I have just had the sad news that Desmond Tutu has died at the age of 90. Desmond Tutu was one of the truly great human beings of the past hundred years and it will be a long while before the world sees the likes of him again. I had the great good fortune to meet Tutu twice, for the first time in 1990 and for the second time in 2011. Rather than cobbling together a tribute from Wikipedia and similar sources, let me honor him in my own personal way by telling the stories once again of my two meetings with him. Unlike the other famous people I have met, such as Bertrand Russell or Henry Kissinger, my meetings with Tutu had a profound and continuing effect on my life.
I met Tutu for the first time in 1990. I had taken over the
job of unpaid Executive Director of an anti-apartheid organization of Harvard
and Radcliffe alums trying (unsuccessfully, as it turned out) to get Harvard to
divest itself of investments in companies doing business in South Africa. I
managed to get Tutu elected to the Board of Overseers, foolishly imagining that
the Harvard administration would be shamed by his presence into adopting at
long last a moral stance against apartheid. (Instead, Harvard simply change the
rules for electing Overseers so that that sort of thing would not happen
again.) In February 1990 Tutu came to Cambridge to attend a meeting of the
Board and I drove in from Western Massachusetts to meet him for the very first
time. I spent an hour with him in his hotel room. It was days before Nelson
Mandela was due to be released from prison, a fact that was public knowledge by
then, and Tutu spoke movingly about the need for reinvestment in the new South
Africa. I went home and thought about what he had said. It was clear to me that
the old anti-apartheid struggle had entered a new phase and that divestment was
no longer what was needed. On my initial trips to South Africa in 1986 and 1987
I had met Mala Singh, chair of the philosophy department at the historically
black university of Durban Westville. Mala had written to me about the problems
graduate students at the University were having in getting funding and I had
raised some money from the American philosophical community, using the
fundraising computer skills that I had developed as the Executive Director of
the Harvard Radcliffe organization.
It occurred to me that perhaps I could make a contribution
to the new South Africa by creating a little charitable organization, staffed
and run by me, to raise money for poor young black men and women in South
Africa who had gained the right to attend historically black universities there by getting through the impossibly difficult school leaving examinations of the
South African secondary school system, but who were unable to matriculate
because they did not have the money up front for tuition fees. So I created University
Scholarships for South African Students and for the next 23 years I ran it,
managing in all of that time to help maybe 1600 young black men and women in
South Africa to attend universities. My meeting with Tutu and the effect that his
words had on me resulted in an effort that I pursued for fully a quarter of my
lifetime.
By 2011 I was working with students at the University of the
Western Cape, and as a way of thanking me for the bits of money I had brought
to the University, the Vice Chancellor (who is, in the South African system,
the person who runs the University) decided to give me an honorary degree.
Susie and I flew off to Durban and on the day of the commencement I sat on the
platform with the other honorary degree recipients. In South African University
commencements, the Chancellor, some bigwig who has an honorary title at the
University, sits on a raised chair in the middle of the platform, wearing a
soft doctoral hat. As each student’s name is read out, he or she walks across
the platform and kneels before the Chancellor, who “caps” the degree recipient,
tapping him or her on the head with the hat and in that way officially
conferring the degree.
When it was my turn to receive my honorary degree, my name
was read out and I walked across the platform and knelt before the Chancellor, who
was Desmond Tutu! He capped me, in that way conferring the degree upon me. It
was the greatest moment of my academic life.
I am quite sure Tutu did not recall having seen me 21 years
earlier in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I
was simply one of the millions of men and women whose lives had been changed by
that great man.
He will be missed.
While on the subject, just what makes some people great? The Times obituary made it clear he was a great man- but not why-what's the secret formula? As a Marxist, it might be odd for you to admit that like Dr King, his faith was part of the formula. I think God strengthens people and girds them when they are up against such a daunting battle. To know that God, or as Spinoza might say, nature or the universe is on your side, girds one for the battle. Religion fosters social solidarity and to use the white man's God against him, is ironic and fitting
ReplyDeleteI hope this comment is appropriate.
ReplyDeleteI just finished Charles Mills' book. I'm in no position to validate it as one of the best or the best book in English during the last century or whatever the time frame was that the professor assigned to the claim. But this I can say: I thought it was brilliant and it provided me quite an education. So in memory of Bishop Tutu, one white man takes a small step forward...I hope!
@ Jerry F.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't say it was the best book in English of the last century -- he said best work of political philosophy.
In line with what Howie says above, it seems that there are slightly different criteria for greatness whether or not the figure involved is in a good cause or a bad (or ambivalent one).
ReplyDeleteMost of us attribute greatness to Salvador Allende, Rosa Luxemberg and Trotsky, who all failed in their political projects. They aimed at big things in a good cause and it did not go well for any of them.
On the other hand, we tend to attribute greatness to people like Hernan Cortes, Stalin,
Mao Tse Tung, maybe Margaret Thatcher, all of whom left a lot of negative effects, but
who succeeded. If someone does not succeed and leaves a lot of negative effects, they are not candidates for greatness.
All of the people mentioned above, good guys, bad guys and ambivalent guys, aimed big and were somehow larger than life.
God bless Bishop Desmond Tutu! And God bless Africa! May he rest in peace.
ReplyDeleteI own a book titled “The 100 - A Ranking Of The Most Influential Persons In History,” by Michael Hart. Dr. Hart possessed numerous degrees, including a Ph.D. in Astronomy from Princeton. In his Introduction, he writes:
ReplyDelete“This book is solely involved with the question of who were the 100 persons who had the greatest effect on history and on the course of the world. I have ranked these 100 persons in order of importance: that is, according to the total amount of influence that each of them had on human history and on the everyday lives of other human beings. Such a group of exceptional people, whether noble or reprehensible, famous or obscure, flamboyant or modest, cannot fail to be interesting; they are people who have shaped our lives and formed our world.”
