Does everyone have the potential for greatness?

[KendallJ]

There are certainly physiological differences which can make it easier to become great at something, but there are few physiological differences which make it *impossible* to become great at something

Given what? enough time and effort? This is what I find faulty with this line of reasoning. If greatness was being defined accordign to a standard of infinite lifespan, when then I'd agree with you, everone has the potential for greatness.

However, this is sort of like idealism in geometry. It may be true, but hardly meaningful. "Everyone" does not mean a human with infinite lifespan. The context of the question must include both the capabilities of a human and his limitations in terms of mental capacity, and lifespan and competing interests. "Potential" only has meaning in that context. So the answer then, would be an emphatic no.

[RationalBiker]

There are certainly physiological differences which can make it easier to become great at something, but there are few physiological differences which make it *impossible* to become great at

Well, I'm still reserving judgment on that. Whereas, in my estimation of your view, you see only two distinctions, a dysfunctional mind versus a healthy mind, I see many different levels in between which affect ones ability to achieve certain things. This is wholly consistent with other physiological aspects of the body.

I dont think it is rational to attribute not getting it to some innate physiological limitation in your mind, it might be more difficult for some people, and take longer, but as long as you have a mind which functions, is able to grasp concepts and integrate them, then pretty much anything is open to be grasped.

I don't think it's rational to fail to recognize various levels of physiological functioning between healthy mind and dysfunctional mind, but rather than assail each others rationality, I'd rather stick at arguing the issue. Whether you believe it or not, I seek to truthfully understand the world around me just as you do. I gain nothing by attempting to hold on to a position that I cannot be great at something, it is not anything to be proud of. None the less, given the time and effort, I did put into, and relatively little progress, all of the evidence available to me suggested that "greatness" would not come no matter how much time I put into it. You are certainly free to be optimistic and assume otherwise of course, but I still don't see the evidence. I take your vote of confidence to be well-meaning, despite your inference that my position is not rational.

Acknowledging that we live a limited life span and have a finite amount of time does not mean we need also to attribute greatness to innate physiological advantages.

Nor do these things mean we can dismiss physiological disadvantages or limitations.

Edited August 14, 2007 by RationalBiker

[JMeganSnow]

Greatness requires moral perfection?

Now we're venturing into fictional territory (ie. Roarke, Galt). I'd like to hear who among the living you would consider a great person. I can't think of any one that I would consider "great" at their respective field that is morally perfect. And please, do explain why skill is necessarily, rationally, dependent on virtue? Any one virtue in particular? Or all of them?

Yes, and it's *not* fictional; the entire *point* of the Objectivist ethics is that moral perfection is not only obtainable, it is *vital*; it can be achieved by *anyone*. My *dad* is someone I would consider great by this standard, even though he and I disagree on many things.

Skill is dependent upon virtue because skill is a value and you obtain values by means of virtues. This is elementary stuff here. Not one particular virtue, ALL virtues. To the extent that someone is good at *anything*, they have to be at least a little bit *good*.

Meanwhile, I think I will stick with the being extremely good at something definition.

Being extremely good at *what*? Farting the national anthem? Eating 38 hot dogs at one sitting? Get real. There is only one thing that it's *ultimately* important to be good at, and that's being good.

[Moebius]

Yes, and it's *not* fictional; the entire *point* of the Objectivist ethics is that moral perfection is not only obtainable, it is *vital*; it can be achieved by *anyone*. My *dad* is someone I would consider great by this standard, even though he and I disagree on many things.

I don't know your dad, so I'm not going to dispute this. I am not saying that moral perfection is impossible, but simply that it would be extremely rare. So sure, if someone can actually say that they are always, absolutely, utterly, completely moral ALL THE TIME, and do not EVER do anything at all what so ever that is even remotely morally questionable, then I would say that he is indeed a great person.

Of course, I also agree that it is imperative that one tries to live is moral as possible. But actually achieving moral perfection (the keyword being perfection) would indeed be exceedingly difficult (and hence great, since you're probably one in a million).

Skill is dependent upon virtue because skill is a value and you obtain values by means of virtues. This is elementary stuff here. Not one particular virtue, ALL virtues. To the extent that someone is good at *anything*, they have to be at least a little bit *good*.

Dedication, hard work, and the will to succeed are certainly virtues. And as such in order to achieve greatness at a skill would indeed require virtues. I don't understand quite what you mean though that it requires "ALL virtues". Can you elaborate the logic?

