If Kant or Van Gogh were to appear for the fist time today they would not likely be considered ( or consider themselves ) great because their creative content is now commonplace. — Joshs

You're just making random assertions. You're not arguing anything or engaging with the argument I made.

Let's take this in small steps. Do you think someone can sincerely try and do something that they at the same time believe - really believe - they will fail to succeed at?

et's take this in small steps. Do you think someone can sincerely try and do something that they at the same time believe - really believe - they will fail to succeed at? — Bartricks

Isnt the question what it is they think they are trying to do rather than whether they are succeeding at it? When we first create our own art or philosophy we don’t necessarily have a sense of how many others are out there doing something similar to us. What we know is that no one in our immediate vicinity is doing what we set out to do, so our initial motivation isn’t going to be ‘doing something great’ , it will be doing something that is unique relative to our immediate surroundings. Only later, by seeing how many others , if any, come out of the woodwork with a similar creative product, ca. we determine if what we have done is ‘great’, that is, absolutely unique in the world at that time.

Isnt the question what it is they think they are trying to do rather than whether they are succeeding at it? — Joshs

No. It's this:

Do you think someone can sincerely try and do something that they at the same time believe - really believe - they will fail to succeed at? — Bartricks

:up: I am agree with your points now. But, I would fix this phrase:

Thus, great thinkers and artists think they're great? — Bartricks

I would say artists think they are different from the rest but not greater. They are aware of doing original works, completely distinct from we are used to see. Whenever an artist ends a work I don't think he has in mind thoughts as "look how great I am" but the mind rest of finishing a work where he feels unique, personal, individual, etc...

Thinking of being great after finishing something could be a sense of arrogance...

I believe Bartricks wants to discuss the now very famous Dunning-Kruger effect.

I conjecture that if we take the y axis as how well one recognizes oneself and the x axis as one's competence, the plot of the data from the corresponding research should be an inverted parabola. Being incompetent, one doesn't realize one is so; at a certain level of competence, one manages to generate a fairly accurate self-report; at high competence, one again fails the mirror test so to speak.

Thinking of being great after finishing something could be a sense of arrogance... — javi2541997

First, you're thinking that brilliant people are also virtuous people. There's no necessary connection. Brilliant thinkers and artists think they're brilliant. Whether that is consistent with being virtuous or not is beside the point.

Second, how is one arrogant if one believes that oneself is brilliant on the basis of discerning it?

For example, when I believe that I am alive - despite everyone else thinking me dead - on the basis of discerning my own existence, am I guilty of arrogance? Surely not. I'm dismissing the views of others, but I am not being arrogant in doing that, for I have access to evidence that they do not have access to (and that I know they lack access to).

From the outside it may sometimes be hard, sometimes impossible, to distinguish between the arrogant and those who are just accurately perceiving their own greatness, but that does not mean that both parties are arrogant. No, one is arrogant and one is actually brilliant and aware of it. They may both appear the same to you, but there's a big difference between them.

When a doctor judges that the mole on your arm is probably cancerous, and that same doctor is dismissive of the judgements of your friends, who all judge the mole just to be a mole, is the doctor being arrogant?

No. Your friends may judge her to be. But really it is they who are manifesting arrogance in that context. The doctor knows what she's talking about. Your friends do not. Yet your friends arrogantly assume that their ignorant views count for the same as hers and thus that her dismissal of them manifests arrogance.

It doesn't. They're the arrogant ones. So, when Van Gogh judged his own works to be masterpieces and dismissed the views of those who judged them to be childish and silly, he was not being arrogant. For his works were indeed masterpieces and he was perceiving this quality in them.

If Kant or Van Gogh were to appear for the fist time today they would not likely be considered ( or consider themselves ) great because their creative content is now commonplace. — Joshs

Another ignorant assertion.