Whom does he name as number 1? Someone whom s. wallerstein most certainly would reject as the greatest person in human history – Muhammad. Dr. Hart’s rationale for naming Muhammed as the greatest figure in human history? “My choice of Muhammed to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.”
Whom does he name as number 2? Isaac Newton. Jesus Christ is named as number 3. Why did he name Jesus as number 3, rather than number 1? Two reasons: (1) Unlike Muhammed, who invented Islam by himself, Christianity was developed by two people, Jesus and St. Paul; (2) “[I]n sharp contrast to Muhammed, who exercised political as well as religious authority, Jesus had virtually no influence on political developments during his lifetime, or during the succeeding century. … Jesus made his influence felt entirely as an ethical and spiritual leader.”
The first philosopher to make the list is Aristotle, at 13.
Another,
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt that Muhammed was a great man in the sense I used the word above. If he was the most influential human being ever, maybe.
Who are the top 20 according to Hart?
s. wallerstein,
ReplyDeleteThe first 20 are:
1. Muhammed
2. Isaac Newton
3. Jesus Christ
4. Buddha
5. Confucius
6. St. Paul
7. Tsai lun
8. Johann Gutenberg
9. Christopher Columbus
10. Albert Einstein
11. Louis Pasteur
12. Galileo Galilei
13. Aristotle
14. Euclid
15. Moses
16. Charles Darwin
17. Shih Huang Ti
18. August Caesar
19. Nicolaus Copernicus
20. Antoine Laurent Lavoisier
Two women make the list: Queen Isabella I at 65; and Queen Elizabeth I, at 94.
Marx is listed as 27; Lenin as 84; Hitler as 39; Stalin as 66.
At the end of the book, he explains why he did not include the following also rans: St. Thomas Aquinas; Archimedes; Charles Babbage; Cheops; Marie Curie; Benjamin Franklin; Abraham Lincoln; Magellan; Leonardo da Vinci; Gandhi (a real surprise – “It has been suggested … that India might have gained independence sooner if the Indians had adopted more forceful methods instead. Since it is hard to decide whether on the whole Gandhi speeded up or delayed Indian independence, we might reasonably conclude that the net effect of his actions was (at least in that respect) rather small.”
He includes a biographical essay on each of the listed, as well as of the also -rans, and explains why they were included or excluded.
The 19th century has the most candidates, at 18.
Scientists and inventors lead the list at a total of 36; political and military leaders are next, at 31.
Those listed, and in what order, are of course subject to differences of opinion and debate.
Another,
ReplyDeleteThanks. An interesting list.
Napoleon? Alexander the Great?
Genghis Khan at 29; Alexander the Great at 33; Napoleon at 34.
ReplyDeleteI am tied up right now, but later tonight I will scan the entire list as a pdf. file, convert it into a Word document and submit the entire list as a comment.
P.S.:
ReplyDeleteI just checked. The book is available on Amazon at $22.50. Used copies are available, starting at $2.65.
Another,
ReplyDeleteThank you once again.
Scanning the list, I have to say I disagree with two omissions. He includes Hitler, but neither FDR nor Churchill. Two U.S. Presidents make the list, Washington and Jefferson.
ReplyDelete"[H]ad the greatest effect on history and on the course of the world" seems to mean, as Hart is using it, "had the greatest effect on events and on technological and scientific developments." But that biases the list against those who had an effect on thought and culture writ large, as distinct from specific events and technological/medical/scientific advances. If thought/culture were a criterion, Gandhi should make the top 100, easily. (So shd certain literary and philosophical innovators whom he may leave out.)
ReplyDeleteI'm not trained in philosophy, but I wd think, in terms of the criterion I mentioned, that (in addition to Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and Marx) Descartes, Hume, Adam Smith, Kant, Mill, Wittgenstein, at a minimum, shd be on the list. (This is biased in a
Eurocentric direction, sorry about that.) Machiavelli shd be on there, and possibly Bodin as well (that's more debatable). So probably shd Samuel Richardson, George Eliot, Dickens, T.S. Eliot, S. Beckett, and Joyce. (And possibly Sartre.) So probably, much as it pains me to say it, shd F. Hayek.
I'll leave science, medicine, and technology to those more competent in those areas. Though the people who invented the steamboat and the railroad and poss. the cotton gin (Whitney) shd be there.
And if this isn't like poking a hornet's nest w a stick, I'm not sure what is.
p.s. Of course Shakespeare, Milton, Rabelais, Racine, Moliere, Goethe, Tolstoy etc have to be on there, but some of them probably already are.
ReplyDeletep.p.s. Plus the obvious names re Renaissance and Reformation (which I left out).
ReplyDeleteLFC,
ReplyDeleteI provide the entire list later to tonight. Some of those you mention are on the list, but many are not. But, you would have to admit, generally speaking great sculptors, novelist, poets and yes, philosophers, have not really influenced the course of history or human progress. So, greatness, is relative.
That's why I took some issue w the criterion or criteria, i.e. his definition of "greatness." Btw, I'll throw in Mary Wollstonecraft (partly to try to preempt possible charges of gender bias).
ReplyDeleteJesus should be number one because of his influence on Rock music.
ReplyDeleteWithout Jesus, no Beatles, without Beatles, no sixties, without sixties no life as we know it
Plus, the conversation about the most influential historical figures is besides the point; for history is multivariable to an infinite degree and statistical. The Prophet Muhammed prevailed not just because of his greatness but because of his followers and his foes and chance factors. Christ was an obscure pretender to the Messiah and his disciples and the movement that gathered in his wake had a lot to do with it? Was his charisma responsible post mortem for his historical triumph? Who knows? And Christ was more influential than Muhammed from a cultural perspective, and without the Jews neither would be possible. What does that make the Jewish People historically?