Being extremely good at *what*? Farting the national anthem? Eating 38 hot dogs at one sitting? Get real. There is only one thing that it's *ultimately* important to be good at, and that's being good.

I don't know about farting, but eating 38 hot dogs in one sitting would in fact take a lot of dedication and practice (not to mention a lot of will power). And I agree that what is ultimately the most important is being good at being good. But that's not really what we were talking about here. You're talking about greatness at life in particular, and I am talking about greatness at anything in general. As in, Michael Jordan is a great basketball player. Or Mozart is a great composer. So on and so forth. Whether or not they are great human beings is irrelevant in this context.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Moebius

[BrandonMV]

I think this is a contextual issue. In the context of this thread, I think greatness is referring to the greatness of someone's life. If you regard greatness as "being good at what you do", then Adolf Hitler is a percept example of greatness, considering the fact that he accomplished many things. But if you take the whole of someone's life and say, "Did he achieve greatness?" you wouldn't look at his accomplishments, but rather the nature of his accomplishments and his moral integrity.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Enixyle

[RationalBiker]

I do agree that there is a distinction between being great at something and living a great life. The latter is what I think the OP was talking about, and we veered off to the former (with no small help from me) as the thread progressed.

[Moebius]

I think this is a contextual issue. In the context of this thread, I think greatness is referring to the greatness of someone's life. If you regard greatness as "being good at what you do", then Adolf Hitler is a percept example of greatness, considering the fact that he accomplished many things. But if you take the whole of someone's life and say, "Did he achieve greatness?" you wouldn't look at his accomplishments, but rather the nature of his accomplishments and his moral integrity.

If greatness in life equates moral perfection as JMeganSnow claims, then yes, everyone is theoretically capable (although extremely improbable) of achieving greatness. It's akin to asking someone to free hand draw a perfect circle. There are many men that I would consider great whether or not I completely understand their actual moral disposition, based on their achievements alone - for instance Albert Einstein. They needn't be morally perfect to me.

In the case of Hitler, I would say that he is indeed great at certain things -- rabble rousing, orating, and inspiring others, among other things. It depends on the context of greatness that we're operating in. If we are talking about greatness in life, or greatness in history, then no, Hitler was not a great man, and yes, it is in part due to his immorality -- but also the fact that in an objective assessment, he did not actually achieve much of anything. His reign was short lived, and his legacy is now carried on by a handful of skin-headed white supremacists. If he had in fact conquered the world, it would not have made him any more moral, but it would change the assessment of his achievements historically.

A counter example is someone like Alexander the Great. He was not a morally perfect man. He certainly did many brutal things to his enemies, initiated aggression, likely buggered men, and certainly was a menace to all the people around him. And yet he is conferred the title of greatness by history, not based on his moral characters but rather almost exclusively on his achievements alone (killed a bunch of people and took over a lot of land, bringing Greek culture to the world through conquest --a rather questionable achievement--, and initiating the Hellenistic golden age). History is littered with "great men" like these.

[BrandonMV]

History encompasses all of the events of the past and it is for us to decide which of these events were great or not, which people were great or not. Having accomplished something of great magnitude, whether it be formulating the theory of relativity or killing millions of people, does not establish a life as a great one. You must consider the life as a whole.

Moebius, if you use greatness, as you are, in the thread's question, it doesn't make much sense. "Does everyone have the potential to do something, anything at all, well?" I don't think that's what the questioner intended. Einstein was a great scientist and Hitler was a "great" dictator, but that says nothing about their moral character, which is the only use of greatness that really makes sense in this context.

Edited August 15, 2007 by Enixyle

[Moebius]

History encompasses all of the events of the past and it is for us to decide which of these events were great or not, which people were great or not. Having accomplished something of great magnitude, whether it be formulating the theory of relativity or killing millions of people, does not establish a life as a great one. You must consider the life as a whole.

I agree that it is for us to decide. The difference is I decide based on what they have achieved, and you apparently decide on if they had been a good person.

And before you go on equating genocide with relativity -- how I value the achievements of historical figures isn't random; it is based on my own values and how much their achievements mean to the said values. Hence, Hitler was not a great person, because he achieved nothing that, according to my value system, was of any merit. It does not necessarily have anything to do with his moral dispositions. Einstein on the other hand, even if he had been a socialist religious fanatic or whatever, would still be considered great in my book based on what he has done.

