I love the nuanced approach here - neither pessimistic nor optimistic but rather realistic. Then again, I would strongly question the utilityn here or even definition of “great” - except you were just using it in an explanatory sense, so I get what you mean, but like for a corporation to achieve “success”, at the expense of an enormous number of workers let go… is that really “great”, truly?
Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder and I see such ugliness, even while I also see potential for truly great good as well. It is definitely not the “fault” of the tool, but rather the wielder, although either way I see why people have anxiety, when they consider the ways that the tools are currently and actively being used against their interests.
for a corporation to achieve “success”, at the expense of an enormous number of workers let go… is that really “great”, truly?
Sort of as you say: it’s a matter of perspective. If I as CEO of a major corporation were to extract $1T in personal compensation legally free and clear in a matter of 3 quarters from the time I took control until I made my exit, that would be a great achievement - perhaps the greatest from my personal perspective. Regardless of what kind of shambles I may have left the corporation and its business partners in - I would still go down in history as having achieved a kind of greatness. And, I wouldn’t exactly be looking for references for another job, either.
So then… Hitler was a great man? So too is Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and even Steve Huffman (spez from Reddit)? You’ve also heard the name “Pol Pot” before… so by that definition, he is great as well? By that definition, I am forced to agree with you.
Although why are we using that definition again? The large majority of the definition according to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/great seems to point rather in the opposing direction.
“remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness”, “great bloodshed”, “caused great damage” - this is the one you seem to be using
“used as a generalized term of approval” - again, this seems the opposite?
“chief or preeminent over others”, this might actually apply but then we get into what “over” means, so I’d rather choose a different one instead
“markedly superior in character or quality” -> HELL NO, unless again you get into the meaning of “superior”, and/or of “quality”
Basically you seem to be using “great” to mean “remarkable”. Yes, such a CEO would be “remarkable”, I agree, but I disagree that they would be considered “great”. Although beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, so obviously I do not mean to suggest that nobody will consider them great, just that most people probably would not, for the reason that they got theirs while leaving others to hold the bag. Especially since “others” in this case may doom all mammalian life on earth to if not extinction then “great” curtailment of quality of life (as well as ability to live at all).
Hitler was a great man? So too is Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and even Steve Huffman
IDK about Huffman, but the Voldemort analogy for the others is apt.
the one you seem to be using
The first one listed, yes.
a generalized term of approval” - again, this seems the opposite?
Isn’t English an awesomely terrible language?
would be “remarkable”, I agree, but I disagree that they would be considered “great”.
Was Ghengis Khan a great conquerer? Have we made America Great again yet?
Note, I’m not asking if Ghengis or the rest are beautiful, or good role models.
in this case may doom all mammalian life on earth to if not extinction then “great” curtailment of quality of life (as well as ability to live at all).
Again, sounds suspiciously close to the Voldemort agenda to me…
I love the nuanced approach here - neither pessimistic nor optimistic but rather realistic. Then again, I would strongly question the utilityn here or even definition of “great” - except you were just using it in an explanatory sense, so I get what you mean, but like for a corporation to achieve “success”, at the expense of an enormous number of workers let go… is that really “great”, truly?
Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder and I see such ugliness, even while I also see potential for truly great good as well. It is definitely not the “fault” of the tool, but rather the wielder, although either way I see why people have anxiety, when they consider the ways that the tools are currently and actively being used against their interests.
Sort of as you say: it’s a matter of perspective. If I as CEO of a major corporation were to extract $1T in personal compensation legally free and clear in a matter of 3 quarters from the time I took control until I made my exit, that would be a great achievement - perhaps the greatest from my personal perspective. Regardless of what kind of shambles I may have left the corporation and its business partners in - I would still go down in history as having achieved a kind of greatness. And, I wouldn’t exactly be looking for references for another job, either.
So then… Hitler was a great man? So too is Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and even Steve Huffman (spez from Reddit)? You’ve also heard the name “Pol Pot” before… so by that definition, he is great as well? By that definition, I am forced to agree with you.
Although why are we using that definition again? The large majority of the definition according to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/great seems to point rather in the opposing direction.
“remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness”, “great bloodshed”, “caused great damage” - this is the one you seem to be using
“used as a generalized term of approval” - again, this seems the opposite?
“chief or preeminent over others”, this might actually apply but then we get into what “over” means, so I’d rather choose a different one instead
“markedly superior in character or quality” -> HELL NO, unless again you get into the meaning of “superior”, and/or of “quality”
Basically you seem to be using “great” to mean “remarkable”. Yes, such a CEO would be “remarkable”, I agree, but I disagree that they would be considered “great”. Although beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, so obviously I do not mean to suggest that nobody will consider them great, just that most people probably would not, for the reason that they got theirs while leaving others to hold the bag. Especially since “others” in this case may doom all mammalian life on earth to if not extinction then “great” curtailment of quality of life (as well as ability to live at all).
IDK about Huffman, but the Voldemort analogy for the others is apt.
The first one listed, yes.
Isn’t English an awesomely terrible language?
Was Ghengis Khan a great conquerer? Have we made America Great again yet?
Note, I’m not asking if Ghengis or the rest are beautiful, or good role models.
Again, sounds suspiciously close to the Voldemort agenda to me…