It doesn't even make sense. if Van Gogh didn't come into existence in 1853, then his art would not have come into being in the late 19th century and exerted the huge influence it did throughout the 20th century. And so his influence would yet to have made itself known, because it has yet to exist. Thus he could make it known by bringing it into existence.

Kant and Van Gogh thought they were brilliant. Kant wrote fast - ludicrously fast - precisely becuase he was worried he was going to die and wanted to get his ideas down for posterity. He was in no doubt about their importance. Likewise for Van Gogh. Van Gogh also worked insanely fast becasue he knew he was important and had an important contribution to make, but was also convinced he did not have much time and would be dead before 40. He was right about all of that.

Great people know they're great. And if Van Gogh turned up again today, he'd produce new masterpieces.

First, you're thinking that brilliant people are also virtuous people. There's no necessary connection. Brilliant thinkers and artists think they're brilliant. Whether that is consistent with being virtuous or not is beside the point — Bartricks

I am not thinking there is a connection between brilliant and virtuous. Both concepts are so opened to interpretation. It wasn't even my original thought in this debate.
Well, to be honest with you, (now that you referred to such concept) I personally think virtue is something we should take care of in terms of art. It is not indispensable to hold virtues to be brilliant, but at the same time not everyone is capable of painting or writing. So, those who are capable are at the same time, virtuous.

Second, how is one arrogant if one believes that oneself is brilliant on the basis of discerning it? — Bartricks

You didn't mention any basis in your previous arguments. You just said that: "if we think we are brilliant, we would be capable of doing good works. If we don't think positive about ourselves、we would never try anything"
I already said that I am (more or less) agree with your point: yes, it is necessary to believe we are doing something "great" to keep doing our goals and works. But thinking "I am great" no matter the circumstances could be a symptom of arrogance because there will be always people who would not like our works and we have to accept it.
Again, I still think that, paradoxically, the great masters never thought they were greater than the rest. We are the ones who classified them as "great".

When a doctor judges that the mole on your arm is probably cancerous, and that same doctor is dismissive of the judgements of your friends, who all judge the mole just to be a mole, is the doctor being arrogant? — Bartricks

The friends are the ones who are acting arrogantly here. The doctor is doing his job. (I guess we are both agree in this case)

So, when Van Gogh judged his own works to be masterpieces and dismissed the views of those who judged them to be childish and silly, he was not being arrogant. For his works were indeed masterpieces and he was perceiving this quality in them. — Bartricks

To be honest, I doubt Van Gogh ever judged his own works as "masterpieces". He thought he was doing different art from the rest and criticized those who didn't understand as childish because they weren't aware of such a good artist.
Nevertheless, this is not a good argument or conclusion in favour of Van Gogh. Art is an abstract interpretation. You are free to interpret it they way you want. I think is respectful to don't see Van Gogh as good as he (supposedly) seen himself.

If Kant or Van Gogh were to appear for the fist time today they would not likely be considered ( or consider themselves ) great because their creative content is now commonplace.
— Joshs

Another ignorant assertion.


if Van Gogh didn't come into existence in 1853, then his art would not have come into being in the late 19th century and exerted the huge influence it did throughout the 20th century. And so his influence would yet to have made itself known, because it has yet to exist. Thus he could make it known by bringing it into existence. — Bartricks

Art works dont emerge in a vacuum. They belong to larger artistic movements , which belong to even larger trends that unite the arts , literature , music and other creative fields. Impressionism , Romanticism , Renaissance, Symbolism, Realism, Mannerism, Mondernism, Surrealism and Dadaism are just some examples of movements that pertained to visual art as well as literature and other creative domains. Van Gogh’s paintings arose of of the milieu of impressionism and pointed the way to post-impressionist directions in art. If we think of the impressionist artists Mamet, Monet, Renoir, Seurat and Degas there is no question each of them had their own unique style and contribution to make to impressionism.

