The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.

The author contends that the deeds of an individual can only be judged properly by people who live in the future rather than their contemporaries. Although some exceptions might exist, I agree that it is best to leave the judgment about the greatness of a person to the next generations.

My main reason for supporting this assertion is that merely relying on the present evidence and situation might be quite misleading. We all know the story of prophets who were libeled as charlatans or sorcerers while they were trying to buy people a way to heaven. Or the story of many rulers who won the trust of their people by offering them money and positions, and were in fact deceiving them, in order to steal more valuable assets, such as lands, from them. Actually, the true intention behind the deeds of so many is not easy to realize unless a long time, perhaps after their death, passes.

Another reason is that contemporaries of an influential person, even in the case of not being deluded while deciding about them are very unlikely to evaluate their accomplishments (or failures) accurately. For instance, let us consider scientists. Not taking into account Galileo and other scientists who proposed unorthodox theories in the face of an intolerant society, scientists were usually acclaimed during their lifetime. But, did they all receive the acknowledgement they deserved? Many of scientists who lived in the past opened a door in science which helped scientists several hundreds of years later. Conversely, many scientists who were extolled for publishing numerous papers or books were just sticking to some old fashioned ideas and avoided to explore new fields of research.

However, what I alluded in the two paragraphs in the body should not be overgereneralized. That is, some important details that can significantly affect our evaluation are only known to the contemporaries of the person examined. For instance, suppose an instrument maker invents a new instrument which becomes widely popular in the next centuries. Although he will be appreciated for creating a mellifluous instrument, if we knew that, for example, at the time of making the instrument the dominant instrument was violin and every person who was trying to learn or make other instruments, had been harshly criticized, we would have given his work more credit.

All in all, I believe that people’s greatness is better to be decided by those who live after them. Firstly, because the true intention of individuals might take decades after their death to be revealed; hence, making an immediate decision is meaningless. Secondly, even if a true decision is made at all, precise evaluation of the efforts of influential people requires passage of a long time.