[protonfish]

> ...brilliant and also deeply flawed people

We are all deeply flawed. In my experience, being unashamed of our flaws is a side-effect of honestly and humility. Being unable to spot another's flaws is most often the result of duplicity on their part. Sure, there are some pretty decent folks out there (Fred rogers comes to mind) but nearly all "perfect" people are just charlatans.

It's good to admire flawed people, because they are real.

[earthscienceman]

I'd take this a step further and say it's important to talk about their flaws in nuanced and honest ways. It's something that is both extremely difficult and extremely important. To say "here are the great things they brought into the world" and to say "here are the things that were not so great" and to use both pieces of information when we construct ourselves and our society.

Someone who very much falls into this category is Ghandi. A person who was as complex as they were impactful. Ghandi has had an undeniably huge impact on the well being of a huge portion of the world. He was also disgusting and abusive to individuals around him. We, as individuals, need to make it clear that one of these is great and the other is unacceptable. We are capable of such nuance.

[ripe]

Agreed. Gandhi (note corrected spelling) certainly had his flaws.

Meanwhile, Gandhi's views on the value of science were not as well known and he is often mis-reported as "anti-science,". because he often harshly criticized animal testing and weapons development. He in fact admired the scientific method and its search for the truth.

What he was against was imposing imported western technology on a poor and illiterate populace without actually "teaching them to fish". His contemporaries like Jawaharlal Nehru wanted rapid industrialization to catch up with the West. Gandhi wanted the vast masses in the countryside to develop a scientific outlook and become self-sufficient, not just a supplier of raw materials for the educated urban elite.

His views on science are analyzed in a long article by Prof. Shambu Prasad:

https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/views_on_sci.htm

A 2019 NPR interview with famous historian Ramachandra Guha about Gandhi's flaws and his evolving views on racism is worth reading.

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/02/766083651/gandhi-is-deeply-re...

[idolaspecus]

You seem to conflate the fact that we're none of us perfect with the assertion we're all deeply flawed. What does "deeply flawed" mean? Hunter S. Thompson was a severely unhappy man with extreme drug problems who shot himself in the head. Unfortunately, people like him aren't particularly uncommon. You've flattened out the landscape of human experience into this, at best, trivial comment that "we're all deeply flawed".

The idea that nearly all "perfect" people are just charlatans is also quite toxic. Is it true that many people try extremely hard to hide their problems? Sure, sounds plausible. But is it also true that the only way someone might appear perfect is by being a "charlatan"? Of course not. For example, maybe not every person's faults are exposed to the interface between that person and your slice of the universe.

I feel a little bit icky slamming on a comment so hard, but I think this flattening out of the human condition is a major negative thread in our culture/society right now.