Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu  Or, to come at it from another direction, greatness is indeed a 'cultural thing', but cultures are built by humans, who have a biologically wired idea of what a great person is. There are of course exceptions, but for the vast majority this hold true. |
Would it help, then, to tell you that the four words in my list were introduced to me as the "four pillars of civilization"? And further, that Josh describes them as survival traits of our ancestors. I would again invite any readers to read through his post:
the_sinistral: Is it so? It is so. If you must, use a text search to skip down to "curiosity".
I don't claim he is right. However, if you wish to challenge him, I will invite him. I think he'd be interested; there is no certainty, only opportunity.
I find it sound on my own analysis. It's stable, meaningful, and simple. It's hard to misunderstand after brief explanation, and invites a depth of exploration that he implies, but doesn't delve into. I find within it the basis by which I can justify many of my judgments, when I do not use my own terms, and from them I already see a flaw in my own designs for educational reform that I will have to fix soon.
You explain perspective wisdom; and I agree that it's a good thing for a person to have.
And then I ask you this: can you not rephrase it to mean "understanding the situation"?
The only reason you need to explain it further is because of culture. See, what positive psychology's list has done is not to distill from cultures, but to attempt to speak to all cultures at once. They want to tell the unmerciful to stay their hand; the ignorant to learn; the weak to be strong; the cowardly to buck up. And these are all positive directions to move in. But it is not distilled. It's a mixed salad, not a melting pot, to invoke a different image.
If greatness is not cultural, then a particular culture's understanding of greatness doesn't matter. It is only what it is, and can be termed wholly within the bounds of English, because English is as human as any other language bubbling up from the recesses of the human mind. English, remarkable language that it is, is the one I deride for its habit of pilfering words from other languages with abandon. Its vocabulary is certainly no less sufficient than any other language, Whorfian claims aside. Because if nothing else, language is organic, and it will create what it needs to describe all it sees. There is no such thing as an undescribable existence; there is merely a failure to communicate.
And that is precisely what I meant when I said that greatness is cultural. It is a phenomenon of culture. It is individual, and it is human. And, more importantly, it exists
despite culture.
So maybe the question I'd like you to entertain is this: re-read my description of a great person. And ask yourself: what would such a person do? what is she capable of? what characteristics would he have? what values would he hold? what principles, convictions, beliefs? And then take another look at your list. It's already there.