Many remember G.H. Hardy as a brilliant mathematician, but I want to view him as a human being. That was the thought I had after reading his essay, A Mathematician’s Apology. Hardy claimed that only pure mathematics was true scholarship, while applications and explanations were trivial. Such statements can be perplexing. Yet in a few passages, Hardy reveals a different side of himself.

First, he revered nature. He confessed that mathematical theorems were not human inventions but records of preexisting realities that had merely been observed and expressed in human language. This reveals a deep insight into the nature of mathematics and a humility toward the natural world.

Second, he was capable of gratitude. Hardy recalled how a book recommended by a professor opened his eyes to the wonder of mathematics, an experience that became the gateway to his mathematical journey. That moment left a lasting impression, which he later committed to writing.

Third, he could genuinely recognize others. Hardy stated that his own late-blooming maturity was due to the influence of Littlewood and Ramanujan. In particular, he was one of the first to recognize the genius of the then-unknown Ramanujan. Such discernment came not just from academic ability but from a sincere capacity to perceive human potential.

Yet Hardy, too, had his flaws—as any human being does. In fact, he may have been more incomplete than most.

First, his perspective was narrow. He viewed only pure mathematics as noble, dismissing applied mathematics and explanatory writing as insignificant. His ignorance and arrogance toward other fields are apparent in his prose.

Second, even in old age, there were signs of immaturity. Philosophically, he seemed unable to move beyond a binary, mechanistic¹ worldview. What comes through is more defensiveness and stubbornness than self-reflection.

Third, though he belittled explanatory work as second-rate, he was not able to fulfill even that role convincingly himself. For someone who had reached the summit of mathematics, his attempts to convey it lacked a broad view of the forest or a careful sketch of the trees. The result felt not second-rate, but third-rate.

In this way, Hardy was a contradictory figure. But so are we all. Everyone lives with a mixture of strengths and weaknesses. What matters is how we face them, and how we relate to others through them.

Hardy’s strengths are admirable, and his weaknesses serve as cautionary examples. In fact, seen from another angle, even flaws offer lessons. His narrowness reminds us of the need for open-mindedness; his immaturity shows that age and achievement do not guarantee growth; his arrogance affirms the value of humility.

Every human being is a learner. And every human being offers something to learn. If we truly look at someone with sincerity, there is always something to gain. The essence is always present—simply waiting to be observed and spoken into form.

Note1: Mechanism refers to a philosophical approach that explains natural phenomena as causal systems composed of interacting parts, seeking to understand the world by analyzing and organizing its constituent elements.