Moebius, if you use greatness, as you are, in the thread's question, it doesn't make much sense. "Does everyone have the potential to do something, anything at all, well?" I don't think that's what the questioner intended. Einstein was a great scientist and Hitler was a "great" dictator, but that says nothing about their moral character, which is the only use of greatness that really makes sense in this context.

It does make sense if you frame the question in terms of "Does everyone have the potential to be one of the best at any given task?" If the question here is one of greatness in skill or achievement, then the answer is no, not necessarily. If the question here is one regarding greatness as a human being, then the answer is sure, everyone can be great since we have volition and can choose to live a moral life. Although frankly when someone says "Person A is a great man", I generally assume that Person A has achieved something extroardinary, as opposed to simply having lived life in moral perfection (which I realize isn't simple at all...).

The confusion here is over context, as there seem to have been two different discussions regarding greatness in this thread. We can proceed with the line of discussion regarding what makes a person a great human being, and whether it is achievable by anyone if you wish (and for which my answer is respectively: behaving morally, yes but unlikely, but we should try anyway).

[BrandonMV]

I agree that it is for us to decide. The difference is I decide based on what they have achieved, and you apparently decide on if they had been a good person.

Being moral is not independent of achievement, being moral is achieving.

And before you go on equating genocide with relativity -- how I value the achievements of historical figures isn't random; it is based on my own values and how much their achievements mean to the said values. Hence, Hitler was not a great person, because he achieved nothing that, according to my value system, was of any merit. It does not necessarily have anything to do with his moral dispositions. Einstein on the other hand, even if he had been a socialist religious fanatic or whatever, would still be considered great in my book based on what he has done.

I don't appreciate you presupposing that I have any intention of equating a scientific theory and murder. Now according your current use of greatness, which you say is independent of the accomplisher's morality, even if a person achieved something by immoral means, he or she can still be considered great if the achievement is of great merit according to your value system. (If you say, "But I value morality!" then you have to throw morality back into the pot.)

It does make sense if you frame the question in terms of "Does everyone have the potential to be one of the best at any given task?" If the question here is one of greatness in skill or achievement, then the answer is no, not necessarily. If the question here is one regarding greatness as a human being, then the answer is sure, everyone can be great since we have volition and can choose to live a moral life.

To achieve greatness you now must be "one of the best"? That seems arbitrary. I still think that greatness as a human being makes the most sense.

[Moebius]

Being moral is not independent of achievement, being moral is achieving.

Let's be clear. I do not disagree with being moral is a form of achievement. I do not think, however, that it is the only form of achievement, nor the only form achievement that is of any value.

I don't appreciate you presupposing that I have any intention of equating a scientific theory and murder. Now according your current use of greatness, which you say is independent of the accomplisher's morality, even if a person achieved something by immoral means, he or she can still be considered great if the achievement is of great merit according to your value system. (If you say, "But I value morality!" then you have to throw morality back into the pot.)

You made statements that seemed to suggest that I regard Einstein and Hitler as parallels given my definition of greatness. I apologize if there is a misunderstanding.

Now, I am not suggesting that morality is irrelevant in evaluating achievement. Since my assessment of achievement is based on my values, morality is inherently built in -- although hardly the only criteria. Immoral acts definitely lessens the value of said achievement, but to me does not make it completely worthless.

I would need a context to actually make such an assessment, but I can think of an example. Say a scientist discovered a cure for AIDS, thereby saving the lives of millions. That, according to my values, is a worthy achievement. However he did so by experimenting on unwitting villagers in Africa, perhaps even causing a few of them to die -- an act that I consider immoral. I would nevertheless consider the cure a great achievement, and him a great scientist. However his greatness as a person would be diminished. The immoral act does not, however, make his achievements worthless, nor does it make him as a person worthless. Therefore it depends on how you frame your view point -- are you judging him as a scientist, or as a person in general?

What we are arguing here is merely semantics, hence why I repeated said you need a context. Can anybody achieve greatness? Well, in this case, the man achieved greatness as a scientist. But as a person he is immoral and less than stellar. It is the former that I am suggesting that not anybody can do, per OP's original question.

This is just a case in point by the way, and each scenario would need to be evaluated independently and within context.

