On Becoming Great
 

Alexander the Great
Mary Kate and Ashley Olson
Bono
Atilla the Hun
Colonel Sanders
Lady Gaga
General Custer!


All had some things in common that I'd like to talk about.

Could someone else start this conversation? That list took my innovation out of me.

Well it really depends on how one wants to define great. There is perceived power and influence that the history books tend record and therefor that we tend to remember. i.e. getting famous. Personally I choose not to define greatness as such. The only two I actually see as great on that list are Atilla and Alexander because of the sweeping social, economic, and political change they really shouldered. In those two cases I think it really was the people they were that really made a difference, unlike say Mary Kate and Ashley. Are they powerful? Yes, theyre rich and have influence through several markets. But have they really changed anything themselves that wouldnt have changed anyway? IMO no. Not only that but replace them with almost any two hollywood types and you'll get nearly the same results IMO.

Lady Gaga, are you joking? Punk.of.Ages is great.

They understand people, and they know how to give them what they want. This is opposed to simply trying to ceaselessly get what you want out of them.

Oh, and they're fucking persistent.

Okay then, to change up the list:

Ben Stein
John Mayer
Tally Hall


And now to ask the question:

How does one who is not born into these tendencies hope to gain their higher dreams?

---------- Post added at 03:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:27 PM ----------

Because I have above average talent in most fields, but not the determination or courage to carry them to finality.

I don't see how you factored in common place celebrities and Alexander the great. That is blasphemy. Atilla the huin became great by his accomplishments. I mean sure Lady Gaga and Bono sang but c'mon man ...

These are fads of a time that will be forgoten. But we have immortalized Men who made their names by their accomplishments.

Well, there you have it. Either a mistake on your part will precipitate a great discovery or you will accomplish nothing at all without persistence. The latter is more probable. Why is this in Philosophy? How is this philosophical in any way?

You do not have to be remembered in history to be great. I'm sure there are thousands of forgotten people who were great.

And remembrance is selective and cultural, and not reflective of relative greatness. For example, I think more people today would recognize Col. Sanders far more readily than Andrew Carnegie. However, I would say that Carnegie was leaps and bounds greater than Sanders.

He wants to be like them. He wants to be immortalized. He can not achieve this by simply being a good father or having the best track record at work.

Well, in that case, realize this: there are, and have been, many highly successful people who have average intelligence and education, if they have education at all.

It really boils down to having the desire to accomplish something and being persistent about it.

If you won't take that responsibility, it won't happen. It won't happen by accident; no one can give it to you.

And persistence is pliable to the situation. Thanks.

Oh, this is Philosophical. I'm talking about the "common thread" issue. And I think the thing that these guys all had in common wasn't just the above listed, it was also the foresight to find their niche and opportunities to do what they did before someone else did... elsewise doing it after someone else had missed their opportunity.


You see, my goal is not fame, it is nudging the whole of humanity towards greatness, just recentering our ideals to see what we can really do with our resources, and personally that means being in the right place at the right time with the right words, all the time!

Not really. Publish a book that inspires, make a film, etc. Art in other words. History shows that timing doesn't really matter when it comes to those types of things. Sometimes a piece of art fails for 50 years but then becomes great. Eventually society recognizes all good art (just about). If your art is exceptional, it'll help inspire society at some point. Though you may be dead by then.

Can you design a really good pair of sunglasses for under $20 first, please?

I agree that how one sees greatness is largely subjective. Question: what does it say about us humans that we often made "great" those who became notorious for their successes in battle, i.e. killing people? Atila and Alexander would be examples of this.

Another question: Is greatness either good or bad, or both?

I'm not too god with Atilla the Hun or Genghis Khan. They were maybe remembered for their accomplishments but not exactly great, per se. But you have to give Alexander the Great some credit for being 'great'. He revolutionized civilization. He isn't just remembered for killing people.

Greatness can have either good or terrible ends. Leaders of any nation cannot accomplish much without some characteristics of leadership. If they choose to use these to conquer or destroy, that's beside the point. Napoleon was a great leader, but look at what he did with it.

the list is kinda cool.
any list that contains the olsen twins and george armstrong custer is a priori cool.

and then there's bono...um.....what?

so who gets to be famous, to have themselves made over in the ways that seem entailed by the term.
what matters is the story, not you. so get a boswell.
and what matters is what the story says, not what you actually do.

once upon a time, it was good to put yourself in a position to do alot of whacking and dismembering of other people. but what you really had to do in order to go beyond being just another sociopath with power is to put up a bunch of monuments to yourself that would spin the whacking and dismembering so as to make it flattering. by flattering i mean consistent with the image of yourself and your whacking and dismembering. so you explain it, largely by publicizing yourself. the carnage in this place represented yet another Heroic Stride Forward for the Important Category of Your Choice, which is, of course, embodied by you. there are any number of options: Histoy, Humanity, Progress, Glory blah blah blah. people believe all kinds of stupid shit about what they do but not everyone gets to put up monuments that make that stupid thing seem more legit. something about putting it in rock erases the underlying lunacy of thinking that you embody History, for example.

and people are passive so they construct stories for and about themselves based on the Stuff they find around them, and so it makes some sense for you, in your hypothetical position as sociopath in chief of some flying wedge of history, to put up really fucking big rocks with these stories carved all over them. you know, something that'll last. something that'll become part of the stories of subsequent generations, long after reality has dropped away.

or you could these days hire a publicity team. its not much different, but the cycles are faster and typically fewer people end up whacked or dismembered as a function of the Mighty Strides you Undertake in the Process of Becoming What Your Destiny Requires of You. or something.
for that, the basic formula is easy: repetition.
it doesn't matter who you are or what you do so much as it matters that your image is repeated alot.
o sure, you could include in that repetition one of standing next to nelson mandela if that's the direction you want your image to go in, and if you go that way, you can go from being a mediocre singer for a washed-up pop band to being some sort of Image Saint. you know, heal people by touching them at your tedious shows. that sort of thing.
o you could just really like cocaine and like liking cocaine in alot of places. here again, it doesn't matter so long as your image gets repeated alot.

you get the idea.

Okay...


I D E a
I D e A
I d E A
i d e a



But aside from that, I was hoping to get a little insight on what this whole psionic karysma thing is all about... like Stevie Ray Vaughan. or Michael Jackson

The real question, is why the fuck was Bear Cub not the very first person on that list?

Skitto, I'm sorry but this thread makes less and less sense each and every time you make a new list. Laterz folks.

Greatness apparently is overrated......

Chemically induced ramblings become incoherent to those who are not themselves so induced.

Is it because I said psionic karysma? It's not some weird fiction idea, it's a level of expertise.

You should add Frosted Flakes to your next list. THEY'RE GREAT!

I don't understand this thread at all. You really need to lay off the cannabis. Only then will you truly have the determination and courage to carry your dreams to finality.

seems like one of the obvious ones is not here

Alfred the Great

Alfred the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm regularly on cannabis and don't get it either. I want some of his shit.