Best Minds of the 20th Century

[ER]

He had some major f**k ups. invasion of Gallipoli and also cutting the money supply in half to support the pound which jump started the great depression

Saving the world from Nazi domination counterbalances a lot of Churchill's non-PC rhetoric. There's a good case for making him the greatest figure of the 20th century.

[lester1/2jr]

I don't know that the ill fated invasion of gallipoli or short sighted monetary policy were PC in particular.


I'll stay out of the ww2 convo as the topic led to me being the world's most smited user

[indianasmith]

Wow!  You're ahead of WyreWizard??

[zombie no.one]

I think one of the worst mistakes we sometimes make is judging people who lived in another century by
the standards of our own time.

I understand the basis for this argument, but at the end of the day I will have to respectfully disagree with you here. Great minds do not bend to the standard prejudices, customs, and stereotypes of their time. In fact this is one of the crucial things that seperates 'great minds' from the herd. IMO

[indianasmith]

So it s fair to judge, say, Julius Caesar's behavior by the moral and ethical standards of the 21st century?

[Derf]

I think one of the worst mistakes we sometimes make is judging people who lived in another century by
the standards of our own time.

I understand the basis for this argument, but at the end of the day I will have to respectfully disagree with you here. Great minds do not bend to the standard prejudices, customs, and stereotypes of their time. In fact this is one of the crucial things that seperates 'great minds' from the herd. IMO

Not trying to pick a fight, zombie #1, but I agree with indy on this one. The problem with judging people of the past by our standards is that we are just as much a product of our times as they were of theirs, so judging them by our standards would be the same as judging a cave man by the standards of the chivalric code--there's just no real point to it. Social views evolve over time. In a hundred years someone will look at our society as horribly off whatever moral compass is in place at that point. I am a Christian and believe in moral absolutes, but even looking at the Bible, prejudices and social values changed between the times of Moses and Jesus. These values are shifting rapidly today partly as a result of the interconnected nature of our cultures through technology and partially because our societies are rejecting centuries of religious dogma in favor of a more secular worldview. Is one necessarily better than the other? It depends on your world view. I think my way of looking at things is right, and you may totally disagree with me, arguing that I am completely wrong. Philosophy allows for multiple moral, ethical and behavioral standards, and while some become outdated, one tends to build off another. And as I am starting to get myself off topic of my original thought, I'll stop here.

[Flangepart]

Well said, Derf.
Our current ethical and moral standards are a distilling of ideas. Not all the ideas that came down to us are always right and good.
We may indeed see changes in out P.C. culture, and they might well astound us.
If what's P.C. today is a change from the past...who knows what the future holds?

[zombie no.one]

Not trying to pick a fight, zombie #1, but I agree with indy on this one.

no probs, I would never "fight" with anyone here (not even wyrewizard!). it's just an interesting discussion that's all

Social views evolve over time. In a hundred years someone will look at our society as horribly off whatever moral compass is in place at that point.

well, perhaps no need for the hundred years gap, cause look at it now, from our own pov... I'm sure most people would admit there are huge flaws. but I get the point.

However I guess that raises the big question: is there such thing as a moral code which is 'correct' irrespective of what timeframe or culture one is living in, or is the entire basis of 'moral code' always wrapped up in what a particular society decides is acceptable at that point in time? I don't know the answer but I would have to lean towards the first option, if anything.

I personally don't believe the argument that goes "well everyone else is doing it so I can't be blamed for doing it too" holds much weight. I think deep down we do know what is right and wrong as individuals, even if everyone else is doing the 'wrong' as if it's okay. How could I prove this? I don't know (lol)

So it s fair to judge, say, Julius Caesar's behavior by the moral and ethical standards of the 21st century?

now you're making big assumptions there.....that I know anything about Julius Caesar  can't even answer tbh

[indianasmith]

Well said, Z1, and I agree with you to a great extent.  As a Christian, I do believe in moral absolutes, but I also recognize that societal values do not always reflect them.

As for Julius Caesar - he's a fascinating study.  Read up!

[lester1/2jr]

Churchill and Caesar were both politicians so they both stink

[indianasmith]

Churchill is the only reason you aren't saying that in German, Lester!

[lester1/2jr]

He's the reason the reason eastern Europe spoke Russian or were governed by it

[indianasmith]

I'd argue that was inevitable.  Hitler did not have the resources or men to beat Stalin.
Oh well; you hate all Presidents, kings, and politicians,  I should know that by now.

[Derf]

Not trying to pick a fight, zombie #1, but I agree with indy on this one.

no probs, I would never "fight" with anyone here (not even wyrewizard!). it's just an interesting discussion that's all

Social views evolve over time. In a hundred years someone will look at our society as horribly off whatever moral compass is in place at that point.

well, perhaps no need for the hundred years gap, cause look at it now, from our own pov... I'm sure most people would admit there are huge flaws. but I get the point.

However I guess that raises the big question: is there such thing as a moral code which is 'correct' irrespective of what timeframe or culture one is living in, or is the entire basis of 'moral code' always wrapped up in what a particular society decides is acceptable at that point in time? I don't know the answer but I would have to lean towards the first option, if anything.

I personally don't believe the argument that goes "well everyone else is doing it so I can't be blamed for doing it too" holds much weight. I think deep down we do know what is right and wrong as individuals, even if everyone else is doing the 'wrong' as if it's okay. How could I prove this? I don't know (lol)

So it s fair to judge, say, Julius Caesar's behavior by the moral and ethical standards of the 21st century?

now you're making big assumptions there.....that I know anything about Julius Caesar  can't even answer tbh

To respond to your response to my response: I do believe there is a narrow moral code that remains constant, most of which can be found as far back as the Ten Commandments: Don't steal, don't murder, don't cheat on your spouse, respect your parents (with the exception of abusive idiots), etc. As far as notions of social behavior, those vary so widely that it is nearly impossible to boil them down to absolutes, and that is exactly where you and I start to disagree, not necessarily in the notion that there are few to no absolutes, but in the area of which social moral code is "correct."  The very notion that prejudging cultures is wrong is a very new idea in the evolution of social morals; throughout most of history most cultures have simply assumed that their particular way of life was the best and that other societies were barbarians--even the word "barbarian" comes from the Greek notion that speakers of other languges just sound like they are saying "bar bar bar bar" and therefore could not be properly civilized. Anyway, what I mean when I say it isn't fair to judge past people by today's standards is a little more complex than just saying that you can't blame them for doing things we find unpalatable today. The very idea that they could be wrong had not really formed yet because they valued their way of life and sought to spread it to those who had not yet reached their level of civilization. They viewed imperialism as helping those less fortunate  dirty savages achieve true humanity (I.e., what they had). We can barely even imagine this mindset today because we have been raised to respect other cultures, a notion which comes with another set of problems that we have not come anywhere close to solving. But I can't lay blame on Churchill for living within the conventions of his society any more than I can blame him for not using Google to help break Nazi codes. If the very ideas had not begun to form beyond the most rudimentary levels, I can't fault him for not being decades ahead of his time in every area.

[lester1/2jr]

US siding with the commies had bad ramifications though. it gave it a layer of legitimacy. it's why there are still communist parties in Europe and elsewhere today.