Notes from Blank Page

Let’s take this blank page opportunity to expose one of this century’s biggest myths: that success supposedly rests on the individual’s ability to be entrepreneurial.

In the age of fintechs and startups, I’m not saying personal effort doesn’t make a difference. I simply posit that the story of the self-made individual is only half the truth.

History makes this clear: behind many of the names we revere today stood powerful patrons who made their success possible. Human progress, if such a term can be used, has depended not only on individual genius, but also on the patrons willing to sustain it. In a culture fixated on self-enablement, I humbly want to remind you that enablers are just as important.

It is highly probable that without the Medici’s patronage of fine arts and architecture, Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo might have occupied far less space in history textbooks and Florence might never have become the epicenter of the Renaissance.

The same thing applies to the man who came up with 99 reasons to defy the Catholic Church’s practices at a time when one or two would have sufficed. If the Prince of Saxony Friedrich the Wise had not provided Martin Luther with the sanctuary and resources he needed, the fate of the father of Reformation might not have been far from that of Jan Hus.

Bismarck, whom I will simply refer to as the architect of German unification, attempted to resign more than a dozen times whenever he faced political hurdles. Each time, Kaiser Wilhelm I refused to let him go and stood firmly behind him.

What about Descartes? Voltaire? Pascal? Bacon? I am not claiming that these figures owe their place in history today to their patrons. Still, many of these thinkers relied on aristocrats, royalty or wealthy elites to publish their ideas safely. Patronage was not just about money, it was also about protection from persecution and access to influence. Patrons certainly played a crucial role in keeping the intellectual machinery of these thinkers churning.

Today, patronage hasn’t disappeared, it changed face. Where once aristocratic courts nurtured genius, today venture capital firms, government agencies, and the wallets of the individuals on crowdfunding platforms play that role. There is a reason why today an early investor who provides liquidity for a fledgling startup is called an angel.

However, today’s patrons seek ROI off of their patronage, unlike the aristocratic patrons of the past whose motivations often included prestige, influence or a genuine interest in arts and sciences. When Catherine the Great put Diderot on her payroll, she did not expect a financial return. Nor did the Cavendish family support Hobbes in hopes of dividends.

Whenever I hear about funding or grant cuts in the social sciences and humanities, which grow deeper and deeper in the West, I can’t help but feel the next Kant is being forced out of his office to take up private tutoring again. After all, who needs a new Critique of Pure Reason in the age of AI, right?

But my question is not whether the social sciences or humanities have lost their relevance or not. It is not even whether we will have another Kant or not. The question is whether we will have patrons with the vision to recognize the next Kant when he comes knocking for a grant.

If history teaches us anything, which I happen to believe it does, it is that progress is a collective act. In your face Le Bon. The real measure of our age lies not in how many startups we launch or how many algorithms we optimize, but in whether we can still recognize and support the kind of intellect that reshapes the horizon of human thought. Without patrons of vision, even the brightest Kant will fade eventually. And yes, I went with Kant over other Enlightenment philosophers to prove a point. Pun very much intended.