To achieve greatness you now must be "one of the best"? That seems arbitrary. I still think that greatness as a human being makes the most sense.

"One of the best" is probably incomplete. You have achieved greatness at something if you are one of the best, or if you have done something truly extraordinary or remarkable, in context.

[JMeganSnow]

I am not saying that moral perfection is impossible, but simply that it would be extremely rare. So sure, if someone can actually say that they are always, absolutely, utterly, completely moral ALL THE TIME, and do not EVER do anything at all what so ever that is even remotely morally questionable, then I would say that he is indeed a great person.

Of course, I also agree that it is imperative that one tries to live is moral as possible. But actually achieving moral perfection (the keyword being perfection) would indeed be exceedingly difficult (and hence great, since you're probably one in a million).

Balderdash. Moral perfection isn't a one-in-a-million thing. That's a holdover from impossible moralities. In a decent society moral perfection would be the rule, not the exception. You don't have to never, ever, ever commit any kind of irrational or immoral act. What you have to do is to recognize and make restitution for the ones you have committed. You have to be willing to accept all the consequences of what you have done and never, ever push them off on other people.

Dedication, hard work, and the will to succeed are certainly virtues. And as such in order to achieve greatness at a skill would indeed require virtues. I don't understand quite what you mean though that it requires "ALL virtues". Can you elaborate the logic?

The "big seven" virtues, from which all other virtues are derived: rationality, justice, integrity, productiveness, honesty, pride, independence.

But that's not really what we were talking about here. You're talking about greatness at life in particular, and I am talking about greatness at anything in general. As in, Michael Jordan is a great basketball player. Or Mozart is a great composer. So on and so forth. Whether or not they are great human beings is irrelevant in this context.

Most of the difficulties in this thread are a result of the fact that no one bothered to define the context before they began. Does everyone have the potential to be great at some particular skill or feat? No. Does everyone have the potential to be great in the only area that *ultimately* matters? Heck yeah!

The answer is simple if you know beforehand exactly what you were asking.

[Thales]

I would not equate moral perfection with moral greatness. I think moral greatness stems from standing up for your values in the face of incredibly difficult odds. Taking on a huge challenge and seeing it through is what leads to greatness. Jean Valjean in Les Miserable, and Robert MacGregor in Rob Roy spring to mind. The movie with Will Smith, “The Pursuit of Happyness”, is another example.

You can be morally perfect and not take on such challenges. You simply do your best. Given this point, while I believe everyone can be perfect morally, I don't think everyone can be great morally. Being morally great takes a supreme amount of will power, often over a pro-longed period of time, and it takes a strong sense of what is right and wrong. Being morally great may be the most difficult thing to be great at. This is the sort of heroism that inspires at the deepest of levels. I admit, I may be wrong, maybe everyone has it in them, but I'm highly skeptical.

[Matus1976]

Given what? enough time and effort? This is what I find faulty with this line of reasoning. If greatness was being defined accordign to a standard of infinite lifespan, when then I'd agree with you, everone has the potential for greatness. The context of the question must include both the capabilities of a human and his limitations in terms of mental capacity, and lifespan and competing interests. . "Potential" only has meaning in that context. So the answer then, would be an emphatic no.

The time presented by the authors in the articles listed suggests about 10 years to become an expert, I would say probably another 10 years or so would be required to become 'great' depending on one's definition of course, but that is just a guess. Clearly that is not something that lies outside the realm of a typical humans life span. Socio economic conditions may prevent one from being able to spend the majority of one's time pursuing greatness over two decades, but I dont think that was what was meant by the question 'does everyone have the potential to be great' (surely starving children in Africa do not have the potential to become great bobsledders)

The context of the question, and my answer, does include the capabilities of typical humans (but obviously does not include murderoussly oppressive governments, which was not in the context of the question) As for competing interests, one clearly can not become 'great' at something *magically* so they can not engage in numerous competing interests while still desireing to become great at another one, but that certainly was not within the context of the question; nobody asked "can I become great at anything while still doing everything else I want to do??"

Physiologically, almost everyone has the potential to become great at almost anything.

[Matus1976]

Well, I'm still reserving judgment on that.

