The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.
The greatness of individuals heavily depends on the field they strive in to accomplish wonders. Yardsticks differ for ascertaining politicians' excellence, whose main task is to work for people, from the conditions, often intangible, for an artist to be widely lauded. If an answer needed to be provided, I would say that people viewed as eminent by their contemporaries, often mirror the tendency of the generation ; and there isn't a constant veracity regarding individuals' calibre.
Neutrality is often an asset when personal interests are part of the equation evaluating the greatness of individuals. Consider politics, which displays plethora of leaders lauded at their times, wrongly, others were sharply contested despite that their struggles paved the way for society's betterment, but also some of them, truly appreciated by the constituents as well as their descendants. Therefore, it would be up to a strong and unbiased citizen to recognize the qualities and improvements of a leader, irrespectively of period, personal stances, and feelings.
It is however true that time, like death, often gives a sacralized dimension to people who culminated in doing wonders, and waxes the anger towards individuals who subjugated others. This duality can be delimitated by contrasting, say, Lincoln and Hitler ; or Descartes and Kant.
Having the benefit of the insight is even primordial in science fields, whose trial-and-error approach necessitates decades for a discovery to be properly ascertained or endorsed by the whole community. Since knowledge is a limitless reservoir, and the race to truth is more a form of myth than something palpable, many discoveries and theories in physics or astronomy, for instance, might grow to be false after centuries of blind beliefs. History is rife with instances of scientists, whom despite being celebrated nowadays, were taxed with being self-indulgent or crazy at their time. The well-known stories of Galileo, or Bruno's, embody this part of the arguing.
The pinnacle of people, though, can't only be contingent upon their achievements. In this regard, the statement implies that there would be a popular court, judging all the advocates that lived in the past when something turns to be false, by swiping out their careers and labelling them as anything but great. Many advancements or posited theories have seen the light of the day partly owing to past struggles, which even if repudiated now, remain to be astonishing achievements considering the surrounding in which these occurred.
One can't fail to consider that a pattern erects, common to mavericks from motley fields, whom were ahead of their time. Their works, achievements and struggles indeed had required too much imagination, or an outstanding holistic view, so that the laity, but even the professionals, would have been able to seize their sense. Not only the aforementioned fields are made of tendentious positions, but sports and arts are additional areas, in which time can either be an asset or an insidious criteria. Recently at the end of the XXth Century, Marcel Duschamps has called into question art's traditional conventions with his "Ready-Made". While his brazen mind was what caused him to be ignored by his peers, it is nowadays the reason of his prominence.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 428, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
... tendency of the generation ; and there isnt a constant veracity regarding individua...
^^^^
Line 9, column 33, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ng. The pinnacle of people, though, cant only be contingent upon their achieveme...
^^^^
Line 11, column 5, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ounding in which these occurred. One cant fail to consider that a pattern erects,...
^^^^
Line 11, column 491, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'criterion'?
Suggestion: criterion
... can either be an asset or an insidious criteria. Recently at the end of the XXth Centur...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, regarding, so, therefore, well, while, for instance, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 58.6224719101 125% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2788.0 2235.4752809 125% => OK
No of words: 520.0 442.535393258 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36153846154 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77530192783 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13495196796 2.79657885939 112% => OK
Unique words: 313.0 215.323595506 145% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.601923076923 0.4932671777 122% => OK
syllable_count: 847.8 704.065955056 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 10.0 1.77640449438 563% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.7086169277 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.4 118.986275619 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0 23.4991977007 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.35 5.21951772744 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.263398321652 0.243740707755 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0688512847891 0.0831039109588 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0484050689709 0.0758088955206 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126028302786 0.150359130593 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0338823581023 0.0667264976115 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 14.1392134831 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.06 8.38706741573 120% => OK
difficult_words: 169.0 100.480337079 168% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.