 25 percent greater than it was 10 years ago. During this same time perio 70
Comments
Full essay evaluations
Inversions are OK.
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 431 350
No. of Characters: 2193 1500
No. of Different Words: 219 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.556 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.088 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.069 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 117 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 95 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 74 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.55 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.775 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.45 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.285 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.549 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.1 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Why am I stuck with 5?
Why am I stuck with 5?
One of the issues is
One of the issues is language, look:
No. of Words: 431 while No. of Different Words: 219
so the e-rater gave a lower mark.
and we will review the marks later according to the rates by other users.
I used Inversion two times:
First: At the end of introduction
Second: At the end of second paragraph.
Are they correct?