Feel free to, but the scientific evidence is pretty clear. In chess, for example, virtually anyone can become a 'great' chess master, as long as they have a functioning human mind. Physiologically there is little different between that and other tasks, you might not become 'the best in the world' because of your innate limitations, but that does not mean you can not become 'great'

Whereas, in my estimation of your view, you see only two distinctions, a dysfunctional mind versus a healthy mind, I see many different levels in between which affect ones ability to achieve certain things. This is wholly consistent with other physiological aspects of the body.

It is not actually, its disinegneous to ascribe the apparent phenotypical differences we see in things like body height and skin color and then consider that in other things an equal degree of variation exists. Under our skin, humans are almost *completely* identical. There is no one which has a stomach which is 300% larger as compared to other organs as another persons stomach, unlike the variation we see in height and skin tones. No one's blood is 300% better at absorbing oxygen (though some are a few percent better) Likewise there is no one with a brain which is 300% bigger relative to the rest of the body at birth compared to other people (not considering gross birth defects like microcephalaphy, we are talking about a typical person here, not an abnormal rarity) We are very similiar genetically, in humans have one of the most limited genomes on the planet, where a single family of Chimpanzees contain more genetic diversity than the whole of the human population. There simply isnt much room for 'mozart' genes. The differences in manifested ability reside primarily in the amount and time of practice someone has engaged in and secondarily and to a *much* much smaller degree, any kind of 'innate' ability or preclondivity to something. As again, all the scientific evidence collected yet on the question seems to suggest.

Whether you believe it or not, I seek to truthfully understand the world around me just as you do. I gain nothing by attempting to hold on to a position that I cannot be great at something, it is not anything to be proud of. None the less, given the time and effort, I did put into, and relatively little progress, all of the evidence available to me suggested that "greatness" would not come no matter how much time I put into it. You are certainly free to be optimistic and assume otherwise of course, but I still don't see the evidence. I take your vote of confidence to be well-meaning, despite your inference that my position is not rational.Nor do these things mean we can dismiss physiological disadvantages or limitations.

The evidence lies in all the other studies done on this very topic. The fact that you were not willing to dedicate about 5 to 10 times as much time as you were toward perfecting guitar playing ability is the main reason why you did not become great. You can continue to believe that based on your existing progress that no matter how hard you tried you could *never* become great, but what evidence do you really have to base that on? That you had not become great 'yet'? Maybe the way you were practicing was wrong? Maybe your teacher wasn't good enough. Maybe you just werent devoting enough time to it? Maybe you were at a temporary point where it was very difficult to get past, as is frequently experienced in learning to do new things very well.I think its rational to say "Ok, I really don't want to dominate 75% of my waking life with guitar playing, I'd like to live and enjoy other things (like motorcycling!! I am a motorcyclist as well) so I will not ever become 'great'" that is what all the evidence suggests, you have hands that work and a mind that works, so you *could* become a great guitar player. To say that "no matter how hard I try I will *never* become a great guitar player" is not concurrent with the physical reality of the situation. Perhaps you just arent willing to try *that* hard. Again, this is what all the evidence suggests is true, so besides a few anecdotal stories and assessments about things, what 'evidence' do you base the idea that no matter 'how hard' (and I mean, REALLY hard) you try to do something you could not, *ever* do it?Personally, I wouldnt shoot for 'great' because it is so time demanding, I'd shoot for 'good' and 'enjoyable'

There is only one thing that it's *ultimately* important to be good at, and that's being good.

Well said

[Moebius]

Balderdash. Moral perfection isn't a one-in-a-million thing. That's a holdover from impossible moralities. In a decent society moral perfection would be the rule, not the exception. You don't have to never, ever, ever commit any kind of irrational or immoral act. What you have to do is to recognize and make restitution for the ones you have committed. You have to be willing to accept all the consequences of what you have done and never, ever push them off on other people.

If your idea of perfection is that you can make any mistake and wrong doing you want as long as you recognize and make up for it... well then sure, moral perfection can be done.

The "big seven" virtues, from which all other virtues are derived: rationality, justice, integrity, productiveness, honesty, pride, independence.

Actually I agree that a lot of those would be required if you really wanted to become good at a skill. Help me out with a couple though: Justice and Integrity - how they relate to becoming good at something.

Most of the difficulties in this thread are a result of the fact that no one bothered to define the context before they began. Does everyone have the potential to be great at some particular skill or feat? No. Does everyone have the potential to be great in the only area that *ultimately* matters? Heck yeah!

