It is a common misunderstanding that those who become outlier-level, extremely influencial or successful are also outlier-level "better" or "smarter" than everyone else. The reality is that while these folks indeed work harder than most, are more intelligent, diligent, driven than most etc, there are large numbers who are also at that level, but what makes these household names over-the-top successful is essentially luck. Thus if by some stroke they would not have existed, someone else (typically unknown to most) would have stepped into that void and history would have progressed in a similar fashion.

The latter, obviously. Nothing begins with the conception of a child; it is simply a new shoot on the evolutionary tree. When a human dies, whatever effect that person had on the world continues regardless. But I'm not up for an argument today.

Both. We need a group replicating sameness in its members, and indivuals breaking away from it and introducing new standards in the group. Much like in evolution, its an interplay between replication and mutation that allows for some kind of progression.

The latter, obviously. Nothing begins with the conception of a child; it is simply a new shoot on the evolutionary tree. When a human dies, whatever effect that person had on the world continues regardless. But I'm not up for an argument today. — Vera Mont

I like the thoughts you expressed. That notion of when we die, whatever effect that we have had on the world continues. That was very important to the original Greek thoughts about education and democracy and the importance of music and always asking "what is the good" and acting on that thought.

It is a common misunderstanding that those who become outlier-level, extremely influencial or successful are also outlier-level "better" or "smarter" than everyone else. The reality is that while these folks indeed work harder than most, are more intelligent, diligent, driven than most etc, there are large numbers who are also at that level, but what makes these household names over-the-top successful is essentially luck. Thus if by some stroke they would not have existed, someone else (typically unknown to most) would have stepped into that void and history would have progressed in a similar fashion. — LuckyR

That is a good point. I like that, now the TV programming I watch is stressing the truth of what you have said. Again and again, I have watched the stories of scientific discoveries resulting from the unexpected happening, and the experienced scientist realizing the importance of that unexpected information. Often these are people who do not know how to resolve a problem but because they just don't give up, they eventually figure things out. So it is a combination of character, learned knowledge, and good luck!

I am concerned education for technology is not doing enough to nurture the student's character development, relying too much on technological knowledge but minus the important human factors.

Both. We need a group replicating sameness in its members, and indivuals breaking away from it and introducing new standards in the group. Much like in evolution, its an interplay between replication and mutation that allows for some kind of progression. — ChatteringMonkey

You just put words to a very difficult concept. Very nice! I love your reference to evolution.

This would metaphysically turn on whether determinism is wholly true, constrictively true or not at all true I think.

I go with the former on the information I have which says humans exist without the latter and even a single example trumps the latter imo.

@Athena

Please consider this little ‘analogy’ that hopefully helps one to visualize a very general overview of the situation...
(Or is it a metaphor? Or a simile? :chin: )

You know how on some stereo music players (or ‘boomboxes’) there are separate settings
for bass and for treble?
So with these two knobs, you can have a variety of settings: high bass and high treble, high bass and low treble, low bass and middle treble, etc etc…

This can be compared to the workings of human civilization, in a way…

Let’s imagine a culture or civilization has two main aspects: the individual and the collective.
(Maybe the individual is like the treble, and the community is like the bass?)

Each of these aspects can be working and functioning well, or not so well.
Each of these aspects (individual person and collective community) are both intertwined,
yet one can be functional, while the other is not.
And each of these aspects are extremely important and critical for a fully functioning society.

A culture can have high-functioning ‘individuality’ with much freedom,
or it can have a low-functioning individuality with very little freedom.
Some other qualities of individuality include expression, experimentation, creativity… or a lack thereof.

A culture can have high-functioning ‘community’, with much cooperation and equality,
or can have low-functioning community, with very little cooperation and equality.
Some other qualities of community include stability, communication, tradition… or a lack thereof.

One could imagine an X-Y graph (or Cartesian plane) illustrating this.

And so, as an example…

There could in theory exist a society that had strong community, but was rather repressive when it came to individual rights (or repressive against woman or ‘minorities’).
This brings to mind Communist countries that managed to stay afloat, like China.

Or there could be a society where individual freedoms were numerous, but the social understructure was weak or fractured.
The current USA seems to roughly fall into this category.