ReplyDeleteHomer? Plato? Augustine?
ReplyDeleteDarwin is overrated!
I suppose it is easier to wander around among those so long dead that their deaths leave us quite unmoved. Remembering the recently dead is too painful? Except it's painful to think that when we go people will want to avoid that awful fact and recall others whom, in all likelihood, they never encountered.
ReplyDeleteI read some of the NYT obit for Desmond Tutu but didn't think I had anything useful to add here. That's why I didn't say anything about him, not because of any present/past contrast.
ReplyDeleteHello Prfessor Wolff, I am quite new to this site and your lectures on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason have brought me here. Tis strange how, as I had heard you mentioned in your lecture your meeting with Desmond Tutu on this very day; he died. I have not read any of his publications or actions, but there is something almost poetic on how he died the day I had listened to you speak of him. Inanycase, I have fumbled over the Trancendental Ćsthetic since the beginning of my high school year, which has existed since August 18th 2021. Not because the Trancendental Ćsthetic is difficult but because it is facinating. But I assume when a person finds a thing facinating it implies they do not understand it. Certainly, an Astronomer generally does not find the same facination with the universe as a layman does. A chess master with chess, a metaphysician with metaphysics, a sailor with his ship, an opulent individual with money, et cetera. But I recall from reading Nietzsche somewhere, that, a person generally finds greater enjoyment in learning a language than he who speaks it well. I daresay I am finding the Critique enjoyable. It must be then, that, he who goes through life desiring knowledge and always learning, and never resting (even in old age), generally enjoys life because he is facinated by it.
ReplyDeleteInanycase, I have come with a question to you, but I will not say it, instead, Socrates from The Republic of Plato will:
"To tell the truth Cephalus, I answered, I enjoy talking with very old people. They have gone before us on a road by which we too may have to travel, and I think we do well to learn from them what it is like, easy or difficult, rouh or smooth. And now that you have reacheed an age when your foot, as the poets say, is on the threshold, I should like to hear what report you can give me and whether you find it a painful time of life"
But I see around me few people who desire knowledge, and who are quite content with life. Especially with phones, video games, movies, et cetera. I wish to know what life was before the computer, before the phone. I almost feel like John the Savage from Brave New World. I nearly have a hatred for technology, but unlike John, I know if I attempt to give "liberty" to the Deltas the story will end for me as it did for him.
Sincerly, from a freshman teenager attempting to understand metaphysics.
I apologise for the spelling mistakes, I am quite tired, here they are: Professor, reached, and rough.
ReplyDeleteWell, here is the full list. I am sure it will generate a lot of disagreement regarding its inclusions, omissions and ranking. I would be interested in what some people believe are glaring omissions, and whom would you substitute the omission for.
ReplyDelete1. Muhammed
2. Isaac Newton
3. Jesus Christ
4. Buddha
5. Confucius
6. St. Paul
7. Tsai lun
8. Johann Gutenberg
9. Christopher Columbus
10. Albert Einstein
11. Louis Pasteur
12. Galileo Galilei
13. Aristotle
14. Euclid
15. Moses
16. Charles Darwin
17. Shih Huang Ti
18. August Caesar
19. Nicolaus Copernicus
20. Antoine Laurent Lavoisier
21. Constantine the Great
22. James Watt
23. Michael Faraday
24. James Clark Maxwell
25. Martin Luther
26. George Washington
27. Karl Marx
28. Orville Wright and Wilbur Wright
29. Genghis Khan
30. Adam Smith
31. Edward de Vere (William Shakespeare)
32. John Dalton
33. Alexander the Great
34. Napoleon Bonaparte
35. Thomas Edison
36. Antony van Leeuwenhoek
37. William T. G. Morton
38. Guglielmo Marconi
39. Adolf Hitler
40. Plato
41. Oliver Cromwell
42. Alexander Graham Bell
43. Alexander Fleming
44. John Locke
45. Ludwig van Beethoven
46. Werner Heisenberg
47. Louis Daguerre
48. Simon Bolivar
49. Rene Descartes
50. Michelangelo
51. Pope Urban II
52. Umar ibn id-Khattab
53. Asoka
54. St. Augustine
55. William Harvey
56. Ernest Rutherford
57. John Calvin
58. Gregor Mendel
59. Max Planck
60. Joseph Lister
61. Nikolaus August Otto
62. Francisco Pizarro
63. Hernando Corte’s
64. Thomas Jefferson
65. Queen Isabella I
66. Joseph Stalin
67. Julius Caesar
68. William the Conqueror
69. Sigmund Freud
70. Edward Jenner
71. William Conrad Rontgen
72. Johann Sebastian Bach
73. Lao Tzu
74. Voltaire
75. Johannes Kepler
76. Enrico Fermi
77. Leonard Euler
78. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
79. Niccolo Machiavelli
80. Thomas Malthus
81. John F. Kennedy (explained below)
82. Gregory Pincus
83. Mani
84. Lenin
85. Su Wen Ti
86. Vasco da Gama
87. Cyrus the Great
88. Peter the Great
89. Mao Zedon
90. Francis Bacon
91. Henry Ford
92. Mencius
93. Zoroaster
94. Queen Elizabeth I
95. Mikhail Gorbachev
96. Menes
97. Charlemagne
98. Homer
99. Justinian I
100. Mahavira
Honorable Mentions:
St. Thomas Aquinas
Archimedes
Charles Babbage
Cheops
Marie Curie
Benjamin Franklin
Mohandes Gandhi
Abraham Lincoln
Ferdinand Magellan
Leonardo da Vinci
Some may find the inclusion of John Kennedy, combined with the exclusion of Abraham Lincoln, FDR and Churchill as curious, and even perhaps objectionable. Here is the author’s rationale:
“A thousand years from now, neither the Peace Corps, nor the Alliance for Progress, nor the Bay of Pigs is likely to be much remembered. Now will it seem very important what Kennedy’s policies were concerning taxes or civil rights legislation. John F. Kennedy has been placed on this list for one reason only: he was the person primarily responsible for instituting the Apollo Space Program. Providing that the human race has not blown itself to smithereens in the intervening time, we can be fairly sure that 5,000 years from now, our trip to the moon will still be regarded as a truly momentous event, one of the great landmarks in human history.
