Does everyone have the potential for greatness?

[Rogue]

At the back of my copy of "The Fountainhead" there is a list and description of each of the characters, and Peter Keating is described as a man who "never could have been" and I wasn't quite sure what this meant.

I understand that few become great because of the work and genius it takes and it is a rare and exceptional person who is able to achieve it. I always thought that every man COULD be great.

But does every human have the potential to be great even if few are, I mean according to Ayn Rand? I just find it strange that she says Roark is what a man should be and Keating is a man who never could have been...

Edited January 14, 2007 by Rogue

[LaszloWalrus]

Well, I'd guess (though I cannot of course speak for Ayn Rand) that what she meant is that given Keating's premises and actions, he could never be great.

[Seeker]

Keating couldn't have been great given his tremendously flawed character, but character is something chosen. So I would take Rand's description in that context.

As to everyone, I think I am on pretty solid mathematical ground in saying that not everyone can be above average ... so, no, not everyone can be exceptional at the same thing. But, there are different things people can do, various niches to fill, and a mentally healthy person who commits himself or herself to the task can indeed achieve greatness in his or her own unique sphere.

[necrovore]

The reason Peter Keating "never could have been" is because that is what he chose for himself. He evaded the knowledge that that was what he chose, but he did have the option to learn it. For example, there were many times when Keating expressed a respect or admiration for Roark. But Keating never figured out why he admired Roark, and he often hated himself for admiring Roark. And he hated Roark because Roark was admirable in precisely the ways that Keating wanted to be admirable, but Keating didn't want to do what he would have had to do to be admirable in that way.

Greatness is the product of both your choices and the opportunities open to you. Keating had the opportunity to be a great architect in his own right, but he made choices that ultimately made that impossible. Keating arguably had more opportunity than Roark did -- and yet Roark was the one who was ultimately successful, because Roark made better choices with the opportunities he had.

I don't believe everyone can be great because I don't believe everyone has the opportunity. For example, people born into dictatorships don't have many opportunities for greatness. But in a novel, the focus is on the characters' choices, and in your own life, your focus should be on your choices, from whatever opportunities are available to you. It is useless to pine for opportunities you don't have, but it is also bad to pass up opportunities you do have.

[Seeker]

I don't believe everyone can be great because I don't believe everyone has the opportunity. For example, people born into dictatorships don't have many opportunities for greatness.

It is also important to be able to spot opportunities. I agree with you about dictatorships, but in a relatively free society such as ours there is such breathtaking opportunity that for anyone to complain about its lack is truly incredible. Yes there is government over-regulation and that is a major obstacle, but by far the greatest limitations are self-imposed by people who see limits everywhere instead of opportunities and are trained in baseless, negative thinking. Their beliefs and habits of character are their biggest problem.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Seeker

[JMeganSnow]

You make your own opportunities.

[hunterrose]

The reason Peter Keating "never could have been" is because that is what he chose for himself.

Meaning that he "could have been" if he had chosen otherwise?

Greatness is the product of both your choices and the opportunities open to you... I don't believe everyone can be great because I don't believe everyone has the opportunity. For example, people born into dictatorships don't have many opportunities for greatness.

This may be a nitpick, but I don't think the amount of opportunity a person has is integral to "greatness". IMO people with "little" opportunity can still become great qua making the most of what they have e.g. Forrest Gump?? or Kira from We the Living.

[Shading Inc.]

I think any new-born baby (mentally handicapped ones aside) has roughly the same potential for greatness. (Can't get around genetics these days, can we?)

Of course a child's environment may do a lot to either stimulate or supress (or even kill, I guess) its potential for greatness.

And there is also the lame factor of plain good or bad luck. Little greatness among adolescents caught in fatal car crashes.

My conclusion is that because greatness has a lot to do with character, and because character is something built up in the course of one's life, the initial roughly equal potential for greatness will either wither if the character does so (regardless of whether it does so because of environmental causes or not), or flower into an actual greatness - again, if the character does so.

[Maarten]

My conclusion is that because greatness has a lot to do with character, and because character is something built up in the course of one's life, the initial roughly equal potential for greatness will either wither if the character does so (regardless of whether it does so because of environmental causes or not), or flower into an actual greatness - again, if the character does so.(bold mine)

I think it is important to note, though, that this is done by the person themselves. So barring freak accidents like the car crashes you mentioned, that really don't happen often enough to explain whether people will succeed or fail in life, it is the way a person uses their mind's potential and their ability and drive to put this into action that makes them great.

[Shading Inc.]

I think it is important to note, though, that this is done by the person themselves.

