The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries.
The statement that greatness of individuals can only be recognised in retrospect by the people after them and not by the contemporaries is an unfair generalization. While some areas, particularly physical sciences, greatness must be tested over time before it can be confirmed, there are other areas, especially in the arts, where greatness is recognizable in its nascent stages. In still other areas, for example in business, incubation period for greatness varies from case to case basis.
One does not need a rear-view mirror to recognize artistic greatness whether in visual arts, music or literature. The reason for this is simple: art can be judged at face value. There is nothing to be later proved or disproved, affirmed or discredited, or even improved upon or refined by new knowledge or technology. History is replete with examples of artistic greatness immediately recognized then later confirmed. Through his patronage Pope recognized Michelangelo’s artistic greatness, while the monarchs of Europe recognized Mozart’s greatness by granting him their most generous commissions. Mark Twain became a best-selling author and a household name during his own lifetime. The leaders of modernist school of architecture marvelled even as Frank Lloyd Wright was elevating their notions about architecture to new aesthetic heights.
By contrast, in physical sciences it is difficult to identify greatness without the benefit of historical perspective. Any scientific theory might be disproved tomorrow, thereby demoting the contribution of the theorist to the status of historical footnote, or a theory can withstand centuries of rigorous scientific scrutiny. In any event, a theory may or may not serve as a springboard for later advances in theoretical sciences. A current example involves the ultimate significance of the two opposing theories of physics: the wave theory and the quantum theory. Some theorists now claim that a new so-called ‘string’ theory reconciles the two opposing theories – at least mathematically. Though ‘strings’ are not yet confirmed empirically, only time will tell if this theory indeed provides the unifying law that all the matter in the universe obey. In short, significance of the contribution by theoretical scientists cannot be confirmed by their contemporaries – only by the scientists who follow them.
In the realm of business, while some contributions are recognized as great immediately, some are not. Consider on one hand, Henry Ford’s assembly-line approach for manufacturing affordable cars for the masses. Even Ford could not have predicted the impact of his innovation on American economy or on the modern world. On the other hand, by any measure, Bill Gates has made an even greater contribution than Ford; after all, Gates is largely responsible for lifting the American technology out of the doldrums and restoring America’s status of economic powerhouse and technological leader of the world. And this contribution is readily recognizable – as it is happening now. Of course, DOS and the Microsoft operating system, and even Gate’s monopoly, might eventually become Historical relics; his greatness is already secured.
In conclusion, the statement overlooks the examples of many great individuals, particularly in arts and business, whose achievements were broadly recognized as great during their own time. Nevertheless, other great achievements, especially scientific ones, cannot be confirmed as such without the benefit of historical perspective.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 237, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ibution of the theorist to the status of historical footnote, or a theory can wit...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, look, may, nevertheless, so, still, then, while, after all, at least, for example, in conclusion, in short, of course, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.5258426966 123% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 58.6224719101 116% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3047.0 2235.4752809 136% => OK
No of words: 534.0 442.535393258 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.70599250936 5.05705443957 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80712388197 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.357756756 2.79657885939 120% => OK
Unique words: 288.0 215.323595506 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539325842697 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 957.6 704.065955056 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 6.24550561798 16% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 12.0 4.38483146067 274% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.4643305828 60.3974514979 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.88 118.986275619 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.36 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.8 5.21951772744 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.212617292608 0.243740707755 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0574527094824 0.0831039109588 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0744718489479 0.0758088955206 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124611222254 0.150359130593 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0701594245703 0.0667264976115 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.1392134831 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.8420337079 68% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.84 12.1639044944 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.5 8.38706741573 113% => OK
difficult_words: 163.0 100.480337079 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => 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.