“… [L]et me deal with the question of whether John F. Kennedy is really the man who deserves the most credit for that trip. Should we not instead credit Neil Armstrong or Edwin Aldrin, the first men who actually set foot on the moon? If we were ranking people on the basis of enduring fame, that might be the correct thing to do, for I rather suspect that Neil Armstrong is more likely to be remembered 5,000 years from now than John F. Kennedy. From the standpoint of influence, however, Armstrong and Aldrin were completely unimportant. If by some misfortune those two men had died two months prior to the launching of Apollo 11, there were a dozen well-trained and highly competent astronauts who could have taken their places.”
You left out HD Thoreau.
DeleteAnonymous: "To tell the truth Cephalus, I answered, I enjoy talking with very old people. They have gone before us on a road by which we too may have to travel, and I think we do well to learn from them what it is like, easy or difficult, rough or smooth. And now that you have reacheed an age when your foot, as the poets say, is on the threshold, I should like to hear what report you can give me"
ReplyDeleteI share the sentiment.
In terms of words of wisdom from elderly people to young people, in the new West Side Story, Rita Moreno, who played Anita in the original movie version, plays the widow of Doc, from the original movie. Towards the end of the movie (spoiler) she has been told, erroneously, that Maria has been shot and killed by Chino. AS Tony is packing to meet Maria, whom Moreno believes is dead, as Tony says he could not live without Maria, just before she tells him that Maria is dead, she counsels Tony, "Life is more important than love."
ReplyDeleteAnother Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteNow there's a bag of worms if ever there was one. A whole course could taught on the subject.
Of course, in philosophy everything comes down to definitions. What is human "history," to start with? And what is meant by "influencing" history? And which people matter in terms of that influence? All people, or just certain people? For greats are you only including people whose lives and deeds are documented in written records (or, for the past century or two, possibly also in visual and/or audio recordings)? Surely the inventor(s) of the wheel and countless other tools have had far greater influences on humanity than, say, Shakespeare or Beethoven, to pull just two names from that list.
Jesus is included there, but not Abraham? Why is that? What about Eve? Mary? Pontius Pilate? Adam? The documentary evidence for Jesus' existence is pretty thin, practically non-existent.
If by some misfortune those two men had died two months prior to the launching of Apollo 11, there were a dozen well-trained and highly competent astronauts who could have taken their places.
And therein lies one of the most significant problems with just about any name on any kind of list of this sort.
This whole "great men" approach to history has lost a lot of its luster in recent years. There is a lot more interest in seeing history as moments of change brought about by confluences of opportunity. If Daguerre or Bell or Marconi had not made their discoveries, someone else would have because the opportunities were just right at that time. There's also a lot of value in understanding history in terms of the lives of ordinary people. History from below, as its sometimes called. (Which is not to say that there is no value at all in also thinking about prominent individuals whose names are associated with pivotal events; but that those names need to be viewed in a rather different light, as representatives of ideas and movements at moments in the past.)
Then there is this:
"The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History is a 1978 book by Michael H. Hart, an astrophysicist, alien life researcher and white separatist"
and this.
Ironic, considering that this started out as a discussion about the life and deeds of Desmond Tutu.
Anonymous @ 12/27/21.8:32 AM: You left off the best part of the passage that Eric @ 12/27/21.11:54 AM quotes from you. I supply it below (embedded, where it belongs, in the entire remainder of the passage) ...
ReplyDelete... Is it a hard time of life, or what have you to report of it?"
"By Zeus, I shall tell you just how it looks to me, Socrates," he said. "Some of us who are about the same age often meet together and keep up the old proverb. Now then, when they meet, most of the members of our group lament, longing for the pleasures of youth and reminiscing about sex, about drinking bouts and feasts and all that goes with things of that sort; they take it hard as though they were deprived of something very important and had then lived well but are now not even alive. Some also bewail the abuse that old age receives from relatives, and in this key they sing a refrain about all the evils old age has caused them. But, Socrates, in my opinion these men do not put their fingers on the cause. For, if this were the cause. I too would have suffered these same things insofar as they depend on old age and so would everyone else who has come to this point in life. But as it is, I have encountered others for whom it was not so, especially Sophocles.
I was once present when the poet was asked by someone, 'Sophocles, how are you in sex? Can you still have intercourse with a woman?' 'Silence, man,' he said. 'Most joyfully did I escape it, as though I had run away from a sort of frenzied and savage master.
I thought at the time that he had spoken well and I still do. For, in every way, old age brings great peace and freedom from such things. When the desires cease to strain and finally relax, then what Sophocles says comes to pass in every way; it is possible to be rid of very many mad masters. But of these things and of those that concern relatives, there is one just cause: not old age, Socrates, but the character of the human beings. If they are orderly and content with themselves, as even old age is only moderately troublesome; if they are not, then both age, Socrates, and youth alike tum out to be hard for that sort."
Several paraphrases that I have found amusing of the passage in bold are:
It’s like being unchained from a lunatic.
It’s like being released from a demon.
for 50 years it was like being chained to an idiot.
I'd say that sometimes individuals make a huge difference, sometimes not.
