is it fair to remember people by one great act, instead of the sum of little acts performed daily?

Question

scientists, for example, are frequently judged by one great act they've performed: the discovery of a polio vaccine (salk) or the theory of relativity (einstein) or the 'invention' of devastation (oppenheimer). athletes also can be remembered for one great act (kirk gibson, 1980's usa olympic team), or they can be remembered for quality careers (michael jordan, wayne gretzky). great leaders are often defined by the era they presided over (chinese dynasties, the reagan years, the reign of john paul II).

is it fairer to judge people (both famous and infamous) by one great act they perform in their lives, or by the sum total of their daily existence? or to rephrase it another way, must great people do "GREAT THINGS"? why or why not?

Answer 1

That is an excellent question, with implications not only in historical study, but also in deternining how best to evaluate people in our daily lives.

The reason it is such a good question is that how we judge and evaluate others is very important, from the standpoint of fairly assessing their character and their contributions. But often we find that the "one great act" is the result of years of study and preparation, honing the body and/or the mind for a great achievement. Such is the Einstein's refinement of Newton's contribution to physics through developing his theories of relativity. Such is Madame Curie's discovery of radium, or an astronomer's discovery of a new planet after years of tireless observation of the heavens. Such is Joe Namath's winning of the Heisemann trophy. Such is true even with perhaps less universally admired "great acts" such as Napoleon's conquest of Europe.

Napoleon achieved this after years of honing his skills of leadership and advancement on and off the battlefield, mastery of military tactics and human psychology, mastery of calculated audacity and risk-taking, and other day-to-day actions involved in a lifestyle completely centered around achieving his goals.

Yes, the primary criterion of greatness is accomplishment of great things-- things that transform the world. Great achievements need not be spectacular, but they usually are! Good ordinary men and women may do good things, and bad ordinary men and women may do bad things, but it is only their cumulative effect that changes the world in general, while, with great people, it is often impossible to visualize what the world would be like without their individual impact on it.

One must admit that even "great people's" achievements depend on other people and events. Not only did Napoleon's greatness depend on the prowess and courage of his soldiers, but he would never have risen to prominence if France and all of Europe had not been destabilized by the French Revolution. He never would have even received a military scholarship in France had his native Corsica not for a time been "French".

Had art and science not reached the stage it had reached, the high water mark of Leonardo would never have been achieved, and, without Galileo and others, Newton would not have been able to formulate and quantify the laws of physics. Without Newton and others who added to his work, neither Einstein, nor Bohr, nor Hawking nor others, would have been able to achieve what they achieved, though they might have achieved other things.

"If I have seen farther than others," wrote Newton, "It is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."

Most of us live our lives, luckily or unluckily, never getting more than a passing glimpse of the "giants". In appreciating ourselves and those around us, it might be best to set our sights on the perception of competence more than greatness, useful lives more than spectacular ones, goodness more than grandeur. A war is led, but not won, by its generals and statesmen. It is won or lost by the ordinary citizen and the soldier. But democratic bias and value judgments no doubt influence this statement!
I think the main credit for human achievement lies in the innate intelligence, wisdom and goodness of the human race as a whole, and society as a whole operates day to day more through the everyday competence of many people than the brilliance of a few.

Answer 2

Well usually it's the one big final achievement ( like the discovery of a vaccine) that gets a person recognized-even though it took loads of little small steps to get there but these are historically important too so would be recorded eventually. In fact, these small steps becomes as important as the final achievement themselves.

The people who discover vaccines, or who have their theories put down as laws etc. have a great impact on society - thus don't go un-noticed. It is more than fair to remember these people as they have given a lot to society as a whole- people need them.

You ask must great people do great things- it is the great things that people come up with that makes them great. They only become great after having made a great impact on life in one way or another, and thus they - no doubt- deserve to be remembered for what they have given to people in life.

Answer 3

I think both have there place in the history books. If you look at things on the flip side, there are many people remembered by one terrible act (Bill Buckner's passed ball in the 86 World Series) or many terrible acts (Hitler's reign) and other people remembered by incidental, accidental and intentional events.

