As soon as I read this passage, the first author and historical figure I thought of was Marx. He is still seen as such a controversial figure today, and was just as controversial during his life. I think many times the writings that we view as monumental or as turning points in history were seen as weird or random when they were first published. I think it sometimes takes until an author’s death before their work is viewed as revolutionary. Perhaps this is due to the societal paradigm shifts that can take place during and after someone’s lifetime. I wonder what ordinary people reading “The Communist Manifesto” or the “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts” were thinking about them at the time. Did they think they were just crazy ramblings?
An interesting way that the humanities differ from science is that different opinions or ideas in the sciences, especially throughout history, were seen as flat out wrong if they differed from the norm, even though as scientists they should have been looking to actually prove ideas right or wrong with the scientific method instead of just brushing them off. The lecture and readings got me thinking a lot about those who made amazing advancements but for the wrong idea (like an Earth-centric solar system), and how forgotten they are. Should we focus more on the people and their discoveries along the paths to our modern ideas, or only discuss the catalyst thinkers? This mindset is very different than the one present in the humanities. In the humanities, since there are fewer “facts” and more opinions, all the different opinions are regarded more equally. Although some, like Marx, were brushed off as being too radical.