That is exactly what I carefully avoided saying. That way even diehard determinists may accept my conclusion.

[tnunamak]

I think every man can be great by his own standards. I think that is what counts, regardless of whether he builds the most magnificent skyscraper the world has seen, or a modest doll house for a single child.

Greatness, in my opinion, should be measured by a man's own yardstick. With that in mind, I think everyone can achieve greatness by doing the best he can possibly do.

[armor99]

Hello everyone,

I am lucky enough to have recently stumbled onto this forum. I am just beginning my journey into Ayn Rand's work, but I saw this question posed and felt the need to reply....

What is greatness??? Is it what others think of you and your work? Do we do what we do in life, so that other men can gaze at us and say... "Wow... that man is great..." No.... certainly not! We live for ourselves. The highest moral act that any man can achieve, is to rise to the highest apex that his own rational mind can take him. Not everyone has the brain power to be a scientist, or the muscle mass to be a body builder, or the agility to be a gymnist. But we ALL have areas in our lives that we can excel in. I would say that the greatest sadness in life is not living up to whatever potential that you might have. Achieving greatness is possible for anyone as long as they maximize what is within their potential of doing. Greatness is a benchmark we can only hold up to ourselves.... and setting that benchmark any lower then our full potential will only bring misery.

I once had a boss that asked me to "do the best I can do"... Free of distractions, or limits on money or time. I asked him only one question.... "Are you sure???"... He was confused and said.. "Well yes... why would I be unsure". And I answered..... "Because you are about to see a force unleashed that has rarely been seen before.... a man willing to put his full potential to solving a problem" He look a bit scared..... as he should be....

[RationalBiker]

I think every man can be great by his own standards. I think that is what counts, regardless of whether he builds the most magnificent skyscraper the world has seen, or a modest doll house for a single child.

Greatness, in my opinion, should be measured by a man's own yardstick. With that in mind, I think everyone can achieve greatness by doing the best he can possibly do.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree yet, but this seems to put "greatness" on somewhat of a relative scale, and/or a subjective scale.

For instance, let's say a carpenter thinks he's great, but every chair he makes collapses when someone sits on it. Has he achieved "greatness"?

What objective criteria can we put to man's judgment of his own greatness?

[Tenure]

Would he really think he was great if he failed at every attempt at carpentry?

[RationalBiker]

Would he really think he was great if he failed at every attempt at carpentry?

Yes.

[Olex]

What objective criteria can we put to man's judgment of his own greatness?

I think the objective criteria is an achievement of certain goals within the field of work.

A chair maker certainly isn't great if all his chairs break under normal conditions. When he makes a steady chair that doesn't fall apart, then he reaches at least one goal in his field. And it's one "plus" to count towards more positive evaluation.

Greatness here is compared to the level and mastery of achieving such goals, especially ability to meet many several goals at the same time.

One good example of greatness that I recall is a Renaissance painter who had to paint the ceiling of some religious building. The ceiling was way up high, and it was curved in many spots. So, he reached several goals. One was that he painted well. Another is that he did so on a curved surface, so the picture looks correct in the distance from the floor, while he had to paint up close, so he had to keep in mind how to draw what he wanted on a curved surface.

So, now the question is how many accomplished tasks will constitute greatness. Here, it has a context. It depends on (1) what a human can do and (2) what is the base of current knowledge in the field.

Walking solves a lot of various tasks, but this is an almost given to humans. However, dancing involves solving more tasks, which are correct movements, beat, matching the music, and achieving the style of movement that is intended by the dance style.

The same scientific advancement would show a different "greatness" depending on the body of existing knowledge. This is so , because more tasks must be done to achieve the same advancement.

So, there is some base/average to judge the "greatness" from.

When it comes to assessing one's ability to judge his own greatness, then it's a matter of epistemology and ability to recognize the above.

[Praxus]

Greatness must be judged relative to the object which it concerns. A great carpenter is one who is excells at carpentry. Thus a person who can't stick two pieces of wood together can't be a great carpenter. It is only in the realm of virtue that everyone has a potential for greatness. Everything else requires certain physical and intellectual abilities which may not be sufficient or exist in any particular man.

Edited August 6, 2007 by Praxus

[fletch]

Greatness must be judged relative to the object which it concerns. A great carpenter is one who is excells at carpentry.

There are millions of carpenters out there, most are probably quite skilled at what they do. What makes a carpenter great is the same thing that makes any man great at any particular thing--the abilty to do what seemingly no other man is capable of doing. That is the mark of greatness.