ReplyDeleteNo one is going to convince me that if Shakespeare hadn't existed, his plays would have been written by someone. No one else could have written Beethoven's symphonies or string quartets.
On the other hand, if Washington hadn't existed, someone else would have led the army in the war for independence and they probably would have triumphed. I see Gorbachev on the list and if he hadn't existed, the Soviet Union would have collapsed sooner or later and someone, like Gorbachev, would have had to accept the facts of life.
Still, how about Hitler? Given the depression, the defeat in World War 1, the Treaty of Versailles and the mentality of the German middle class, Germany probably would have swung to the right in the 1930's, with or without Hitler, but would any other rightwing German leader have ordered the Holocaust or been fool enough to invade the Soviet Union when he already had a non-aggression pact with Stalin? I don't think so.
The point is that someone the individual person matters, sometimes not.
s. wallerstein,
ReplyDeleteSomeone else would not have written Shakespeare's plays verbatim or Beethoven's works note by note, no argument. But the particularities of those pieces are not the source of their influence. Someone else could have developed styles of similar spirit in their disciplines with comparable impacts on culture. (And that's not even getting into what % of humanity in the long stretch of history have had any familiarity with Shakespeare's or Beethoven's works.) Ditto The Beatles, etc.
would any other rightwing German leader have ordered the Holocaust
History says, yes. Perhaps not in precisely the same moment and through the same means. It might not even have been a German, per se. But more broadly, the answer is, yes.
Eric,
ReplyDeleteThe claim that Dr. Hart was a “white separatist,” with the implication that he was a white supremacist, is absolute rubbish. In the article at your second link, that author writes:
“In the following interview, Hart argues that the idea of partitioning the United States to accommodate the national aspirations of its differing racial groups is not as radical a proposal as it might at first ap[ear. Blacks, whites, and Hispanics, Hart contends, constitute distinct nations in America, and despite all the rhetoric about integration and assimilation, members of each of these groups, he says, live essentially separate lives. The history of multiracial, multinational states is not encouraging, Hart contends, as one or more of the constituent groups inevitably feels stifled, either culturally or politically. Whether one looks to the example of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, of nineteenth-century Sweden, of colonial India, of Cyprus, of Yugoslavia, of Czechoslovakia, or of the former Soviet Union, the tendency for people living in multinational states, Mart insists, is eventually to seek an independent existence. Members of diverse racial, linguistic, and religious groups rarely get along well in the same state, Hart observes, and in the case of blacks and Hispanics in the United States, the problem, is greatly exacerbated because each group harbors a deeply ingrained and fully understandable sense of historical grievance.”
These are hardly the words of a white supremacist. And he offers a rational explanation for separatism, a solution which Malcolm X endorsed. While I do not endorse the proposal, suggesting that referring to Hart on a post devoted to honoring Desmond Tutu is somehow sacrilegious or inappropriate is specious.
And regarding your response to s. wallerstien, it sounds like you are arguing for some form of historical inevitability, ala Hegel. But Hart’s point regarding Kennedy vs. Armstrong is that the historical record shows that there were already other competent, trained astronauts available who would have done what he did had he died. This argument does not apply to Beethoven, Shakespeare, Hitler, or any of the other individuals on the list. The claim that probabilities support the inference that eventually someone else would have done the same thing they did – a highly speculative and not inevitable proposition – those hypothetical others would not have done it at the time the named individuals actually did it.
Hart apparently believes that Edward de Vere was Shakespeare. A few reputable (for lack of a better word) writers have believed that, but it's a minority view, to put it, I think, kindly.
ReplyDeletePart of the inspiration for the de Vere theory lies in the mistaken assumption that the author of Hamlet, Lear etc. must have come from the upper class bc someone educated in a local grammar school, as the actual Shakespeare was, did not have the background or equipment to write the plays and poems. But in fact the curriculum in a local grammar school wd have given Shakespeare all the background he needed, when coupled with his innate talent, to write what he did.
In the case of great geniuses such as Shakespeare or Beethoven, their influence works on two levels.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, there is their influence on their contemporaries and on the development of the genres they work in. Hamlet is considered an example of revenge tragedy, of which there are many other lesser known Elizabethan examples and undoubtedly, Shakespeare's use of the standard plot of the revenge tragedy influenced other Elizabethan dramatists. In that sense, he was part of a larger historical process along with contemporaries such as Ben Jonson and Christopher Marlowe and others whose names I no longer recall.
The same with Beethoven. Those who have studied the development of the symphony or the sonata form can easily see how Beethoven made changes to what he learned from Haydn, one of his teachers and from other predecessors such as Mozart. The influence of Beethoven on German-Austrian classical music in the 19th century, on Schumann, on Brahms, on Mendelson, on Wagner, etc. can also be studied.
However, the influence of both is much larger than that. We can enjoy and more than enjoy, respond to Shakespeare today not because of his influence on the Elizabethan theater, but because he touches something very profound in the human condition which has little or nothing to do with his historical influence. The same thing with Beethoven.
Those who respond to his 9th symphony today need not know or care about whether his use of the first movement in his symphonies was a contribution to the development of classical music.
Another Anonymous: "This argument does not apply to Beethoven, Shakespeare, Hitler, or any of the other individuals on the list. The claim that probabilities support the inference that eventually someone else would have done the same thing they did – a highly speculative and not inevitable proposition – those hypothetical others would not have done it at the time the named individuals actually did it."
ReplyDeleteThere's no point debating this further since neither position can be proven or disproven.
Also note that in the sciences there are many examples of different individuals discovering similar ground-breaking findings contemporaneously. In occasional cases without being aware that the other person or team was as close to the finding as they were.
Another Anonymous: "suggesting that referring to Hart on a post devoted to honoring Desmond Tutu is somehow sacrilegious or inappropriate is specious."
