BIG for a Reason.

ALL BIG NAMES/FAMOUS INDIVIDUALS in the past, such as those officialy and generally considered to have been the greatest geniuses in the fields of art, philosophy, music, science, literature, etc. ARE FAMOUS FOR A REASON: they have rightly been judged by history, they have stood the test of time - no one will become famous if he doesn't deserve fame. Those individuals popularly considered as the greatest in their field, are rightly considered so, for they came out on top, above the rest; they have truly proved themselves. So how come someone label someone else as being a pseudo-intellectual just for listing such famous individuals as favourites? Those who are lesser names; not as famous, and even unknown, are such for a reason as well - their works did not exhibit the same significance and mastery as those who are famous for what they have done; if one really is all that good, one will become famous for such merit. That is the reason for the existence of the famous.

Any comments?

Ha ha, so I in turn have encouraged you to spawn a new thread.

History has judged Elvis as "the King of Rock and Roll" does that make it true. Wouldn't the artists who spawned the genre and influenced his music (and n my opinion played it better) also be considered geniuses?

Many people have been given the label genius, when in actuality they are more an excellent self promoter. Not to say all the artists and historical figures that you seem to worship as the epitome of genius weren't as such. But patronage, pride and good press has raised many higher than what may have been originally necessary.

Everyone is familiar with Picasso, but who knows of Braque? Monet and Manet are considered geniuses but if weren't for Eugine Boudin, their "genius" might not have ever been.

Fame is not purely based on accomplishment. Many of the Greatest generals in history are left unrecognized because of an incredible lack of personality, and today there are many artists or guitarists sitting in their basement toiling at their art better than anyone else in the field, but for one reason or another they shall never be recognized.

Much of what you say is true, allthough I believe that true greatness of an individual will eventually be recognised - it's a matter of time.

For greatness to be recognized it first has to be promoted as being great. Then you have to wonder, is that art, music, line of thought great because it is intrinsically "of great value", or have people just bought into it over time and now has been accepted as great?

I often feel that the true greatness of individuals is often overlooked.

^ also true

Are we actually agreeing on something Philo?

Intellect isn't everything.

For we are all great at something.

I like Winston Churchill.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Are we actually agreeing on something Philo?

Seems so. This must be a miracle, don't you agree? 🙂

Originally posted by BlackC@t
Intellect isn't everything.

For we are all great at something.

Greatness means something very specific - it means that if you are great at something, you are truly above the rest in that specific field or skill, it means that you are absolutely amazing at what you do. Not everyone can be great at something, for then the concept greatness looses its meaning - if all were to be great, then greatness becomes an average status, which is contradictory. Greatness means you are distinguished above the rest at what you do.

so then you'd say Ashlee simpson, lindsay lohan or justin timberlake are geniuses simply because they're famous?

😱

Originally posted by Philosophicus
Much of what you say is true, allthough I believe that true greatness of an individual will eventually be recognised - it's a matter of time.

You might be wrong... It's not the matter of time... it's the matter of coincidence... if there is no possibility of coincidence, there is no such thing as recognition of one's greatness... the fame of that individual won't ever exist if it wasn't for coincidence...

Everything involves coincidence, in full words, possibility of coincidence.... It can only be culculated in percentage... (includes 100% of coincidence)

Fate/destiny is coincidence too... people just don't want to believe in it... they are living a lie...

Originally posted by SaTsuJiN
so then you'd say Ashlee simpson, lindsay lohan or justin timberlake are geniuses simply because they're famous?

No. Fame is not necesarily indicative of genius, but the genius will eventually become famous. Anyway, I was talking about the fame of intellectuals of the past - not pop culture icons. One can be famous in the pop culture and famous in the intellectual culture - BIG difference.

Originally posted by peterKSL
You might be wrong... It's not the matter of time... it's the matter of coincidence... if there is no possibility of coincidence, there is no such thing as recognition of one's greatness... the fame of that individual won't ever exist if it wasn't for coincidence...

Everything involves coincidence, in full words, possibility of coincidence.... It can only be culculated in percentage... (includes 100% of coincidence)

Fate/destiny is coincidence too... people just don't want to believe in it... they are living a lie...

Yes, but coincidence happens over time - all possibilities plays themselves out over time. So, eventually all coincidences will happen.

All coincidence would happen? Not possible (if one didn't mess with time)... Evidence of one's greatness would also vanish over time...a silly example would be if I invented a time machine, and my draft of the time machine got ripped off by my dog, and the time machine got destroyed by some maniac gangsters, without even be able to publish it in public and then I was killed by a nazi.... So how would my greatness be recognize?? It is merely not possible at that point....

"all possibilities play themselves out over time" as you said it, is true only if you look it at the point of view of a learner, but not as to look at it that all coincidences will happen, because that is certainly untrue...
It is true that we are all learning, and we will eventually see more possibilities over time, as you said it "all possibilities play themselves out over time"... but that doesn't justify that all coincidence would happen over time... because as I said it in my example, that fame won't be recognized, only if there is no time modification...

But what I say is that not greatness, but all coincidences - all possibilities will happen, given enough time.

Originally posted by BlackC@t
Intellect isn't everything.

For we are all great at something.

Yea some people are better at something then others and the others are better with other stuff then some people.We all have our ups and downs and hanidcaps.
My handicap is math I hate it.But I am good with english so that is my up and down thing.JM 😎

No. Greatness means something very specific - it means that if you are great at something, you are truly above the rest in that specific field or skill, it means that you are absolutely amazing at what you do. Not everyone can be great at something, for then the concept greatness looses its meaning - if all were to be great, then greatness becomes an average status, which is contradictory. Greatness means you are distinguished above the rest at what you do.

Yea some people are better at something then others and the others are better with other stuff then some people.We all have our ups and downs and hanidcaps.
My handicap is math I hate it.But I am good with English so that is my up and down thing.JM

"I am good with English"? Holy Crap, you made about 10 grammatical or spelling errors in the above passage alone! I'd hate to see your math scores!