What makes a Great person?

[Smarky]

Ah well for you that's fine, it's not a huge list and I think everyone would choose something different, I wouldn't choose your four things for example.

But what I'm saying is that I don't think it's a fixed thing, to be great is different for each person and if you try and make it a fixed thing you will never make it, because your copying someone else's ideal of great!

[Michael Chui]

Of course not. Greatness is a cultural thing, despite the "Character Values and Strengths" attempt to cross cultures. And in the society of today, we are all our own individual culture; some of us merely share similarities with others more.

Watch V for Vendetta. Was Fawkes a great man, or a great villain? How about V? Sutler? Finch?

[Akashic_Librarian]

Fawkes was a Great man, so was V.

Sutler was a coward, he used peoples fear to coerce them into acquiescing to to his rule in true Owellian-style, an example of Oligarachial Collectivism in practice...so to speak.

Finch was not a great man, but he had the makings of one. He, near the end, broke free of what was the supposed idea of reality, and he viewed the world through his own eyes, just like Eve.

Since I have started this thread my life has changed alot, mostly internally within myself, my ideas and beliefs. My view of reality is different apropos so is my view upon greatness.

Greatness is not defined by the End, but by the means. A man who stops a war by nuking the enemy into oblivion is not great. A man who stops a war by (through some miracle) resolving the ideological differences between the two warring peoples IS great. The war has stopped in both circumstances, but the means are different.

And the means do not justify the end, regardless of what the end might be.

In the end the single mother who successfully raises her children is Great.

The businessman who made his way to the top but only after treading on a lot of people, ruining a lot of careers and telling some lies, is NOT great. Despite objective appearences.

Greatness is is being fearless, being courageous, and being able to say, being a minority does not become equivocal to insanity as so many Government Nay-sayers are prepared to impress upon society.

Greatness is swimming against the pack, if you think it's the right thing to do.

Finally...greatness is convincing your hardened sceptical parents, that you should be allowed to buy the Photoreading course whilst the discount is still valid...

Just call me Akashic The Great...


(for the slower amongst you, they let me order it haha)

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Greatness is not defined by the End, but by the means. A man who stops a war by nuking the enemy into oblivion is not great. A man who stops a war by (through some miracle) resolving the ideological differences between the two warring peoples IS great. The war has stopped in both circumstances, but the means are different.

I can agree with this, but you apparently do not. All of your examples describe ends, not means.

What if the man resolved those differences by brainwashing nations? That's not great. Well, it's damn great hypnosis, but it's not great diplomacy or great leadership. What if they were resolved by assassinating dissenters? Or imposing fierce economic sanctions? Or by poisoning their farms?

You're right. The means matter. So talk about the means.

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

In the end the single mother who successfully raises her children is Great.

An end, not a means. Did she do it honestly, without sacrificing either herself or her children? What does "successfully raising" actually mean? Why is she single? Why doesn't she have help, like friends, siblings, neighbors?

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

The businessman who made his way to the top but only after treading on a lot of people, ruining a lot of careers and telling some lies, is NOT great. Despite objective appearences.

"objective appearances"? That suggests that greatness can be associated, "objectively", with money, power, fame. Is it?

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Greatness is swimming against the pack, if you think it's the right thing to do.

And this example does not actually suggest that greatness has anything to do with being distinct, separate, or different; it suggests, rather, that greatness is a strength of personal conviction. To believe that you, yourself, are correct.

If all but one were a good person, and that one thought it the right thing to do to swim against the pack, is she great?

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

Finally...greatness is convincing your hardened sceptical parents, that you should be allowed to buy the Photoreading course whilst the discount is still valid...

And they paid for it?! Can I have your parents?

[Lil Chris]

What makes a great person...?

Consciousness

[Akashic_Librarian]

Michael hahahaha, I just realised that what was running through my head when I was typing my post was NOT what I actually typed, thanks to your post.

Just ad lib your own positive and negative means with my examples people!

Thanks Michael...I need to review my posts better before I post.

[songwriter]

I'll never forget Carlos Santana being asked what is needed to play guitar real good... "Cabeza, corazón y cojones" the three C's in Spanish.... "Brains, heart and balls" lol...or so...

The list can go on forever in detail but courage, kindness and smartness is for me a good 3-words summary.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Of course not. Greatness is a cultural thing, despite the "Character Values and Strengths" attempt to cross cultures. And in the society of today, we are all our own individual culture; some of us merely share similarities with others more.

I disagree, I believe it was Spinoza (although im sure someone said it before him) that said there is an objective truth of what a great person is. I think the fact that there are desirable values consistently found across a wide variety of cultures, regardless of temporal or physical location, lends support to what Spinoza said.

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.

And perspective wisdom would be, by my interpretation, the ability to have perspective, as in the ability to see a problem from many different angles or viewpoints. I admit the words used on my list are a bit awkward but you have to understand that when you're synthesizing values from many different cultures (and languages) into one idea or value, sometimes there simply isn't a good English word for the idea or value being described.

[Michael Chui]

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.