ReplyDeleteThe word apartheid in Afrikaans literally means apartness, separateness.
Another Anonymous: "The claim that Dr. Hart was a 'white separatist,' with the implication that he was a white supremacist, is absolute rubbish.... And he offers a rational explanation for separatism...."
I did not imply that Hart is a white supremacist. But since you raise that issue...
The book chapter that the article describes includes the following:
Hart is convinced that the races differ in their intelligence and their ability to acquire higher education, and he says that the lower achieving groups will always feel deep resentment over their poorer performance, which they will inevitably blame on racism and discrimination, rather than inadequate talent. Hart believes that there is simply no solution to this problem of resentment other than geographic partition.
...
[Hart, responding to a question about what influenced his current ideas:] More recently, I became interested in immigration. I realized that the probable result of our current immigration policies (if they are not changed) will be the impoverishment of our country and the destruction of our culture.
...
[Hart:] [A] multiracial state hurts all of us, and hurts whites in particular. Whites have to put up with very high crime rates, approximately double what they would be without nonwhites – in fact, among non-Hispanic whites the crime rate would be a quarter or a fifth of what it is now. Because of the presence of so many non- whites, we have to put up with a high incidence of social problems – illegitimacy, for example, and many others. We have to put up with high taxes. We have to put up with declining schools and declining stan- dards in schools. We have social promotions in schools because we don’t want to leave blacks back.
Eric,
ReplyDeleteDefinitely, not my kind of guy, Hart.
Eric,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I am astounded that you either already had a copy of the book containing the Hart excerpts in your library, or downloaded the book online, or hastened to a nearby library to find the book.
Logistics aside, the separatism which Hart is advocating is not the equivalent of apartheid. The system of apartheid in South Africa was official enforcement of the separation of the races within the same country, with the minority whites dominating and oppressing the majority blacks. Hart’s endorsement of separatism is nothing like that. He is endorsing separation of the races into separate nations, in which each race is the majority in that nation and does not oppress another race within the nation.
The book review you linked to is quite misleading, given the excerpts which you quote from the book. I acknowledge that those excerpts mark Hart as a racist. That still, however, does not make him a white supremacist. All white supremacists are racist, but not all racists are white supremacists. White supremacy advocates authority of whites over nonwhites within the same country, the equivalent of apartheid. That is not what Hart advocates. I was not aware that he is, indeed, a racist, something the book review you linked to would not have informed its readers.
Post-script:
ReplyDeleteShould the fact that all of the individuals included on Hart’s list were Caucasian (unless Menes, the first Egyptian dynastic leader was Black) tipped me off to his being racist? Should George Washington Carver have been included instead of, e.g., Alexander Bell or Gregory Pincus? Should Frederick Douglas have been included instead of Voltaire, or Martin Luther King instead of Kennedy?
Another,
ReplyDeleteWhen was the list drawn up?
It was easier to be "innocently" racist in 1970 than it is today.
I also note very few women. Again, it was easier to be "innocently" sexist in 1970 than it is today. A list drawn up in 2021 would include, I imagine, some pioneers of the feminist movement.
Google tells me that the book was published in 1978. And also that he is Jewish, which makes his separatism even weirder.
ReplyDeleteThis Michael Hart has all the markings of a rank amateur; who knew enough to speculate using if he was a scientist, some decent analytic skills; but even Columbia University divided its history among the sitting faculty. His book was something written by somebody who maybe read the newspapers and had a good education and thought that it was enough while lacking the qualifications to write a very short introduction to any of his subjects. Correct me if I'm wrong, but history is more than a smattering of facts, even if salient facts
ReplyDeleteHe has instigated an entertaining and informative discussion on this blog; but not much more
"Should the fact that all of the individuals included on Hart’s list were Caucasian..."
ReplyDeleteActually several are Asian and South Asian/Persian (Cyrus seems to have been omitted???). Abraham would have been a better placeholder for monotheism, allowing several others to be omitted.
However a silly project. There are a handful of folks from way back whose names we will never know. Everything else is derivative - enough monkeys, enough typewriters, enough time...
Howard and aaall,
ReplyDeleteI take it, then, that you both disagree with Frank Capra – that all of the same things would have happened even if none of the people on the list of 100 had been born.
Do you also disagree with him regarding failure? That no person is a failure who has friends? Yes, you say, because even Mussolini had friends.
I'm impressed that m. proust knew that passage from the Republic. (I've read the Republic but a long time ago, and the passage didn't ring a bell.) Speaks well for m proust's U. of Chicago education perhaps, or maybe he just knows the Republic well for some other reason...
ReplyDeleteAnother Anonymous
ReplyDeleteIn some cases, yes; had Newton or Einstein not been born, another figure would have got the job done
About historical figures: we can tell ourselves stories about what they did; but first, there are other actors involved and it is impossible to say what would have happened had they never become historical actors
Mainly I doubt anyone's competence to make such judgments- you'd have to possess the judgment and the omniscience of a God
I do think it's an interesting question and collectively if we threw at it enough resources, we could come up with a provisional answer
I'm not sure this Hart guy is qualified
or maybe he just knows the Republic well for some other reason...
ReplyDeleteI won't ask or speculate about marcel proust, but I could tell you why I treasure that passage. For me it's one of the most delightful incidental bits in Plato. Luckily it appears in either the first or second book of The Republic; I would've missed it if required to read much further...