But in terms of the innovations involved, each of their work had more in common within each other than any of them had with , say, Renaissance art. The impressionists shocked the art world because of the movement they had in common that had never been seen before , the idea that color and texture interaffected such that supposed monochromatic objects actually were composed of every color on the spectrum. As a post-impressionist, Van Gogh was among the first to show how inner feeling shapes what and how we see the world.


But he was not only one to do this, he just did it in his own unique and brilliant way. But now the art world has fully assimilated the impressionist idea of the interpenetration of color and the post-impressionist idea of the influence of inner feeling on the look of things. These ideas are no longer new or in the least bit shocking. If a Van Gogh or Monet were to emerge today for the first time, they would be seen as belonging to larger artistic movements that are no longer fresh, even if their version of it is unique. The movement they would be recognized as creating within (impressionist or post-impressionist) would now be labeled ‘retro’; it would appear familiar due to the other artists of their era who established that movement. There are plenty of retro artists on the scene. How many of these do you think are ever considered ‘great’?

Great people know they're great. And if Van Gogh turned up again today, he'd produce new masterpieces — Bartricks

Let’s use Kant as another example. Kant has been widely read and many believe his ideas have been surpassed today. Most philosophers consider him old hat, and critiques of his work abound.
To think in strictly Kantian terms today is to be considered old-fashioned , a traditionalist or conservative. If Kant had not produced his writings in the late 18th century there would still have been a Romantic Idealist philosophical movement in Germany, because movements of thought are more than just individuals . Not every great thinker who came after him depended on his work directly. We still would have had the movements that followed his era and which put his kind of thinking into question.
As a result , if a Kant were to emerge today for the first time, his work would be recognized as belonging to an older era of thought which many in the field have surpassed. What made Kant great was that he was the originator of a movement, the fact that he was among the first to arrive at a new conception of philosophy. That movement , which included many others beside Kant , is no longer original, and so any ‘new’ contributions that adhere to it today are not likely to be considered great.

Was Frank Sinatra great? Many think so , but since the crooning style of popular music has been out of fashion for 60 years, a Sinatra emerging for the first time today is not likely to get much more notice than a Harry Connick, Jr.

You've gotten hold of some important ideas here in your OP. I'm much engaged by it. Very interesting and instructive.

...we do not typically do things we think we're going to fail at. Indeed, that might even by psychologically impossible. — Bartricks

Here you introduce what looks like your basic premise: we only embark on a serious mission to accomplish a goal when we think success possible.

In the case of greatness, however, the path to success is filled with difficulty so, in pursuit of establishing the truth of your premise, you introduce a big obstacle in order to tackle it.

...given that the odds that you're a great artist or great thinker are so vanishingly small, surely you are not justified in believing you're a great thinker? — Bartricks

Pressing on, you assert the graceful confidence of the seeker (after greatness). Buried here is the premise grace dissolves the insecurity that causes self-defeat.

...a great thinker will think they are a great thinker, for they will be confident that they can have great thoughts. That's step one of having any. — Bartricks

You then bolster this assertion by contrasting it with the counter-example.

...if you think you're not a great thinker then guess what - you're not. But if you think you are a great thinker then, though the odds are against it, there's a tiny possibility that you are. — Bartricks

The above is an argument for faith. It has some flavor of theism and some flavor of Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking.

Next you picture the epistemological manhole through which seekers are expected to fall en route to failure. It will be your job to argue that the grace of the authentic seeker will transcend them over the gaping abyss of the manhole that swallows non-believers.

So a great artist or great thinker seems inevitably to be guilty of epistemic irresponsibility, at least when it comes to their own abilities. — Bartricks

I do not believe the great are guilty of an epistemic vice, however. I think the great 'know' that they are great, rather than unjustifiably believe it. And I think this is the case despite the fact others will think they are not great and that the great thinker or artist will probably be aware that most people do not share their own assessment of their own abilities. — Bartricks

Above you state your mission: to show authentic seekers, through faith in themselves based on natural grace, escape the clutches of epistemic vice by "knowing" their greatness, believing in it and pursuing it to its natural conclusion: expression that brings new light to the masses of people.

