Whom do you admire?

[Primula Baggins]

I tend to admire people for who they are rather than for what they accomplish in a quantitative sense. That's why I have no list. There are public figures whose achievements I admire greatly, but that doesn't necessarily translate into admiration of the person; quite the opposite sometimes. And more often I simply don't feel I know enough about the person.

Yet, like Ax, there are people I know in real life and here whom I admire greatly—for courage, for integrity, for wisdom, for knowledge, for fidelity, for kindness, for wit and imagination—who aren't getting into any books or onto any published lists.

Who makes me want to become a better person myself? That's who I admire.

[Aravar]

Aravar--

You have a point. It's hard to escape the fact that that list of 18 is far and away deominated by political leaders and heads of state. I do wonder though...is greatness really the same thing as being admirable? And the answer to that has to rest in WHY we admire someone. Is it what they've done, or who they are?

I think it's bound to be: I admire many of my school and university tachers: they had a great impact on my life, but none of them would make a list of the Greats of the 20th Century.

The thread title's a bit misleading, in that it comes from an American poll limited to the 20th Century.

As a result it's bound to be limited to people that are well known, and, even if we extend the discusison to global figures, to people who are well known globally to boot.

[axordil]

The word admiration used to have an air of wonderment about it. I think I like that. Perhaps admiration should not be merely looking up at someone, but having one's breath taken away by them, whether because of their accomplishments or their example. Obviously it's easier for a person to have one moment like that than an entirely lifetime, or one aspect of their personality.

And yet are there not single actions, single iconic moments, that surpass all rational judgment and force us to admire someone? Someone mentioned the man who stood, bags in hand, before the tanks in Tianamien Square. Does it matter if he paid his bills on time, or if he always said please and thank you, or even if he cheated on his wife? Some have greatness thrust upon them...

[Primula Baggins]

That's true, Ax. Sometimes people transcend themselves in one moment.

Someday, in Tiananmen Square, there will be a statue of that man, in that moment. I hope.

[Aravar]

And yet are there not single actions, single iconic moments, that surpass all rational judgment and force us to admire someone? Someone mentioned the man who stood, bags in hand, before the tanks in Tianamien Square.

Is it admirable to

(a) lack common sense

and

(b) achieve nothing ?

[Primula Baggins]

That image will achieve more than many multivolume political screeds ever did. It already has, in terms of its effect on world opinion. I know a number of people from China, professionals and scientists who work with my husband, who can never return because of their efforts to support the democracy movement there. They don't denigrate the value of the sacrifice made by the people who died there, simply because they did not bring democracy to China that time.

Long-term, what that man did may matter tremendously.

[axordil]

1) I think that lacking common sense, or at least being able to suppress it, is a prerequisite for admiration. Common sense is the enemy of the exceptional.

2) I have no answer for you except that which Tolstoy gave: the two most powerful warriors are patience and time.

[Maria]

It was definitely the aspect of wonderment that caused my short list.

I was serious about the dog, too. If he really did what they say he did (and an eyewitness assured me he could) then it was really, really breathtakingly amazing.

[truehobbit]

1) I think that lacking common sense, or at least being able to suppress it, is a prerequisite for admiration. Common sense is the enemy of the exceptional.

I wouldn't say that. I would say that common sense is the hardest thing to achieve in a mad world, and therefore anyone who has the guts to stand up for common sense is probably very admirable.

I think that what people like Ghandi and M. L. King stood up for is after all only common sense, too.

The problem is that common sense often is what gets you killed.

I agree with Prim that the people I admire are the people who make me want to be a better person. That's why the military is out, no matter how much they happened to win some historically important war.
It's also true that because of this, the people I admire will mostly be ordinary people, or people who do well in the ordinary tasks of life.

However, it is possible to put yourself in Frodo's shoes, for example, and ask yourself what you'd do if you were confronted with some really big problem. And that's when other people come into view who you admire in the sense that you think they gave an example that's worth following. But there are very, very few of them. I think Ghandi, King and Bonhoeffer need to be named in one breath, but none of the other names listed here so far would qualify.

But I think it's an interesting question to compare these people, who purposefully dedicated their lives to their tasks, to those like the Chinese man in front of the tank that was mentioned, who did something very brave and admirable in a coincidental way, just responding to the situation at hand in an admirable way. I think they can set an example, too, in the way Prim said, an example for us ordinary people to follow.

[Aravar]

That's why the military is out, no matter how much they happened to win some historically important war.