Anyway, hardly the place to discuss this in detail, but my love life as an adult has been very unsuccessful, almost completely uneventful, which has contributed to the depression and sense of inadequacy that I'm still in the process of working through. But even in my 20s, I took Plato (or Cephalus) to be telling me, "Yeah, you're a wreck about it now, but really, it's pretty screwed up and dumb to care so much about something like sexual love - and as you get older (and naturally lose interest), you'll wise up and be better for it." So, one of those "It gets better" messages, which a decade or so later strikes me as an important truth, though I'm embarrassed to say so. :)
I smile for the same reason when overhear an older person I admire (almost a redundant phrase for me) scoff at things like romance and status and wealth and accomplishment as so much "kid stuff" (or, as preoccupations of the diseased, materialistic West). Sour grapes? Maybe, but surely there's more to it than that.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteGetting old (75) in my experience has just been frustrating regarding sex. I have exactly the same mental lust when I see a beautiful woman as I always did, maybe even more, but
my potency is not on the level of my lusts. The lust is possibly increased because I know that it will not be satisfied. I don't want beautiful young women to see me as a dirty old man, but I'm one in my head at least.
You're only as old as the woman you feel.
ReplyDeleteGroucho Marx
Howard,
ReplyDeleteI have to take issue with your analysis.
First, regarding great scientists, inventors, artists – some scientists are so brilliant that it is highly unlikely that had they not existed, eventually what they accomplished would have been accomplished anyway. The prime example is Einstein. His thought experiments regarding the speed of light and its relationship to time were the work of a genius, and would not likely have been duplicated by anyone else. Similarly, the sculptures by Michelangelo could not have been duplicated by any other sculptor, however talented, including Rodin.
Secondly, it is not just a question of whether what the person did would have been done by someone else in the future. In many cases, it is better that what they did occurred sooner rather than later. Had Fleming not discovered penicillin when he did, thousands of people would have died waiting for someone else to make the discovery.
Regarding military achievements, arguably only Eisenhower had the organizational and interpersonal skills necessary to have planned and implemented D-Day when it was done. Yes, perhaps some other military leader could have accomplished it at a later date after June 6, 1944, but in the meantime thousands of soldiers and civilians would have died. Eisenhower’s skills were unique, and he deserves credit for having pulled off the greatest amphibious military operation in history, ultimately resulting in the defeat of the Third Reich (admittedly, with the help of the Russian army to the East).
Contrary to aaall’s assertion, it is not inevitable that a million monkeys, randomly typing on a million typewriters throughout eternity would have succeeded in typing Hamlet or the Odyssey in their entirety. They are more likely to have repeatedly typed the same gibberish, throughout eternity.
Another,
ReplyDeleteGroucho as usual great and at lot more honest than Plato.
Dear another,
ReplyDeletePoincaire was working on relativity. In some ways Einstein was like an artist, but others would have seen what he saw because special and general relativity, however imaginative were discovered, not invented. It was in the air, though it may have appeared to pop out of nowhere. I agree with you certain individuals make a big difference, seemingly. As to Eisenhower- nobody you know about could have pulled it off, but some obscure figure may have.
I'm not entirely taking a sociological viewpoint; granted the impact of great figures such as Shakespeare and Michelangelo. But, history is not like reading about a baseball game or a baseball season in the papers after the game or season. There are too many variables, not just the big ones such as eminent figures, there are variables we just don't know, and the whole project of most influential figures is too nebulous to take seriously
I'm not sure Einstein is not overrated
You can try to keep a focus on the main events, but my guess as an amateur, is that you can't control our narrative of history as we can a scientific experiment
s. wallerstein,
ReplyDeleteI have been waiting for you to comment about my inclusion of Judith Wallerstein in the next thread.
Howard,
ReplyDelete"I'm not sure Einstein is not overrated." That's funny.
When will you know?
Another,
ReplyDeleteNo known relation to Judith nor to her husband, who gave her the last name when they married, I learn from Google.
Post-script:
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that one million monkeys typing randomly on one million typewriters throughout eternity could, collectively, reproduce both Hamlet and the Odyssey? Possibly, but that is not the same as Shakespeare or Homer having written these masterpieces on their own.
Light and gravity were in the air. I'm sure Feynman would have figured it all out
ReplyDeletePlato's probably not your guy, s.w. (which is fine). In fact, in order to justify his subordination of sensual pleasure to intellectual pleasure, I think he'd want to take the mystical line that contemplation is a means to a higher, more enduring good than the good attained through sensual (including sexual) pleasure - that both of these have perhaps the same basic, if only implicit, aim (union with The Good); but sensual pleasure is the less effective means of attaining it, and/or that the good attained via sensual/bodily love is an imperfect imitation of The Good. Isn't that sort of the upshot of The Symposium?
ReplyDeleteI haven't made up my mind about it, but I think that's kind of a cool idea, worth considering. I've heard it applied to other forms of intoxication, too. (E.g. an anecdote concerning a guru who had the same assessment of the LSD that a traveler offered him.) But stated so baldly, I get that it comes off as weird and silly, if not sad and dishonest as well. FWIW, I still suspect there's some truth to be salvaged from it.
By the way, here are some other charmers from antiquity:
"When you have savories and fine dishes set before you, you will gain an idea of their nature if you tell yourself that this is the corpse of a fish, and that the corpse of a bird or a pig; or again, that fine Falernian wine is merely grape-juice, and this purple robe some sheep's wool dipped in the blood of a shellfish; and as for sexual intercourse, it is the friction of a piece of gut and, following a sort of convulsion, the expulsion of mucus." (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations VI.13)
"They say that sex is never beneficial, and you are very lucky [or, "it is surprising" or "marvelous"] if it does not do harm as well." (Epicurus, Vatican Sayings 51)
"Behaving indecently in public, he [Diogenes of Sinope] wished 'it were as easy to banish hunger by rubbing the belly.'" (Diogenes Laƫrtius, Lives VI.69)
Light and gravity are not only in the air, they are also in the vacuum of space. (Sorry, I could not resist.)