First, if you believe something to be true that everyone else believes to be false - and that everyone else is justified in believing to be false, too - are you epistemically irresponsible for believing it? — Bartricks

Here's the main obstacle that you need to overcome: rationally justified belief, in this case, rationally justified belief that a seeker is not great.

Next you follow with a clincher argument borrowed from an unknown source.

Here's an example (not mine - don't know whose it is, but it isn't mine). Imagine your plane has crashed into the ocean and you have washed up on an unknown island. You know that rescue missions will have been launched to find you and your plane. And as you have now been on the island for months, you know by now that everyone else will now believe you are dead. Furthermore, it is clear that others are perfectly justified in believing this. Indeed, it'd be epistemically irresponsible of them not to believe it. Your plane crashed into the ocean and there's been no evidence of your survival for months - it is beyond a reasonable doubt that you're dead.

But you're not. And you know you're not. It'd be quite absurd, would it not, for you to conclude that you might actually be dead on the grounds that everyone else believes - and believes justifiably - that you're dead? — Bartricks

So, you know you're alive, even though everyone else is justified in believing you're dead (and you know this too). You're in no way being epistemically irresponsible in believing yourself to be alive. — Bartricks

...you have access to some evidence of your continued existence here that others do not possess. You are having your experiences. And so you can reliably infer your continued existence from those. But others can't, as they're not having them. — Bartricks

But this applies to the great artist and great thinker. Everyone else thinks the great thinker is not a great thinker. And they're probably justified in thinking this. They've considered what the great thinker thinks, and to the best of their judgement, it seems to them that the thoughts the great thinker is having are not that great at all - indeed, a lot of them don't really make much sense to them. So, in light of that, they are justified in believing the great thinker to be something else - a mediocre thinker or even a bad thinker. And the great thinker will be aware of this; aware that others think they're not a great thinker, and aware that they're probably justified in that assessment.

But the great thinker or artist has access to some evidence that others do not have access to. They are discerning, correctly, their own greatness. Others do not have access to this evidence, or at least most don't, for you'd need to be great or somewhere close to have such powers of discernment. But great people do have such powers, for it is by exercising [greatness of discernment] that they produce great art and great thoughts. And thus the great thinker and the great artist are not being epistemically irresponsible in believing themselves to be great. — Bartricks

I conclude, then, that great people 'know' that they are great and will typically know it a long time before anyone else does. — Bartricks

In the next-to-last paragraph above, you put what I've called some flavor of "faith" and "the power of positive thinking" onto a rational foundation by asserting authentic seekers possess not only great and original thoughts but also great judgment in identifying the greatness of those thoughts.

Do you think someone can sincerely try and do something that they at the same time believe - really believe - they will fail to succeed at? — Bartricks

With regard to the creator of a painting, a novel or a work of philosophy I think we have to break down the motivation into stages, not of simultaneous confidence and doubt( one only has one feeling at a time) , but of sequentially varying moods and beliefs , from confidence to doubt and back again.
A creative product doesn’t just land fully completed in the lap of a writer or artist, with a sign attached to it saying ‘great work’. A great idea often comes first as an inkling, an intuition, a feeling or impression It may surprise us, seeming to come as a muse from outside us, as if we channel something we do not control. Our first thought is that we like what we have conjured but we need to see if it is robust rather than a fluke. Were we
mistaken in believing we were onto something substantial?

Once we convince ourselves that our delicate kernel of an idea is worth pursuing further all sorts of self-doubts arise as to whether and how we will be able to elaborate on what we have begun, and whether it is worth elaborating. Some ideas remain at the drawing board stage permanently , some we abandon for years before getting back to them and finding a way to complete. We simply have no way of knowing ahead of time which of these possibilities lies in store for our new project. Only in retrospect , or at least a certain ways down the road, do we look at the mature or maturing work and recognize it as substantial.