These are very broad and general categories, but it helps me view how successful a culture can potentially be.

(TL,DR: Both! lol).

I am concerned education for technology is not doing enough to nurture the student's character development, relying too much on technological knowledge but minus the important human factors.

Yes, there has to be a reason that the US trails the rest of the world in educational excellence (by a significant amount) yet leads the world in profitable patents, copyrights and inventions/corporations.

The metaphysics of it all is quite clear: the individual is the basis. The principium individuationis is everything. Each of them occupies her own unique space and time as particular beings that, once they’re gone, will never be seen again. While it may be fruitful to analyze the space between these beings, or to observe how they interact with one another, the loci of our analysis are invariably particular beings and we should never forget it.

These are very broad and general categories, but it helps me view how successful a culture can potentially be. — 0 thru 9

I am glad I just watched an explanation of a map of life and an explanation of Socrates's cave because that leads to me seeing so much more in your explanation than I would have seen an hour ago, before the philosophy video I just watched. You did a very good job of picturing the concepts and how they work together.

The metaphysics of it all is quite clear: the individual is the basis. The principium individuationis is everything. Each of them occupies her own unique space and time as particular beings that, once they’re gone, will never be seen again. While it may be fruitful to analyze the space between these beings, or to observe how they interact with one another, the loci of our analysis are invariably particular beings and we should never forget it. — NOS4A2

I don't think I agree with what you said but maybe that is my failure to fully understand your point. I don't imagine myself as separate as I think you are saying, we are separate. I believe in cohorts that tend to define us without us being aware of how our history is shaping us. When we come of age we don't know enough about life to make choices with knowledge of how they will affect us. Especially if we do not attempt to know ourselves as Socrates would have us do. I think most people are reactive like a dog, with little awareness of themselves. Especially because we no longer have liberal education to free us from our chains.

You know the cave? We are all sitting in it together. It takes a lot of work to break those chains and be liberated by the light. But loving our pharaoh and helping build his pyramid could be a wonderful experience, unlike the cave, so I don't know if I am in total agreement with Socrates either. I just don't think the individual is the basis of anything important. Can you explain away my confusion?

Yes, there has to be a reason that the US trails the rest of the world in educational excellence (by a significant amount) yet leads the world in profitable patents, copyrights and inventions/corporations. — LuckyR

You pose a very interesting question and I feel compelled to chase it down the rabbit hole.

Someone who dropped out of school in the 8th grade, or a 19-year-old, or an immigrant who comes here with nothing can become a successful business person. What we do not seem to know today is, what character and opportunity have to do with this outcome, rather than being a welfare recipient or worse a homeless person unable to meet the basic needs of survival. Our ability to have so much success today, maybe our history of opening up a frontier and the self-sufficient culture we once had. Or I could be a nut case because I am so passionate about what character has to do with everything, and therefore believe our education for technology and leaving moral training to the church has brought us to a crisis.

I am afraid the US is educating its people to be like a third-world country, dependent on outsiders to provide us with industry. Being a total genius does not equal success if the genius must depend on someone else to provide the jobs. My father worked on Apollo and when that program winded down it was a huge crisis for highly specialized neighbors who had to move to find employment. I think technology has given us totally unrealistic expectations of what it can do for us. Sort of like worshipping a false god and greatly increasing social instability and subsequent social problems.

PS. The smart-ass bankers high on coke, who figured out how to greatly increase bank profits and their kickback, by screwing over trusting people, was a national shame. Education must be about more than technology.

I am glad I just watched an explanation of a map of life and an explanation of Socrates's cave because that leads to me seeing so much more in your explanation than I would have seen an hour ago, before the philosophy video I just watched. You did a very good job of picturing the concepts and how they work together. — Athena

Thanks, and thank you for starting this thread.

What was the “explanation of a map of life” you mentioned?

I would say there's some truth in the first and a good basis on the second. An enlightened individual has an awareness of their own identity -- their way of thinking, their sense of morality and justice, and their own view of the world. There has to be some growth happening within the individual as time passes and as experience accumulates. The have to be changes taking place within the mind regardless of the external influences.

1.