Either way, for the positive or negative, whether or not an act is a single or one in a series of events does not seem to be grounds to judge "fairness". I do think that perhaps accidental or incidental events should not weigh as heavily as intentional (or talent vs. luck) events. So, maybe the question should be, should people's acts be measured by whether or not they are capable of recreating the act, or building on the success of the act (like Stephen Hawking), at least in terms of positive events. But if someone willingly chooses to do one or many acts of charity, which all persons are capable of, I think it is fair to measure them equally, unless you add motivation to the equation, which then would change the reason behind the act and then, how it should be judged.

Sorry for the long answer (well, not an answer, but more of a thought). It's a great question and I hope to see more of this sort on Yahoo! Answers.

Answer 4

What really matters is their significant contribution to mankind; or the significant act that awed the masses, no matter how often that significant act occured. It doesn't really matter what happened in their past before their recognition as well as after they've been recognized. Therefore, they will be remembered for what they have become significant. There is no fair judgment that will oppose their significance, unless they did something that DIRECTLY oppose what they have contributed or for what they have been recognized for. An example of this is the case of Zinedine Zidane (France) in the recently concluded FIFA 2006. He earned (if not) international recognition for heading France's first FIFA 1998 title; and other significant titles he earned for his team since then (Euro 2000... etc...). But look what happened? His recognition crumbled after headbutting Materazzi (sp?), especially that prior to FIFA 2006's commencement, he has announced his retirement. Well, kinda sucked to be remembered as a headbutting player than a legend, ey?

Answer 5

Yes. It is said that each of us has 15 minutes of fame. Some are famous for good; some for bad. Some of us are never famous, but those individuals can have more effect than the famous ones on history. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander during D-Day, but without all those thousands of unremembered casualties of the allied forces, the Allies would have lost the battle. It is both the great and the small that share the historical spot light.

Answer 6

The total sum of the good things a person has done. This counts as more than something someone might have just come across to change things for the better. If a person has done both though he should be remembered for the good he helped mankind althogether.

Answer 7

You bring up good points. No, in a perfect world individuals would be remembered for the sum of their lives, every act both great and small. What generally happens is only the noteworthy (or nortorious) is noted - for its uniqueness, and sometimes, for the sheer oddity and deviation from the expected norm.

Remember that such lopsided assessments often inspire the human spirit to rise above the mundane, the expected, and the normal to aspire to greater things...things which are often missed as reach exceeds grasp, but things which are sometimes achieved, sometimes surpassed.

However, if we're going to assess a person's life by the sum total of their actions, remember that you've got to embrace the bad with the good...the petty, selfish, lazy, prideful, larcenous, lustful...the whole kaboodle.

In that light, I think we'd be sorely short on heroes and "great" men, as true character (if measured by the sum of an entire life) has never been in abundant surplus.

In ANY of us.

Answer 8

First, I must say that no-one ever claimed that life was "fair". The reality is as you stated, most famous and infamous people are generally known for being "one act wonders".

That said, It isn't "fair" to be rememmbered for one act. The totality of your life and daily contributions should be what matters. Einstein changed the universe but it wouldn't be "fair" for him to be remembered for that one act if the rest of his life found him to be a pediphile. Salk may of relieved the suffering of many but it wouldn't be fair if he was also a serial killer.

The reverse is also true. It wouldn't be "fair" for man who sacrifices for a lifetime to help those in need to only be remembered for the death he caused from a drunk driving accident.

"Fair" is a very difficult term to rectify with the realities of our world. "Fair" is rarely the outcome of anyone's life. At best, it is an abstract that leads us to the best or better outcome when faced with disputes. At worst, it is twisted by a darker vision to justify evil deeds.

Answer 9

No. Since the advent of television our memories and full of names and deeds thrust onto the screen for their " Andy Warhol 15 minutes of fame." Who knew Mohmed Atta before 9/11?
Jonas Salk recently died...he was remembered by the people of his generation and now only a name in history books and who will care...only that we have a cure for polio. It seems that as one in thrust upon us...another comes to take is place, then it's NEXT. No. I believe one is remembered by the one big deal and then it is old and forgotten. Charles Lindberg is remembered for his one big flight over the Atlantic...now there was a paradox... but who remembers his "other" deeds?

Answer 10

It depends on the magnitude of the great act. A person can do lots of thins but is usually only remembered for one great act.

Answer 11

Life is not fair. People are remembered both ways and some are forgotten.This is like asking "Is it better to die as a baby and never know the pain of life and go straight to Heaven, or to die old and have endured the pain and joys of life and then go to Heaven?" Who knows.