Kant wrote fast - ludicrously fast - precisely becuase he was worried he was going to die and wanted to get his ideas down for posterity. He was in no doubt about their importance — Bartricks

That’s right, he was trying to make up for lost time. For all you know he was piecing together fragments of ideas he began earlier in his life that he originally abandoned in a mood of failure.

So the feeling of failure is a constant accompaniment for many creative people as they go through the process of creation. Whether their effort will end in failure or success they won’t know till its well on that way to completion. The feeling of confidence or failure for many is tentative and changes day to day in the creative
process.
Ernest Hemmingway said “There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and open up a vein.”

I am sure there are those authors who look back on earlier works of theirs and no longer consider them worthy, even consider them failures.A number of famous writers have committed suicide or drunk themselves to death, believing themselves to have been frauds.

You didn't mention any basis in your previous arguments. — javi2541997

Yes I did. It's in the OP. The great recognize their own greatness by discerning it. That's why they're not being epistemically irresponsible in believing themselves to be great, even when no-one else recognizes their greatness. (Just as, by analogy, I am not being epistemically irresponsible when I believe myself to be alive, even if everyone else believes - and believes justifiably - that I am dead).

There were two inter-related points I was making. First, the great will believe themselves to be great, for that seems to be required actually to be great. Second, the great will 'know' that they are great - not simply unjustifiably believe it - for their belief in their own greatness will be based on their having discerned it. So they have available to them evidence of their own greatness that others - most others, anyway - will not have access to.

That's also why they are not necessarily guilty of any arrogance just by virtue of believing themselves to be great. They are analogous to the doctor who believes that the mole is cancerous and is unfazed and dismissive of the fact all of your friends believe it to be benign. Their judgement about the mole is informed in a way that the judgement of your friends is not. Likewise, when a van gogh judges himself to be great, that judgement is that of an expert on greatness, a kind of expertise that very few others have. And thus when he was unfazed by and dismissive of those who thought his work incompetent, he was not thereby being arrogant.

Sometimes it is going to be hard, from outward behaviour alone, to distinguish between the arrogant and those with relevant expertise. The point, though, is that whether one is arrogant or not is not determined by other people's judgements about the matter. That the friends judge the doctor to be arrogant and themselves not to be, does not mean that the doctor is indeed the arrogant one.

Van Gogh believed himself to be a great artist and was very dismissive of the work of others, others who, at the time, were lauded as great. He was not thereby being arrogant. For he really was great and was discerning this, and the work of others really was rubbish, and he was discerning this as well.

To be honest, I doubt Van Gogh ever judged his own works as "masterpieces". — javi2541997

He did. Read his letters. He considered his first proper masterpiece to be the potato eaters. He fell out with his best and only friend at the time precisely because that person - also an artist, though a very inferior one - criticized it. Like I say, Van Gogh was acutely aware of the greatness of his own work (and acutely aware when a work fell short of meeting his own standards). When it came to those who did not perceive the greatness of his own work, he was condescendingly indifferent. It was only when those whose judgement he prized to some extent - that is, judgements of artists whose work he had some time for - expressed criticism that he would lose his shit.

I have made a philosophical case for the great being aware of their own greatness: to be great is to be able to recognize what is great - for how else would one go about producing great works or thoughts without exercising that ability? And to be great is to have done great things, which one could not do unless one attempted to do them - something that requires belief that one can do them.

But note too how psychologically implausible it is to suppose that these great artists were not confidently aware of their own brilliance. Van Gogh received almost nothing but criticism from others. Virtually nobody - save his brother (and even then, his brother was not overly enthusiastic about it until the final two years) and a clutch of other artists. To continue in the face of such a combination of indifference and outright hostility demonstrates the presence of an inner conviction that one is doing something important - that one knows that one is, despite not having any publicly verified evidence that one is.

