- Claim: The surest indicator of a great nation must be the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists. Reason: Great achievements by a nation's rulers, artists, or scientists will ensure a good life for the majority of that nation's people.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.________________________________________
One may say that the greatness of a country can be best measured by the
achievements of a few excellent figures the country has rather than by the average level of living among all its people. In some sense, it is true that several political leaders, creative artists, or imaginative scientists can alter the fate of a whole country. However, I tend to believe that it is ultimately the ability and energy of the general public that determines the strength of a country, especially in that recognitions and realizations of new ideas and original perspectives from the few excellent are subject to the intelligence and support from the anonymous many.
Of course, few would disagree that good political leaders or scientists can sometimes make unfathomable influences on the well-being of a country. In terms of a radical change in people’s everyday lives, it is not the myopic visions of average members of a society but the far-sighted plans originating from the insightful few. Imagine the United States that had not had such heroic political thinkers as Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King Jr. Because of their inspirational new perspectives, their beloved country has become a nation which bravely abolishes the bad customs and traditional irrationalities and thus whose greatness is respected by the rest of the world. Similarly, in terms of our material well-being, we might still live in a planet without modern technological conveniences if it were not for several excellent scientists whose creative ideas could never be substituted by the intellectual ability of the average public. And, it is hard to deny that a country can have greater potentials if it has a number of artists and writers whose ideals and new philosophies will be the foundation for the upgraded visions of the general public in the future.
Nonetheless, the inspirational roles of the excellent few political leaders, artists, or scientists do not necessarily preclude the importance of the capacity of the general public in determining the potential of a country. With regard to the initial acknowledgement of the talented few by a society and the opportunity for their talents to be utilized by the society, the ultimate factors for the prosperity of a nation seems not just the existence of a few genius but the perceptiveness of the mass public. Without the well-established “social” system to encourage the personal initiatives, the United States today might have less political heroes or iconic figures in arts, literature, and sciences; though many countries across the world have had the similar size of pool in the genius talents, most of them have wasted those talents partly because they lack the proper level of a social system, one consisting primarily of the socio-cultural institutions supported by the mass public. In specific, countries such as India or Brazil have produced a number of great talents in every area of human endeavors, but their political, economic, and social cultures all of which are determined by the life standards of the mass public are far from being those that can best exploit the uncommon talents.
In addition, I believe the well-being of the general public is much more important than the existence of several talented individuals in that the stable extension of a country’s prosperity depends more on the former. While the Mongolian Empire, a society which relied too much on the extraordinary heroes at one time, disappeared too fast after it lost its inimitable heroes including Zhengis Khan, the Roman Empire could extend its prosperity for several centuries; though there could be lots of complicated factors, from my personal view, one of the important difference between the two empires is that the latter had more sophisticated social systems which involved all its members with a relatively advanced educational and economic process. Likewise, many modern European countries successfully continue their stable positions as the world’s leading power partly through the well-established public education systems and social welfare systems; eventually, any hero or any talented individual will disappear after a limited period of time, but, systems and culture which presuppose the lives of the general public perpetuate for a long time.
In sum, despite the importance of a few excellent individuals as inspirational impetus, the role of the anonymous many seems much more critical to the greatness of a nation in that it is ultimately the capacity of a society as a whole that enables their ideals to come true and persist as a stable institution. Thus, I cannot fully agree with the notion that the potential of a country is a sole function of the ability of the talented few.