I would like to start by presenting my definition of fame. Fame is the condition in which strangers recognize your work or even your personality. As for how many people need to recognize you before you can be considered famous, I have no clue on what should the benchmark be. That is precisely one of the first issues I see with fame. Under what circumstances are you truly famous?
I have prepared a couple hypotheses that could explain fame:
1. Other famous individuals start interacting with you. Fame may very well be built and supported by a network of famous individuals. I support this hypothesis by stating that, since we can create realities, this conception does not seem to be exaggerated. Yet, this begs for the question: how was fame firstly created?
2. Fame is proportional to the size of the audience. Nobel prize winners are virtually unknown to the average individual, but are very well known by the Academia. Everyone listens to music, but not everyone reads about the producer theory for example. A question here is pertinent: How do you decide which famous individual is more famous and more important?
Aside from bringing recognizion to the individual, fame seems to enforce a role of leadership to those who have it. This is extremely dangerous. Not everyone is cut out to be a leader, no matter how famous you are. You may very well lead your followers to their demise. Why is it that fame burdens the individual with unwanted and unseeked responsabilities? Are fame and responsability two pieces of the same element, or can one be famous without the responsability?