Art works dont emerge in a vacuum. — Joshs

That is because the artist would suffocate.

Van Gogh’s paintings arose of of the milieu of impressionism and pointed the way to post-impressionist directions in art. If we think of the impressionist artists Mamet, Monet, Renoir, Seurat and Degas there is no question each of them had their own unique style and contribution to make to impressionism. — Joshs

IF you can't see that Van Gogh's paintings are brilliant outside of their historical context, then you have no eye.

How can a work of art be great if its greatness is always relative to some other work, either that produced at the time or earlier? You will be off on a regress and will have to conclude either that there are no great works at all and can never be, or that there is in reality an infinite number of works of art. Neither of those views is true, of course.

Although Van Gogh had a tremendous amount of knowledge of the history of art, he did not need that knowledge to know that the art he was producing was brilliant, or to produce brilliant work.

As a post-impressionist, Van Gogh was among the first to show how inner feeling shapes what and how we see the world. — Joshs

You are mistaking what might have contributed to making his works great, with their greatness itself. The greatness of a work of art is not reducible to the particular properties that make that work great. That is, to have produced something is not to 'be' it, and so those qualities in a van gogh that make it great are not what the greatness itself is. Another work that has the same qualities - that is, a work that is trying to capture the feelings a scene evokes could be utter rubbish.

If a Van Gogh or Monet were to emerge today for the first time, they would be seen as belonging to larger artistic movements that are no longer fresh, even if their version of it is unique. — Joshs

What's that got to do with anything? At the time of production, Van Gogh's works were considered unfiinished childish rubbish by virtually everyone. But they were not. By your lights they would be, given that you think that the fact they would cause similarly dismissive judgements if produced today is evidence that they would not be graet if produced today. Some people do not learn, it seems.

The sunflower flower series, if produced today, would be received with teh same indifference it was at the time. And it'd be just as great.

You can see this for yourself if, that is, you genuinely discern their greatness. For you can simply take a well illustrated history of art book, break its spine, and rearrange the paintings in it so that Van Gogh's works appear at a quite different point or distributed throughout. Now, the sunflowers will stand out as great works wherever they happen to turn up in this now random collection of reproductions. (The same will be true, I think, of the other great works contained in that work).

But even if that's not true and the greatness of a work of art is partly a function of the context in which it is produced, that does not affect anything I have argued in the OP. Everything said there remains true, or at least unchallenged.

At the time of production, Van Gogh's works were considered unfiinished childish rubbish by virtually everyone. But they were not. By your lights they would be, given that you think that the fact they would cause similarly dismissive judgements if produced today is evidence that they would not be graet if produced today. Some people do not learn, it seems.

The sunflower flower series, if produced today, would be received with teh same indifference it was at the time. And it'd be just as great — Bartricks

The difference between the indifference Van Gogh’s subjectivist art evoked in the late 19th century and the underwhelming response it would receive now is the difference between a phenomenon too radical for its time to be fully understood ( subjective expressivist painting) and that same phenomenon already well understood a century later. Contemporaries of Van Gogh couldn't grasp the new concept of subjectivism, so they likely saw his work as sloppy, immature, undisciplined, lacking in skill. Today, no discerning art critic would view a subjectivist style painting in those terms. They would instead recognize and appreciate all those elements which were missed by Van Gogh’s contemporaries. But today’s great artworks are the products not only of impressionism and subjectivism, but many artistic developments that have built upon these movements. A great art work indicates in its structure a consciousness by the artist of the sedimented history of art up through their time.
A Van gogh first appearing today would expose the artist as someone whose art fails to take into account what has been learned since the late 19th century in the history of art. That would make it of lesser interest to current critics and collectors than art which tips its hat to the sedimented history of 20th and 21at century art, and in so doing tells something about who we are today and how we have changed since the 19th and 20th centuries.

