>there are people on /his/ who unironically subscribe to the Great Man Theory
History is the story of interacting characters, some make more of an effect than others.
>>1368591
>Implying any of that supports the validity of the GMT
>>1368688
Great man theory is only rarely applicable?
>>1368700
It's never applicable. GMT isn't just the notion that there aren't certain individuals that have a greater observable impact of the events of history than others (which is true). It's the idea that history is largely shaped by these key figures, which completely underestimates the background workings of society. Everything and everyone has a context from a one eyed hobo, to Caesar Augustus, to you.
>>1368711
Meant "are" instead of "aren't"
>>1368711
>>1368714
That is incidence; great persons are great precisely because they act according to purpose, beyond mere incidence.
The existence of Great persons does not negate the effect of the incidental, but rather it provides meaning and direction to the incidental which would otherwise be utterly insignificant.
The great person is great regardless of the incidental workings behind it, and the incidental will be completely irrelevant if it weren't for the great person's volition. So, it is correct to claim that great persons shape history; mere incidence isn't history, nor does it produce history.
Great Man Theory works only in the context of absurdism. If you are either a progessivist(with or without >muh end of history) or a reactionary that subscribes to the ciclicity of history, 'great men' can only shape geopolitics, not the course of history proper.
>>1368711
ITT: unfalsifiable bullshit
>>1368566
No but I think people underestimate the impact a single determined individual can have on history Ie lone wolf terrorists.
>>1368711
Nah, great man theory is completely accurate. Remove all the major actors from history and apart from mass death events there wouldn't be any history worth recording.
There is no "Great Man Theory", that's a strawman invented by people who argue that individuals are irrelevant to history, which is obvious nonsense.
it is overused, but there were indeed some truly great individuals
>>1368566
No one fucking subscribes to the great man theory you dumb motherfucker, that's just an idiotic strawman made up by people who deny that individuals have any impact on history, often to absolve them from responsibility for huge atrocities ("Stalin wasn't acting alone so you can't really blame him for the gulags")
>>1368566
>there are people on /his/ who unironically think any historiographical theory is testable or provable
ITT
>>1368957
>that's just an idiotic strawman made up by people who deny that individuals have any impact on history, often to absolve them from responsibility for huge atrocities ("Stalin wasn't acting alone so you can't really blame him for the gulags")
or to attack people that genuinely achieved great things because they're anti-human leftists who refuse to believe anyone could accomplish something due to their own brains and effort
>>1368957
>No one fucking subscribes to the great man theory
You mean other than half the OP's on /his/?
>>1368566
Inferior shits BTFO
>>1368711
So what do you believe in, forces and trends?
>>1371134
Excellent quote, dear sir!
*tips fedora*
>>1371134
>my favorite guys are really cool and you don't like them so I think you suck!
Good way to cuckold yourself to those great guys. Maybe they'll send you a used whore sometime for all that memeing you're doing for them.
>>1371134
>ad hominem
Great nonargument