The answer is simple if you know beforehand exactly what you were asking.

The answer is indeed simple. And your position is the same as the one I have stated.

[Moebius]

I would not equate moral perfection with moral greatness. I think moral greatness stems from standing up for your values in the face of incredibly difficult odds. Taking on a huge challenge and seeing it through is what leads to greatness. Jean Valjean in Les Miserable, and Robert MacGregor in Rob Roy spring to mind. The movie with Will Smith, “The Pursuit of Happyness”, is another example.

You can be morally perfect and not take on such challenges. You simply do your best. Given this point, while I believe everyone can be perfect morally, I don't think everyone can be great morally. Being morally great takes a supreme amount of will power, often over a pro-longed period of time, and it takes a strong sense of what is right and wrong. Being morally great may be the most difficult thing to be great at. This is the sort of heroism that inspires at the deepest of levels. I admit, I may be wrong, maybe everyone has it in them, but I'm highly skeptical.

That's an interesting take, and I am inclined to agree with you. Just because a man has thus far lived a life of moral perfection does not mean that he will necessarily be able to stand up for those morals in the face of a challenge.

[RationalBiker]

Feel free to, but the scientific evidence is pretty clear.

I had type a long, time consuming response to your post which included quotes from the SA article which indicate their study was not conclusive, simply theoretical and highly suggestive of your position. I lost it all due to an errant pressing of the "back" key and "web page expired" response when going "forward". I don't have the time right at the moment to reiterate all those thoughts and quotes. Also, I noted from some of your questions that you don't appear to have all the information you might need to draw a conclusion about my guitar playing ability or potential. I will quote one thing from the article at this point;

Although nobody has yet been able to predict who will become a great expert in any field, a notable experiment has shown the possibility of deliberately creating one.

So you and Johnny can't predict whether I would have been great or not according to your own reference.

Also, from Gobet's section on the Brunel University We Page;

A somewhat different approach to the study of expertise has been to look at individual differences, mostly differences in intelligence and personality. Recently, with Philippe Chassy, we have identified the rather curious phenomenon that chess expertise shows a seasonality effect: on average, chess players tend to be born more often in late winter and early spring than non-chessplayers.

One thing I think I do have potential at greatness at is in my motorcycle riding. However, whether I actually do remains to be seen. Perhaps I'll find out one day.

Keep two wheels down.

[Maarten]

If your idea of perfection is that you can make any mistake and wrong doing you want as long as you recognize and make up for it... well then sure, moral perfection can be done.

You're making it sound like recognizing the mistake and making up for it is some inconsequential action a person can do in his spare time. Depending on how morally repugnant your behavior actually is it could well take you the rest of your life to make up for it. And I think there are some acts so evil that it is impossible to atone for them. However, to use these extremely rare situations as a basis for making claims about the lives of normal human beings is mistaken.

I think what Jenni is talking about is that when someone makes a mistake or commits an evil act, they can still achieve moral perfection if from that point on they act in a way that is essentially virtuous and good. If they keep committing evil acts at every opportunity they will not achieve moral perfection, but that is hardly because they didn't have the chance to do so.

[Moebius]

I think what Jenni is talking about is that when someone makes a mistake or commits an evil act, they can still achieve moral perfection if from that point on they act in a way that is essentially virtuous and good. If they keep committing evil acts at every opportunity they will not achieve moral perfection, but that is hardly because they didn't have the chance to do so.

Alright. But if, like an average person, a man continually makes moral mistakes or lapse to their irrational impulses, but then genuinely regrets after the fact and tries to make up for it, would this be a man who has achieved moral perfection?

[JMeganSnow]

It depends, Moebius. I know in common parlance "trying to make up for it" doesn't necessarily equate with "actually making up for it". Let me give you a concrete example as a starting point.

Suppose a young man takes up shoplifting for whatever "reason". Maybe he *really wanted* a CD, maybe he enjoys it, whatever. Afterwards he may feel kind of bad and decide not to shoplift any more. He may even discreetly "make up for" his earlier actions by sneaking some of the merchandise back into the stores and hiding it on the shelves. Eventually, he feels tempted to steal again, and after hemming and hawing over it for some time, does steal something. He goes through this process for years, occasionally shoplifting items.