Thus a person who can't stick two pieces of wood together can't be a great carpenter. It is only in the realm of virtue that everyone has a potential for greatness. Everything else requires certain physical and intellectual abilities which may not be sufficient or exist in any particular man.

Agreed. Moral greatness is possible for all men, but unfortunately, here, as in all other realms of greatness, most men struggle for mediocrity.

[Tenure]

Yes.

Can I be pedantic and ask 'Why?'

[Moebius]

For instance, let's say a carpenter thinks he's great, but every chair he makes collapses when someone sits on it. Has he achieved "greatness"?

Is the carpenter a rational man?

What objective criteria can we put to man's judgment of his own greatness?

I suppose first you determine a rational, objective life goal(s). Then you decide if you have achieved it to the best of your ability.

Otherwise the term "greatness" would simply be how good (or important, or influencial, or whatever) a man is at something relative to everybody else -- in which case clearly not everyone can achieve "greatness".

[y_feldblum]

Can I be pedantic and ask 'Why?'

The essential requirement of greatness is: reason.

As Aristotle noticed, we all have it.

[RationalBiker]

Is the carpenter a rational man?

I think every man can be great by his own standards.

This is the statement I'm addressing. Perhaps while it was assumed, whether he is rational or not is not addressed. But even rational men can set standards and meet them without being great.

Otherwise the term "greatness" would simply be how good (or important, or influencial, or whatever) a man is at something relative to everybody else -- in which case clearly not everyone can achieve "greatness".

I'm thinking it can involve a little bit of both. Greatness is by it's very nature a comparative term. I think thinking in terms that "everyone can be great" just because they meet their own standards is what leads up to accepting medocrity as a standard. For example; my (insert son or daughter here) is a great student, s/he made the C honor roll. I think that for greatness to have any real meaning, those people who qualify for it are necessarily going to be in a smaller subset of people than those who are simply average.

Can I be pedantic and ask 'Why?'

Because he set real low standards for his chairmaking. However, he met those standards which makes him "great".

I think that in order to use a man's "own standards" as his benchmark, they not only need be rational, they need to be high standards.

Also, I don't think saying that someone having done the very best they can do qualifies them for being "great". Sometimes people have to recognize their very best still isn't good enough, that it still sucks.

To illustrate what I'm getting at, let's look at the movie Rudy (which if anyone doesn't know is based on a true story). Rudy was bound and determined to play football for Notre Dame. The problem was, he wasn't really that good of a football player. Rudy worked hard, and perservered and things worked out that he got to play (he achieved his goal). While I think the man had an admirable spirit and tenacity, Rudy could never be a great football player.

[Matus1976]

Everybody (excluding the mentally handicapped) has the potential to be really good at virtually anything, even great, depending on how you define it, though not everyone has the potential to be better than everyone else at anything. But it requires tremendous dedication and a particular kind of hard work.

Scientific American “The Expert Mind”

http://tinyurl.com/nyc4r

- “Yet this belief in the importance of innate talent, strongest perhaps among the experts themselves and their trainers, is strangely lacking in hard evidence to substantiate it.”

- “The preponderance of psychological evidence indicates that experts are made, not born. What is more, the demonstrated ability to turn a child quickly into an expert--in chess, music and a host of other subjects--sets a clear challenge before the school”

“What it Takes to be Great”

Research now shows that the lack of natural talent is irrelevant to great success. The secret? Painful and demanding practice and hard work

http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/great_1.html

- “Scientific experts are producing remarkably consistent findings across a wide array of fields. Understand that talent doesn't mean intelligence, motivation or personality traits. It's an innate ability to do some specific activity especially well. British-based researchers Michael J. Howe, Jane W. Davidson and John A. Sluboda conclude in an extensive study, "The evidence we have surveyed ... does not support the [notion that] excelling is a consequence of possessing innate gifts."

“The Myth of Prodigy and Why it Matters”

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observ...cle.cfm?id=2026

- “The other way to look at precocity is of course to work backward — to look at adult geniuses and see what they were like as kids. A number of studies have taken this approach, Gladwell said, and they find a similar pattern. A study of 200 highly accomplished adults found that just 34 percent had been considered in any way precocious as children. He also read a long list of historical geniuses who had been notably undistinguished as children — a list including Copernicus, Rembrandt, Bach, Newton, Beethoven, Kant, and Leonardo Da Vinci”.

[Olex]

... He also read a long list of historical geniuses who had been notably undistinguished as children — a list including Copernicus, Rembrandt, Bach, Newton, Beethoven, Kant, and Leonardo Da Vinci”.

Kant is a genius?

[Matus1976]

Kant is a genius?

That was the author of the article that said that, not I