ReplyDeleteBut the relationship between light and gravity was deduced by Einstein well before Feynman was born, and influenced Feynman. If we had had to wait for Feynman to come along, the equation E=mc2 would have had to wait, Einstein would never have written his letter to FDR, delaying the Manhattan Project and the development of nuclear weapons, making the defeat of Japan much more expensive in the loss of human lives. As comments on this issue in the past have indicated, that outcome may have been preferable to what actually happened, but if they were going to be invented in any case, why not sooner rather than later?
Another argument Another Anonymous on Einstein's originality
ReplyDeleteI call it the argument from pizza
Premise: Ray's pizza is original
Premise 2: But there are many Ray's Original Pizza and they're all the same
Therefore: Einstein, like Ray's Pizza is NOT original
And let me add we can demonstrate general relativity using pizza dough
Ceritus Paribus is questionable when applied to world history
ReplyDeleteAnother Anonymous @11:54,
ReplyDeleteEvery point you make there is opinion. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't try to pass any of it off as objective fact.
To say Einstein was a genius does not necessarily mean that no one else could or would have made similar discoveries or similarly produced new explanatory theories in physics. Rather, it should be taken as an acknowledgment of the rarity of their contribution(s). "Rare" is not the same as "only ever for all time" (unique in the strict sense of the word).
(There has also been a bit of speculation as to the contributions that Einstein's wife made in his early work, although there are many doubters.)
Fleming's discovery of penicillin was based entirely on opportunity. Opportunity resulting from an accident in his lab, in fact. AND there were a lot of other people involved in turning that lab discovery into an actual medication that could be used effectively and safely in human beings. AND penicillin was not the first widely-used antibacterial antibiotic medication (FDR & Churchill were both treated with sulfonamide antibiotics several years before penicillin became available. Sulfonamides are still in use today.)
Regarding military achievements, arguably only Eisenhower had the organizational and interpersonal skills necessary to have planned and implemented D-Day when it was done. Yes, perhaps some other military leader could have accomplished it at a later date after June 6, 1944, but in the meantime thousands of soldiers and civilians would have died.
Alternatively, Eisenhower's having been promoted to positions of high command may have blocked the promotions of others who could have led to an Allied victory sooner or with less carnage. (The legacy of his presidency certainly raises questions about the value of his unique skills.)
(Why does every conversation on this blog eventually bring up WWII?)
Michael,
ReplyDelete'Sophocles, how are you in sex? Can you still have intercourse with a woman?' 'Silence, man,' he said. 'Most joyfully did I escape it, as though I had run away from a sort of frenzied and savage master.
Wasn't Socrates gay (or gayly bi)? (as we would call it from a 21st-century perspective)
Or am I missing something?
It's easy to interpret his response to the question as being about aging and/or his values of what things are really important in life. But might he not have been intending a second meaning, even if doing so tongue-in-cheek?
Howard,
ReplyDeleteGiven your admiration of Feynman, you may be interested in seeing Christopher Nolan’s most recent film, Tenet, whose plot is based on Richard Feynman-John Wheeler’s Absorber Theory. The movie, which I watched last night, is extraordinarily convoluted and complicated, and deals with the reversal of entropy and time travel. According to Wikipedia, the Absorber Theory: “[I]s an interpretation of electrodynamics derived from the assumption that the solutions of the electromagnetic field equations must be invariant under time-reversal transformation, as are the field equations themselves. Indeed, there is no apparent reason for the time-reversal symmetry breaking, which singles out a preferential time direction and thus makes a distinction between past and future.”
When I was attending Rutgers during the 1960’s, John Wheeler was teaching physics at Princeton. His son, Robert Wheeler, was a brilliant philosophy major at Rutgers, and he and I were in Prof. Wolff’s class on Kant’s Ethics.
Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThere is an autodidact and polymath who frequents my library who dropped out of High School (Stuyvesant) at twelve who trash talks legendary scientists and public figures, especially Einstein. He, Robert, admires Feynman. He thinks Feynman is as brilliant as himself.
He is a character (aren't we all?) Einstein among other things, can't row and can't do calculus.
We joke how Einstein should have joined the Marines- it would've done him good
Are the commenters Howard and Howie the same person?
ReplyDelete"...that all of the same things would have happened even if none of the people on the list of 100 had been born."
ReplyDeleteProbably not but NBD given that we likely don't dwell in the best of all possible worlds. Just different books, plays, and tunes - maybe better - or not.
Eisenhower was recognized as a talented officer from the beginning. The Louisiana Maneuvers involved quite a few officers and Ike was a standout among many very good officers (1915 WP the class the stars fell on). He was jumped over quite a few others so assuming the existence of some superior or just as good, bypassed O - 5 or 6 is a stretch.
The main problem with the list is that it hasn't aged well. The 1950s were all space all the time (except for Davy Crockett) and given the Soviets there was always going to be a race of some sort. The Moon was cool in 1970 but sort of "meh" by now. We live in a world built by Goldwater, Johnson, and Nixon - a thousand years from now the story will most likely be global warming, the end of the United States as a democratic Republic, and the ensuing of a dark age . Kennedy is a footnote.
Also China's decision to bail on a serious navy during the Ming dynasty was as (or more) consequential as Isabela's to fund some exploration.
BTW, re: "Dawn of Everything" and origins of notions of equality and freedom in European thought -
"When Adam dalf, and Eve span, who was thanne a gentilman? From the beginning all men were created equal by nature, and that servitude had been introduced by the unjust and evil oppression of men, against the will of God, who, if it had pleased Him to create serfs, surely in the beginning of the world would have appointed who should be a serf and who a lord" and Ball ended by recommending "uprooting the tares that are accustomed to destroy the grain; first killing the great lords of the realm, then slaying the lawyers, justices and jurors, and finally rooting out everyone whom they knew to be harmful to the community in future."
John Ball, London, 1381.