So those who laid their lives on the line to defeat fascism cannot be admirable in your eyes?

You and I live in the world they laid down their lives to make. I think that some respect is worthy.

The fact that the military of some countries may have been employed in bad causes does not mean that no soldiers should be admired.

[axordil]

I think that what people like Ghandi and M. L. King stood up for is after all only common sense, too.

Were this the case, they would have faced little opposition. What seems only common-sensical NOW was anything but THEN.

[truehobbit]

Aravar:

The vast majority of ordinary soldiers didn't choose to lay down their lives for anything. It's sad that they had to, and I may feel pity for their suffering, but not admiration.

The military leaders who were named in this thread were military leaders by profession. They didn't fight a war because it was necessary to defeat fascism but because fighting wars was their job. There's nothing admirable in that either.

An individual soldier or perhaps even an individual military leader may be admired for an action if they did something extraordinary that was admirable, but I know of no such individual examples.

I also find your statement interesting in light of your previous post.
If you ask me why I don't admire someone who fought a war, I would ask in return:

Is it admirable to

(a) lack common sense

and

(b) achieve nothing ?

Ax:

So you don't think that common sense is always the same? I think it is.
Common sense is not the same as the common standard.
For example, living peacefully together is certainly not the common standard in many places and in much of the time, but it nevertheless is always common sense, IMO.

[Aravar]

.
If you ask me why I don't admire someone who fought a war, I would ask in return:

Is it admirable to

(a) lack common sense

and

(b) achieve nothing ?

People who fight wars do not, necessarily, lack common sense. The questions are conjunctive, not disjunctive. War has achieved much in human history.

I repeat that the military of some countires may have been employed in bad causes. I may have had a particular country in mind when I wrote that.

[truehobbit]

There is no military in any country that has not been employed in bad causes.

War has definitely achieved much in human history. Billions of deaths, centuries of famine and deprivation, a large part of mankind traumatised and unable to lead a dignified and normal life or pass any such ideas on to their children...no, I'm certainly not denying that war is influential in human history.

But it is devoid of common sense.

[Aravar]

There is no military in any country that has not been employed in bad causes.

War has definitely achieved much in human history. Billions of deaths, centuries of famine and deprivation, a large part of mankind traumatised and unable to lead a dignified and normal life or pass any such ideas on to their children...no, I'm certainly not denying that war is influential in human history.

But it is devoid of common sense.

Do you think, perhaps that you are generalising from the disgusting behaviour of your country's military in the past hundred years.

[Primula Baggins]

Please be civil.

There is no need to make hurtful remarks involving others' nationalities.

[truehobbit]

I don't think I am, Aravar. In fact, I know I'm not.

[axordil]

hobby--

I wish it were true that common sense were unchanging. It would make life simpler. But history and anthropology demonstrate that what works quite well in one place and time doesn't in another.

The classic example is of course slavery. Is it not common sense that treating people as property is a bad idea? And yet for 95% of human history it was the norm, everywhere, in every religion and culture, and people defended its existence as being common sense.

[Aravar]

I don't think I am, Aravar. In fact, I know I'm not.

Am I to understand then that you consider that there is a moral equivalence between the activities of, say, US forces in WWII and those of the Wehrmacht?

[truehobbit]

The classic example is of course slavery. Is it not common sense that treating people as property is a bad idea? And yet for 95% of human history it was the norm, everywhere, in every religion and culture, and people defended its existence as being common sense.

That's a good point, Ax. On the other hand, I think our current ideas of human rights are the result of what you could call a philosophy of common sense. I don't know whether the defenders of slavery ever said it was common sense to treat people as property. I think they would be more likely to have said that it was the way things are ordered in this world, or something god-given, or something along those lines. I might be wrong, but I think that the idea of common sense only came up in the 18th century and the idea is that there are some tenets that would naturally strike all humans as desirable, and that that is common sense.
Thus, it may strike the slave owner as desirable to treat humans as property, but not the slave - so it's not common sense.
I'm not saying that it would be always clear what actually is common sense, but that as far as I know the concept of common sense is a part of enlightenment philosophy and thence directly connected to the origins of our modern ideas of basic human rights.

Am I to understand then that you consider that there is a moral equivalence between the activities of, say, US forces in WWII and those of the Wehrmacht?

No, you are to understand that the US Army has been engaged in morally wrong activities, just like the German Army, or the British one, for that matter.

Who was it again who said that the first to bring Hitler into a discussion loses?