you can simply take a well illustrated history of art book, break its spine, and rearrange the paintings in it so that Van Gogh's works appear at a quite different point or distributed throughout. Now, the sunflowers will stand out as great works wherever they happen to turn up in this now random collection of reproductions. (The same will be true of the other great works contained in that work). — Bartricks

Every new phase in the history of Western art involved the discovery of a dimension of seeing that built on what came before ( the rendering of a proportionately accurate sculptural figure in Greece, mastery of light source and perspective in the Rennaisance, secularizing of narrative themes in Holland, discovery of nature as a system in Romantic painting. discovery of perceptual relarionality in Impressionism, discovery of Kantian categorical framing in abstract art, etc.). Once each of these insights were made( simultaneously painterly and philosophical), it became impossible to see the world without them, to simply go back to what had been done prior, without offering something boring and predictable in comparison with the daring of the new artistic discovery.
One could take any page randomly from a history of art book and appreciate it as beautiful , but to be considered great it would have to be seen as in some way conveying something new and innovative in the ways of thinking and valuing of the time in which it was produced.

There are plenty who think themselves great - Bart's first criteria - yet their greatness goes unnoticed amongst the hoi polloi, other critics, and in the end, by history.

Believing that one is great does not imply that one is indeed great.

Which serves to raise the issue, if your "greatness" is unrecognised, then by what criteria are you great? If at all?

My suspicion is that it will be difficult to identify a criteria that does not depend on public recognition.

I suspect you are right.

The difference between the indifference Van Gogh’s subjectivist art evoked in the late 19th century and the underwhelming response it would receive now is the difference between a phenomenon too radical for its time to be fully understood ( subjective expressivist painting) and that same phenomenon already well understood a century later. Contemporaries of Van Gogh couldn't grasp the new concept of subjectivism, so they likely saw his work as sloppy, immature, undisciplined, lacking in skill. Today, no discerning art critic would view a subjectivist style painting in those terms. They would instead recognize and appreciate all those elements which were missed by Van Gogh’s contemporaries. But today’s great artworks are the products not only of impressionism and subjectivism, but many artistic developments that have built upon these movements. A great art work indicates in its structure a consciousness by the artist of the sedimented history of art up through their time. — Joshs

That's very elegant.

What are the imaginable criteria for "greatness"? Influence within the genre? Widespread public recognition? Aesthetic quality? Profundity of thought or idea? Originality? It seems it's not so easy to establish a definitive marker for greatness.

Some have claimed that it is pointless to work at creative development without desiring recognition. That is an unwarranted claim. Some write in order to find out how they think, paint in order to find out how they see or play music for relaxation or as a form of meditation or to alter consciousness. Any of these pursuits may be undertaken simply for the love of self-development.

There were two inter-related points I was making. First, the great will believe themselves to be great, for that seems to be required actually to be great. Second, the great will 'know' that they are great - not simply unjustifiably believe it - for their belief in their own greatness will be based on their having discerned it. So they have available to them evidence of their own greatness that others - most others, anyway - will not have access to. — Bartricks

Understandable. But what I don't see is why you are using a logical premise system to describe the greatness of an artist. According to your analysis, it looks like that it is necessary to reach premise 1 and premise 2 to reach the greatness in a work.
Again, I still think your points are only the way you see them. There are other artists who don't think about themselves that they are "great" but nonetheless, they are amazing creators and most of the people recognised them.
So, the evidence in greatness is a complex cause. As I said previously, we are debating about abstract concepts such as art and literature. Whatever you think is great, it could be in the average for others. Just look at Picasso. There are a lot of people who really like his works, but in the other hand, others who just don't see his talent...

Where is the evidence of Picasso's greatness?
Picasso never thought he was great. He painted trying to change the rules of his period.
Each artist has their own specific context.

That's also why they are not necessarily guilty of any arrogance just by virtue of believing themselves to be great. They are analogous to the doctor who believes that the mole is cancerous and is unfazed and dismissive of the fact all of your friends believe it to be benign — Bartricks

No, I don't see any analogy here. The doctor is doing his job and putting in practice his knowledge after years of studying. Doctor gives me an analysis of the cancerous mole. He doesn't think about himself: I am great so I guess this mole is cancerous...
That's what every doctor does. It is his job and what is being paid for.
Sorry but I don't see a correlation between the practice of medicine and abstract practice as art or literature.

He did. Read his letters. He considered his first proper masterpiece to be the potato eaters. He fell out with his best and only friend at the time precisely because that person - also an artist, though a very inferior one - criticized it — Bartricks

What I said: arrogance.

I have made a philosophical case for the great being aware of their own greatness: to be great is to be able to recognize what is great - for how else would one go about producing great works or thoughts without exercising that ability? And to be great is to have done great things, which one could not do unless one attempted to do them - something that requires belief that one can do them. — Bartricks

But be able to recognise what is great we should define greatness in the first place and I don't think it is easy to find out a definition of such abstract concept.

What is the meaning of greatness Bartricks? Do you consider yourself as great?

Believing that one is great does not imply that one is indeed great.

Which serves to raise the issue, if your "greatness" is unrecognised, then by what criteria are you great? If at all? — Banno

:up:

Do you think someone can sincerely try and do something that they at the same time believe - really believe - they will fail to succeed at? — Bartricks

Yes, I do. Some people know that success often comes after many failures. Others have guts and determination. I've had far more failures than successes. Failures are wonderful to learn from, if one has such a mindset.

It's not a matter of "if" one will fail when trying something new or novel. It's a matter of how one handles such times of strife. That is when character is shown, despite the common belief that such times 'build character'.

...the great will believe themselves to be great, for that seems to be required actually to be great. Second, the great will 'know' that they are great - not simply unjustifiably believe it - for their belief in their own greatness will be based on their having discerned it. So they have available to them evidence of their own greatness that others - most others, anyway - will not have access to. — Bartricks

The above describes some important psychological traits of the winner. Self-confidence is bid as a ground of success, even to the highest levels of human achievement. The key to the above claim is its partnering of believing and knowing. The great believe they are great, and they know they are great.

The delicate balance between believing and knowing is the key to success regarding human endeavor.

It's kind of tricky because it's true that the great knowing they're great is not entirely justifiable. For this reason, the battle between knowledge of greatness and skepticism of greatness is so crucial to outcomes.

We humans can't succeed on the basis of our human power alone. We also need a higher power. The knowing part of success is what we know based upon our exercise of reason. The believing part of success is what is based upon what we receive by utilizing trans-rationality, better known as faith.

Trans-rationality is the thing that potentially empowers all human individuals to access and express greatness. Trans-rationality employed or not employed is the only difference between the great human individuals and the undistinguished human individuals.

Trans-rationality is the unseen window in the room without windows. For this reason, paradoxes should be embraced at the same time they're excluded.

Trans-rationality, the in-betweener, when utilized, establishes a bond between the human individual and the circumambient universe and, beyond that, the super-ordinate universe. Within the Christian faith, trans-rationality, the in-betweener, stands presently known as the Holy Ghost. Trans-rationality is partly reason and partly the unknowable known.

The unknowable known is hard for us to wrap our minds around because it entails more than mind. It entails more than reason. It entails more than perception.

Is the unknowable known perceived by the third eye? Perhaps.

The upshot is that greatness i.e., a going beyond the everyday is mostly but not entirely justifiable. This I say when justifiable means logically whole and internally consistent. Existence almost makes good sense, but not completely.

Jesus, with his departure to heaven at hand, gave comfort to his believers with a description of the Holy Ghost, a power that would keep them connected to Jesus, thus giving them comfort during his absence.

Trans-rationality unlocks the door to the doorless prison cell. Reason, essential though it be, becomes a prison when access to the realm that navigates a ghostly course between natural logic and what lies beyond it, for one reason or another, gets denied.