This Enlightenment self is uninvolved with relationships to others, its critics claim, and is mistakenly held to be the creative center of its world and of meaning. This solitary self is an empty self, unencumbered and unsituated, an autonomous master of its own destiny through self-generated voluntary agency, by which it dominates reality. — Isaac Kramnick

2.

individuals as socially constructed, as never solitary but always involved in social relationships, selves shaped by history, tradition, and aspects of identity that society and social classes construct and over which individuals have little control. — Isaac Kramnick

The few individuals in history who we believe had made the world great have been made great because of the narrative that the great historians had written. True, these individuals had sacrificed greatly and made great contributions to the world than the average person, but because the spotlight was focused on them, we forget the others who performed the grunt work.

Are we great because of a few great men such as Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Nietzsche, George Washington, or Donald Trump or are we great because we are united and socialized so that together we can imagine and manifest great things? — Athena

I don't think it's an either/or. Different situations have different explanations. My own view is that greatness is a poor word. It implies too many other dubious, almost transcendental categories - magnificence, sagacity, meritoriousness, pansophism, etc. I'd prefer to describe significant people and the era they are in.

I think the 'great man view of history' as it is often called is just a convenient way to shorthand our understanding. And the personification of an era is irresistible when we come to telling explanatory narratives. Look at the hold Napoleon still has on parts of Western culture.

Significant figures in history generally rely upon others - supporters and enablers - or upon situations that others have put into play - political instability, a knowledge base, etc. And there are all sort of reasons why a significant figure might resonate and together with others become historically important. A simple by-product of human tribalism is the tendency to project upon leaders or innovators all sorts of magic powers or extraordinary attributes of self-creation and individualism and to celebrate them like demigods. Or even as the incarnation of egregious and preternatural malevolence.

You might imagine, given my handle here, that I would be familiar with this great controversy, but alas I thought I thought I was the lone wolf crying in the wilderness. It is obvious that Caesar needs a whole Empire, Napoleon needs an army, and even Newton stands on the shoulders of giants by his own admission.

One does not need to negate the significance of the individual to acknowledge these things. When one man presses the button to end the world, a cast of thousands will have toiled to prepare the connections, and hundreds will do the bidding of plans drawn up before he got his finger anywhere near the red button of doom. The fantasy of the independent sovereign individual was never more than an adolescent wet dream. Rather, the power of the community cooperating makes things happen and changes the world.

So the question for individuals is always with what they will cooperate. The leaders we currently have are inclined to cooperate with our most primitive instincts and arouse fear and greed, and the doctrine of the isolated mechanical self-interested individual is ideal ground with which to promote these sensations.

Fear that the other is about to rob, to rape you, to take your job your home, and your family makes one feel isolated, and that makes one easily manipulable, because as a social being, isolation is a terrible anxiety inducing state. So one tends to join the nearest army available.

Try not to cooperate with these kind of projects, but with projects that produce affection and welcome everyone that cares to join and work for the community.

I would say the latter. The "world-historical individual" only ever wields their great power through the emergent whole.

This is not to say that single individuals cannot wield tremendous influence at global scales. I imagine 20th century history would be quite different if Adolf Hitler had died of a stroke shortly after becoming chancellor for example. But such individuals wield so much influence in virtue of the institutions and systems they sit astride. The "absolute monarch," is both empowered and constrained by their state, shaping it even as it shapes them. They sit at a leverage point where their individual acts can make a lot happen, but they only have this power because that leverage point exists.






Absolutely. Human ability tends to be on a roughly normal distribution. Wealth tends to follow a power law distribution. Compound returns on capital and the general existence of positive feedback cycles that make the poor poorer and the rich richer inflate small differences into large ones.

. I imagine 20th century history would be quite different if Adolf Hitler had died of a stroke shortly after becoming chancellor for example. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I can imagine history being very different if he had had a better primary school art teacher.

I can imagine history being very different if he had had a better primary school art teacher. — unenlightened

Or if he had not served on the Western Front in WWI. Or if the post-war atmosphere in Germany had been less oppressive and resentful. Or, if someone more charismatic stepped up to lead the Nazi party. Or any number of other variables. Arch-villains, like iconic heroes and all those nondescript ordinary people who follow them, are a product of their place, time and circumstance.