Such a person has no chance of ever achieving moral perfection regardless of how often he realizes he was mistaken and "returns" the items

Now, let's take our same shoplifter, only after a period of time he has an epiphany and realizes that shoplifting is not just wrong but *evil*. So, he gathers up everything he's stolen and goes around to the owners of the various stores, giving them back their merchandise and offering to pay for damages or lost value. Then, he never shoplifts *again*. Even if he does some things like accidentally downloading a free copy of something he should have paid for, he can still achieve moral perfection because he has *actually* made up for his wrong actions.

If you *actually* make up for your evil actions (and remember, as Maarten said, it may be impossible to do so existentially) you can achieve moral perfection.

[~Sophia~]

There simply isnt much room for 'mozart' genes.

Instead of writing it all over again, I would rather refer you to my posts in the thread called Designer Babies starting with my post #36. It addresses the issue of human diversity.

[Thales]

Physiologically, almost everyone has the potential to become great at almost anything.

Hmmmm... It would be nice to believe, believe me, I love the idea, but I just can't see Catherine Zeta Jones pumping up to be a Schwarzenegger in his Conan body, or Brittany Spears playing offensive line for the Chicago Bears. (To be sure, I like Catherine Zeta just the way she is.)

There's something amiss in your assessment. Remember, everyone has a particular nature, and that nature determines their potential. I'm going to leave aside such issues as bio-engineering, which is becoming more and more of a possibility.

That's an interesting take, and I am inclined to agree with you. Just because a man has thus far lived a life of moral perfection does not mean that he will necessarily be able to stand up for those morals in the face of a challenge.

Right, and as per Objectivist moral theory, being morally perfect is very doable, being morally great is something else again.

I think what Jenni is talking about is that when someone makes a mistake or commits an evil act, they can still achieve moral perfection if from that point on they act in a way that is essentially virtuous and good. If they keep committing evil acts at every opportunity they will not achieve moral perfection, but that is hardly because they didn't have the chance to do so.

By virtuous and good (perfect?) do you mean he's achieved the good life for himself? So, while he's made mistakes, his life is good?

[Marc K.]

I think the proof that everyone has what it takes to be a great guitarist like Eddie Van Halen is the fact that Eddie did it. And how did he do it? He learned it and we all have the ability to learn.

There are many great guitarists, all with different size hands, some with missing fingers, some playing their guitar upside down. Just as there are many great basketball players of all different sizes. The one thing they all have in common is practice, practice, practice.

Jennifer, you had a beautifully written reply to this question in another thread. Something to the effect that anything that open to human volition or effort we are capable of mastering.?.? If you remember it you should just do a copy and paste.

[Thales]

I think the proof that everyone has what it takes to be a great guitarist like Eddie Van Halen is the fact that Eddie did it. And how did he do it? He learned it and we all have the ability to learn.

There are many great guitarists, all with different size hands, some with missing fingers, some playing their guitar upside down. Just as there are many great basketball players of all different sizes.

Going by the NBA, average height is very rare and not everyone can be a Beethoven or Mozart. There are some people with much higher natural musical abilities. Some people have perfect pitch, some people are better with relative pitch, etc. A lot with musical instrumentation is not so much the mechanics, but your conceptual grasp of the music and how it ought be played. The mechanics have to be worked on hard, but the ability to conceptualize the music I think is what makes a musician great. It's how you think about the music that's vital.

The one thing they all have in common is practice, practice, practice.

Well, to quote George Brett, "It's not practice makes perfect, it's perfect practice makes perfect." Your practicing has to be done right, otherwise you practice yourself into bad habits, and even then I don't think anyone can be great at anything they practice at. They can get better, almost certainly, and become good, almost certainly, but not necessarily great. And let's not forget those people who don't have to practice all that much and become very good. They exist too.

With baseball there are people with much better hand-eye coordination. I've seen it as a kid, when nobody has much of any experience, one kid can put the bat on the ball with little practice, while another has a harder time of it.

I don’t care how long and hard Jessica Alba works at it, she’ll never be able to bench press 500 lbs, she may never be able to bench 100 lbs. She doesn’t have to work too hard to be fun to look at, however.

Least you think otherwise, I do believe people should keep pushing and pushing to be everything they want to be. I believe in straining every fiber of your being to be as great as you can in the field of your dreams (a little baseball analogy). And, I do believe that most people don't know their full potential, and so they should investigate those unknowns and see where it leads them. That's most of what makes life fun and worth living.