Absolutely. Human ability tends to be on a roughly normal distribution. Wealth tends to follow a power law distribution. Compound returns on capital and the general existence of positive feedback cycles that make the poor poorer and the rich richer inflate small differences into large ones.

Very true, but not quite the topic I addressed. Outlier-level success is neither evenly distributed in the population, nor the purview of the previously rich and famous. Rather it is evenly distributed (since it is ultimately decided by luck) BUT within the (not small) group that has attained excellence (which is slanted towards the advantaged).

Rather it is evenly distributed (since it is ultimately decided by luck) BUT within the (not small) group that has attained excellence (which is slanted towards the advantaged). — LuckyR

You mean aristocratic generals are more likely to have their statues erected in public squares than the middle-class colonels and captains and lower class corporals and privates who carried out their orders?

No I meant that say, Steve Jobs was a bright, driven individual with access to higher education (which makes him distinctly not average), but was in the right place at the right time, thus in his absence a different bright, driven individual (of which there are many) would likely have been lucky enough to have been as successful as he was.

"I feel incredibly lucky to be at exactly the right place in Silicon Valley, at exactly the right time, historically, where this invention (computers) has taken form." Steve Jobs 1995

Yes, that, too. But also, these big successes don't happen in a vacuum. There is one star on top of a great heap of thinkers and innovators, in charge of a team of builders and makers. The star gets all the attention and rewards, while all his enablers go unnoticed.

Again, usually very true, but I'm not addressing the details of success (vs failure), rather that of crazy over the top success (vs plain ol success).

Okay.

Here is a link to a free philosophy course, and the particular lecture that includes a map of reality that is crucial to our understanding of just about everything else. The important explanation is about 10 minutes into the video and takes about 10 minutes to explain. https://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/introduction-to-western-philosophy

Here is a link to making a conceptual map of your life.

https://philosophyasawayoflife.medium.com/concept-map-your-life-to-check-if-you-are-doing-what-is-meaningful-to-you-baebdf6f72b

. And the personification of an era is irresistible when we come to telling explanatory narratives. — Tom Storm

OMG you have stimulated so many thoughts in my head. :heart: And this one really leaped out at me. Athens like most ancient civilizations created their gods as they realized the need for them. Athena was changed by the war with Persia so that when the Persians destroyed her temple, it was rebuilt with a completely new understanding of the gods. Apolla came at a time of chaos that demanded a system of reason and this is part of the dramatically changed explanation of all the gods. It is really exciting to think of all this with your comment on the personification of an era. The people of Athens were using human-like gods to give life a new explanation. Does that match what you said or have I misunderstood you?

A simple by-product of human tribalism is the tendency to project upon leaders or innovators all sorts of magic powers or extraordinary attributes of self-creation and individualism and to celebrate them like demigods. Or even as the incarnation of egregious and preternatural malevolence. — Tom Storm

Because of just watching an explanation of Socrates and "the good", your words have me asking "what is the good". The information I am drawn to at this time is how harmful some colleges have become in destroying the notion that we can prove the good as we can prove a triangle is a triangle or define what is beauty. Education in the US has thrown the nation into a period of transition, chaos has taken over and this demands a strong person who can keep us from self-destructing. That underlines your final statement. "Or even as the incarnation of egregious and preternatural malevolence" and plays nicely with your comment about tribalism. We are totally confused and screaming for a great leader who can put an end to this chaos.

I think great leaders ride on a wave that is created by the circumstances of the moment. I think we should be paying more attention to the masses and what is driving them. Why are so many clinging to a tribe, instead of their own comprehension of the good?

"I feel incredibly lucky to be at exactly the right place in Silicon Valley, at exactly the right time, historically, where this invention (computers) has taken form." Steve Jobs 1995 — LuckyR

I like Socrates and Plato and Steve Jobs use the word "form". My mother was a keypunch operator long before we had personal computers. That is she used a machine to put holes in a card, that was then used to give the computer information. That was a very old technology and something really magical happened in Silicon Valley. I am not sure what gave our high-tech society its form but it pleases me to wonder about that.

Excellent. Thanks! :smile: