And how do you know that the responses of some of the big names in philosophy haven't been collected in one place? There's a vast amount of philosophical literature out there, and this may well have already been done. — Sapientia

I say that because I, for one, haven't come across such a text. Or if I have, the text excluded exactly the most important pieces of the puzzle - as if the writers of it haven't even read the philosophers themselves. So sure, it might exist, I just haven't come across it, and I've been interested in these problems for quite some time.

Most people know when they're not dreaming. I ain't dreaming right now. — Sapientia

How do you know that you're not dreaming? And most people don't know they're not dreaming, the question doesn't pop up into their heads in the first place.

I don't see that here, to this guy. You may have covered it some other place, but not here. I've covered it many times, pretty much rehashing what I've said in this thread, but that doesn't mean I'm an ass towards someone who brings a fair complaint. It is true, these answers are hard to find in philosophy, because they're all so scattered, as I have said, and not given the importance they deserve, so very few people know about their existence. But instead of using this thread to laugh at someone else's expense, why not pile it with arguments to the contrary? Maybe some of them will resonate with him/her.

Really some people, take Banno's comment, and even want to give it thumbs up. Is this for real? Like why should that deserve thumbs up? Is that a grand philosophical refutation or something? >:O Scoffing at those who disagree won't convince them otherwise. Neither will one-liners.

Oh yeah, why don't you start with some definitions ;)

All of your statements are arguably false. I'm not sure whether the weakest one is the one about dreaming or the one about other minds. I think that both are false. Not only are philosophers, like virtually everyone else, able to determine whether or not they're dreaming, it's actually easy. — Sapientia

Yeah, too bad that most of you don't ever tell anyone and explain why it is easy... :-}

I find this despicable. He's bringing a fairly reasonable quandary with philosophy - and he's seeking for answers. So give him the answers. The problem philosophy has is that it hasn't collected all those answers against skepticism in the same place. So you have some in Kierkegaard, some in Spinoza, some in Wittgenstein, some in Schopenhauer/Kant, some in Plato/Aristotle - they're all over the place. And most philosophers don't even know the fucking answers themselves, that's what's really shameful.

Some philosophy (perhaps most of modern one) has failed, but that doesn't mean that all philosophy has failed. And skepticism hasn't won at all.

- Philosophers are still unable to determine whether they're dreaming or not. — lambda

Yes they are, because they do know the origin of "to dream" and thus know its meaning. We get the meaning of dreaming from the experience of going to sleep, meeting with events and happenings which are somewhat disconnected from our daily life, and then waking up again to daily life. Hence, the meaning of "to dream" is tied to the context of daily life. Dreaming only exists IN RELATION to daily life. But if you cut this relation by saying that daily life is itself a dream, then dreaming itself doesn't make sense anymore - you have emptied it of meaning. If life is a dream, then you are also only dreaming that life is a dream - and thus your assertion is meaningless. As meaningless as dreaming that it is raining, while it is in fact raining - if you wake up at that point, you won't say "Oh I knew it was raining!", you'll say "I dreamed it is raining!"

- Philosophers still can't offer any reason to believe in the existence of other minds. — lambda

And can any reasons be offered for NOT believing in other minds? Is the mere logical possibility of something a reason to believe it? Absolutely not. Thus AT BEST for the Skeptic we ignore the question - we suspend judgement. At worst, we conclude it is more probable that there are other minds given the behaviour of all these other people which we don't control, and are not aware of at a distance. A priori you would expect, if there was only one mind - your mind - that you would be able to control a lot more aspects of reality than you currently do. Just like your mind can clearly control your body, so too you'd expect it to be able to control other people's behaviour as well. But it doesn't. Therefore, the scenario is unlikely. The behaviour shown indicates that other people are capable of intelligence - hence mind.

- Philosophers still can't offer any reason to believe in free will. — lambda

So? What's the big deal? You still feel yourself to be free no? That's what matters.

- Philosophers are still unable to provide a non-circular justification for the reliability of their cognitive faculties (senses, memory, reason, intuition, etc.) — lambda

Well what kind of justification would you expect? All justifications are within the framework created by the cognitive faculties. In fact, even the concept of reliability and unreliability comes from within this framework. Remove the framework, and you have removed the possibility for reliability or its opposite. For example - I only say that my eyes are unreliable, in relation to an experience when they were reliable. Truth is the standard for itself. For example, in normal conditions I see a stick as being straight. If I put it in water, I see it being Crooked - like Hillary. Therefore I conclude that in that particular situation - when the stick is in water - my eyes are deceiving me. But in relation to what are they deceiving me? In relation to me seeing the stick as straight when it's not in water. I take that experience as the standard of truth. Thus if I, like you, turn against my own cognitive framework, and start doubting it, then certainly I am also rendering the very act of doubting impossible - because the very act of doubt arises and exists only within and relative to that framework.

- Philosophers still can't offer any reason to believe in the existence of a mind-independent external world. — lambda

If the world wasn't "mind-independent" what difference would it make? I guess we'd expect to be able to control a lot more things - like when the sun rises, when it rains, etc. with the mere power of our thought. So the fact we can't control such things - that's all we mean when we say the world is mind-independent.

The scholasticism of the Middle Ages was nothing like university philosophy in the modern period. — Thorongil

Indeed - there was a remnant of the Greeks left in the Middle Ages, which almost vanished after Descartes - except for a few exceptions like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and their ilk. But then they were always on the outskirts of Academia.

How are you using the word "scholasticism?" Descartes is often considered to have brought the death of that particular school of philosophy. — Thorongil

Yes he did bring an end to the scholasticism of men like Aquinas, however, he took philosophy away from ethical concerns, and down into scholastic concerns. Thus philosophy became a field for academics, rather than for those interested in practice.

I don't believe this to be unintelligible, it's a matter of habituation. — Metaphysician Undercover

>:O Yeah sure labelling it a certain name surely makes it intelligible

I think it is contradictory to say that an act, decision, or believe, appears intelligent, if there is absolutely no discernible reason for that act. On what basis would you say that it is an intelligent choice? — Metaphysician Undercover

For example it leads to my spiritual well-being - but HOW it leads to my spiritual well-being remains mysterious. And I don't need to know HOW it leads to my spiritual well-being to know that it does.

Yes, that's exactly it. Kasparov is capable of deceiving the computer, the computer is not capable of deceiving Kasparov. — Metaphysician Undercover

No that's not the point. The point is that the computer behaves in an entirely intelligible manner, while Kasparov's mind doesn't. The real point is that the human mind is superior to the computer, not because it can out-calculate it, but precisely because it can't, and therefore finds a better way. It's unintelligible how the human mind skips the 99% of bad moves - without doing any calculation - and focuses on calculating just the 1% potentially useful moves. And yet, what the human mind does when it does this is intelligent - even though it appears foolish.

If there is nothing to make the act appear intelligent to you, then the act is not intelligible to you. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes it appears intelligent to me because I think it is good, even though I can't specify how it is good.

So any act which appears intelligent to you, must appear so for some reason, and by virtue of this reason the act is intelligible. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not really. For example, I believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead as specified in the New Testament, and yet I maintain that such an event is incomprehensible and entirely unintelligible to me. Yet it appears intelligent to me to believe in it because it resonates with my soul - there's no real rational reason for it.

This may certainly be true of religious sacraments. — John

Yes indeed. I have found this to be my relation to many of the Church rituals and practices.

Along with your examples, what is being described here is deception, acting intelligently in a way so as the actions appear unintelligible. — Metaphysician Undercover

Is this for real? Is this for example about deception:

Take another final example. Deep Blue is being perfectly intelligible against Kasparov. It checks every single move, and checks every single consequence and into the future. It checks millions of moves. But Kasparov obviously doesn't. His mind doesn't function by checking millions of possibilities. While it is true that skipping millions of possibilities is unintelligible because hey - there may be one which has great future benefits, and how can you know without thinking through it? - what Kasparov's mind does is that it automatically doesn't see 99% of possible moves, and instead focuses on the 1% which actually have a real chance of being winning moves. So here lies the whole thing - it's not about being intelligible - it's not about having the biggest brain. It's about knowing what to focus on. The computer doesn't know what moves to focus on, and thus seeks to check everything, even blatantly stupid moves it will check. This is the unintelligible - what Kasparov's mind does vs the intelligibility of the computer. What his mind does is unintelligible - you can't say HOW he eliminates those 99% worthless moves, and focuses on the 1% which has potential. And yet - it's not unintelligent - it is in fact VERY intelligent, and it is Deep Blue who is being stupid.

In fact, I find it fascinating the difference between how computers function and how human minds function. Computers have a very brute kind of intelligence. Even the more intelligent algorithms, they're not as capable as the human mind is in eliminating possibilities in a flash - they don't have insight. But the human mind follows principles. In chess for example, controlling the centre, developing your pieces, castling as soon as possible, etc. These are principles - dogmas. But the computer has no principles to follow - it's all math and calculation for it. But these dogmas, which seem unintelligible, actually are quite intelligent because they cut through the fluff right away. How is it that the human mind can develop such dogmas? And how does the mind form them? — Agustino

And, as I said, the intelligent act is inherently intelligible to the one who is acting or else it would not be an intelligent act. — Metaphysician Undercover

Explain this to me please. The act may be intelligent to me, but not also intelligible. For example, I don't understand how specifically it will help me, but yet I still believe it will, and hence it appears to be intelligent to me.

You describe the act as "intelligent". Therefore it is inherently intelligible — Metaphysician Undercover

How does this follow? Nietzsche and me are challenging precisely this - that something has to be intelligible in order to be intelligent. I disagree - it doesn't.

It is quite clear that what is at stake here is the issue of hiding your true motives from others, in your dealings with these people. Generally speaking (except in situations like I mentioned), this is morally reprehensible. — Metaphysician Undercover

This has nothing to do with hiding your true motives at all. I don't see how you'd draw that conclusion... In fact I do see how it follows. It follows only if we both accept the premise that what is intelligent must also be intelligible.

As I suspected - that is not how either of those words is normally defined, especially within philosophy. — aletheist

Intelligent doesn't have a special philosophical definition. Intelligible on the other hand you could claim has - it follows a logical structure. But even if that's the chosen definition - it's not always intelligent to follow a logical structure.

"intelligible" from "intelligent" — aletheist

Intelligible is something that makes sense according to the prevailing worldview/culture - in other words, an action that others can understand.
Intelligent is something that works - that gets the job done in a way that doesn't create future hidden costs.

winning is not always intelligent. — unenlightened

Sure - many people in fact lose because they win the wrong battles. That's what immorality consists in. Winning at the wrong time - that's acting immorally usually. Whenever you act in a way that contravenes morality, you are putting yourself up for a great future loss - for only a temporary and short-term victory.

Any time we act intelligently, but our actions are made to appear unintelligible, this is an act of deception. — Metaphysician Undercover

How is it deception? Why is it that an action is deceptive if it's not intelligible? It's deceptive only for the person who expects and demands that you act intelligibly, but to say so, is merely to assume that one should be the kind of logician Nietzsche criticises.

I agree. Your point is very similar to the point I'm driving here:

http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/819/the-unintelligible-is-not-necessarily-unintelligent

How would one know? — unenlightened

Ye shall know them by their fruits.

I don't see how the unintelligible can have any intelligible consequences. — unenlightened

Perhaps you meant INTELLIGENT, not intelligible. Take Donald Trump. His unintelligible actions had the intelligent consequence of winning him the Presidency. How did he outsmart all the pundits and managed what mostly no one would have thought possible? And think about it - all the big heads, with all the facts backing them up - they all lost, and the baboon who didn't give a shit about any facts won - why?

Take other examples. Someone falling prey to his cognitive biases may consistently perform action X better than someone who doesn't. Yet this seems befuddling and strange - indeed unintelligible. But acting unintelligibly isn't necessarily acting unintelligently. This raises a significant problem. We typically consider our actions, and plan our life whether in mundane affairs, or in more daring goals - at least in modern society - by attempting to be intelligible at all costs. But if what is unintelligible isn't necessarily unintelligent, then does it not follow that we are cutting ourselves off from options which may be intelligent? How must we change the way we operate in order to profit, rather than be harmed from unintelligibility?

Take another final example. Deep Blue is being perfectly intelligible against Kasparov. It checks every single move, and checks every single consequence and into the future. It checks millions of moves. But Kasparov obviously doesn't. His mind doesn't function by checking millions of possibilities. While it is true that skipping millions of possibilities is unintelligible because hey - there may be one which has great future benefits, and how can you know without thinking through it? - what Kasparov's mind does is that it automatically doesn't see 99% of possible moves, and instead focuses on the 1% which actually have a real chance of being winning moves. So here lies the whole thing - it's not about being intelligible - it's not about having the biggest brain. It's about knowing what to focus on. The computer doesn't know what moves to focus on, and thus seeks to check everything, even blatantly stupid moves it will check. This is the unintelligible - what Kasparov's mind does vs the intelligibility of the computer. What his mind does is unintelligible - you can't say HOW he eliminates those 99% worthless moves, and focuses on the 1% which has potential. And yet - it's not unintelligent - it is in fact VERY intelligent, and it is Deep Blue who is being stupid.

In fact, I find it fascinating the difference between how computers function and how human minds function. Computers have a very brute kind of intelligence. Even the more intelligent algorithms, they're not as capable as the human mind is in eliminating possibilities in a flash - they don't have insight. But the human mind follows principles. In chess for example, controlling the centre, developing your pieces, castling as soon as possible, etc. These are principles - dogmas. But the computer has no principles to follow - it's all math and calculation for it. But these dogmas, which seem unintelligible, actually are quite intelligent because they cut through the fluff right away. How is it that the human mind can develop such dogmas? And how does the mind form them?

Consider also you could add many other examples to the pile. Religion is in many regards unintelligible - is it also therefore unintelligent? I don't think so.

How about when it facilitates understanding? — aletheist

And is understanding itself not useful? Don't we become better people the more we understand?

Really? I can see no justification for such a conclusion whatsoever. — Barry Etheridge

When else is intelligibility useful?

I've read just Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy by Descartes.

My point is that Descartes took philosophy in absolutely the wrong direction, and many followed suite. And this isn't merely evil demons, doubting mathematical truths, skepticism, but also things like dualism, mind/body separation, homunculus in the brain and so forth. Again, I don't want to quibble over Descartes - it's really not important, that's not the topic of this thread. Descartes served merely as an example - merely as the representative figure for modern philosophy - he's not known as the Father of it for nothing is he?

Nietzsche disagreed with Plato/Socratic emphasis on the Apollonian, he thought we are comprised of both Apollonian and Dionysian forces, each forming the limit of the other and each necessarily present and equal in a healthy person. — Cavacava

Yeah, thanks for lecturing me on Nietzsche, I surely needed that :-}

Descartes is known for his coordinate system regardless of his other philosophical achievements. — Cavacava

Yeah, but apart from mathematics, and laying the foundation for science, and setting out the foundations of knowledge, what did Descartes ever do for us? — unenlightened

How about you guys stop bothering with mere examples and discuss what this thread is about? This thread isn't about Descartes, nor about his achievements or lack thereof. This thread is about discussing the idea that "the unintelligible is not necessarily unintelligent" and what consequences this idea has for philosophy.

Nietzsche said a lot of insightful things, despite his many other failings. Descartes had no insight apart from quibbling about evil demons and incoherent skepticism. He was purely concerned with the fictive as the source of his philosophy instead of the real.

I didn't say it was a good plan, (and Chomsky would probably agree). I guess it is like voting for the candidate you think has the best chance of winning instead of who you agree with ethically. — swstephe

Okay certainly, but that seems to be short-sighted and naive. One would expect politicians to have slightly bigger brains.

Chomsky says it is practically written in the US "playbook". Always back whoever looks like they are winning, so they are your ally afterwards. — swstephe

In real politics, what guarantees that the winner will be your ally if you back them? Once they have power in their hands, they could just as well turn on you if that's more profitable for them.

It is not 'globalisation' that is under attack, it is democracy. — Wayfarer

Democracy - that corrupt form of government that sentenced even Socrates to death? :D
As far as I'm concerned, I don't care about democracy at all. It has its advantages as a political system, but also severe limitations. As for which political system is best, that depends on circumstances, so I'm not attached to any. If democracy falls, what's the big deal? Have you staked your entire life on democracy?

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

His opponent was assumed to be corrupt. — Mongrel

No, she wasn't assumed - she actually was corrupt. Have you not been watching the news?

Not the most intelligent question ever asked — Mongrel

Clearly ;)

No when one of your companies declares bankruptcy then both you and your creditors have lost. It means that the company borrowed money, invested it in some assets, and those assets failed to bring in profits. To take credit you also need revenue so presumably a lot has gone bad in the company not just the deal you required money for.

And yes, this is actually the way it should be. Those goddamn bankers like enslaving people and playing a game where they simply can't lose - they very rarely have skin in the game. So this way, the bankers should know that if they FAIL to adequately advise you and try to help you, they will also lose, not just you. They will never get back the borrowed capital and interest

People don't become rich and powerful in order to help others let alone feel the need to do so for that purpose. Or, at least, the likelihood of that happening I so small that it can't be deemed a possibility which would sanction such a desire to acquire riches and power. — Ciceronianus the White

Then how would you suggest they go around helping people? Isn't social organisation - which takes both money and influence - the place where the greatest good can be done? I mean if that was properly done, we'd surely have a lot less troubles - both economic and social - than we do today.

Right. Right. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight :-O

>:O It's an expression. Of course you win some and you lose some but that's not all. Even your losses should merely be capital invested such that you will ultimately win the war. When a door closes, another one always opens, so keep your eyes open for it.

Regardless, my point is really that some people are losers - here's what I mean by that. Some people - for whatever reason - will give up on opportunities that come their way, or will throw away important opportunities. Why? Because they're too scared, because they're too lazy, because they're not interested and so forth. They are losers, because they throw away opportunities without playing them to their maximum capacity.

You have a Trump-complex. I'm just sayin' — Mongrel

His father taught him that there are two kinds of people in the world: losers and killers. — Mongrel

I thought he just told them there's winners and losers (which by the way is true). Regardless - what else did you expect? Do you expect the advice to be "Yes go ahead and be a weakling"? Strength does not mean lack of virtue as you seem to think. You can be strong - and still be virtuous. The Art of War for example advocates a path which is in accordance with the Dao - Daoism being a widespread religion in the times of the Warring States in China. Of course it advocates that you're sly, intelligent and don't allow yourself to be fooled. What else would you expect? Let me give you a clear example -

If Trump bought property which needed repairs before it could be sold, it's absolutely just and fair that he demands a fair price from his contractors, and uses psychological techniques - if he has to - to obtain that fair price. This can go as far as threatening to not pay, threatening to walk back on a deal, and so forth. That's normal - that's part of the game. If you don't bargain you'll get ripped off - you'll be gone. There's no immorality in bargaining and pushing hard. People all want to make an easy buck off you. Your job is always to make it hard for them to make an easy buck. Afterall, you yourself aren't making easy bucks.

But if you have no strength on the other hand, then you certainly WILL lack virtue too. I've met people for example, who are so weak, they always put their own family down, and allow their own family to be cheated because "they don't wanna have a hard time" - if you ask me, that's fucked up, that's immoral. They should be ashamed of themselves, that they fail to protect and care adequately for their loved ones because they're too scared of a little bit of conflict.

That's not a judgment anymore than noting that a hermit doesn't have a particularly balanced personality. — Mongrel

What's wrong with the hermit?

My diagnosis is that you defend him because you want to be him. — Mongrel

Okay, but if you attacked Da Vinci, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein and so on, I'd defend them too. Does that mean I want to be like them? Maybe - but only in the sense that there are things about them that I admire. As I said, I always admire greatness. But I found many other people - including you here it seems - who don't admire greatness. All my life I've admired greatness, wherever I could find it. I've never felt jealous of a successful person - I always admire them.

More than a touch, and you have a an unbalanced personality (like some presidents-elect). — Bitter Crank

Do you really think he has an unbalanced personality? >:O See, I would never identify someone like Trump as suffering of mental illness. I simply wouldn't think of that as psychopathic in any sense. So I find it entirely amazing that others folks find that to be mentally ill. Maybe you disagree with him - sure - but to say he's mentally ill seems very strange to me. Certainly doesn't look as what I imagine by mental illness.

They actually ask such exam questions? My God... What has the world come to!

Congratulations @csalisbury! (Y)

Yes the shame idea was indeed quite intriguing and good. However, you never took me up on it afterwards, but my inkling is that in some cases shame does and can lead to mental illness, but in others it may also be a stabilising force which prevents mental illness.

I think that for a Stoic there is nothing admirable about making money or possessing it; one should be indifferent to it in that sense. It isn't something to be desired or pursued, because normally we do so to acquire things, property, power and status, regarding which we should also be indifferent. Note that I'm not referring to need here. I'm not aware of any Stoic who was critical of doing what we must do to survive. But I think for a Stoic seeking money or property or possessing them has nothing to do with virtuous living and generally would be contrary to it. — Ciceronianus the White

But what if someone were to need money, status, power and so forth in order to be able to better help his society? After all, the service we can render to our society is limited by the resources we have on the one side, and by our will to do good on the other.

I completely disagree with you about geniuses. There are far more mediocrities who think they possess genius that there are geniuses who think they possess genius. I think it is far more likely that your average genius is totally absorbed in their passion for their work, and probably gives little thought to their being a genius. Great artists, poets and musicians don't really know that they are great; — John

That's not my experience with such people. Generally I've found that such people are usually quite arrogant and cold - some of them, a few from those I've had the chance to meet, are actually nice people, who have compassion for those lesser than them. But not that many. Not that I put it to them - I understand why they are the way they are. It's not easy being great.

So it's not that they think they're great, so much so that they simply act that way, without even thinking about it. As I said, they've integrated it into their self-model. The challenge is always to integrate it in the self-model without sacrificing compassion for those who aren't as great. I've always admired greatness of any kind, but as I said, that's me. Most people I know are quite jealous of it, and resent greatness, unless they directly stand to gain something from it, in which case they praise it to no end.

One has to explain why people aren't appreciating, or reacting favorably or positively to our words gestures and actions. Or why there is tension between oneself and others. — Wosret

Good, so have you explained to yourself why I responded the way I did to you? Have you taken the ques as they are, or have you rationalised them to save your world-model?

Alarm bells ring, but don't ask for whom the bell tolls; (it tolls for thee). — Bitter Crank

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Excellent piece of writing! It reminded me of it! Alas BC, the point I made seems to have been lost on Wosret - both normal and average and great have their own specific problems and challanges to face in relationship to life. This doesn't make one "better" morally speaking or "worse", they're just different. I respect normal and average people who are humble and don't resort to resentment and jealousy. I also respect great people who are compassionate and don't resort to arrogance and hardness of heart. I'm not being one-sided on this issue, as I am on the conservative-progressive debate for example. I freely admit I'm one-sided and biased there, always have.

Well, as Agustino says above, you have to think that you're a genius before you can actually be one. But this is just inviting people to make fun of you. — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh isn't that funny? Where have I actually said that? In fact, I've said quite the contrary, but people still think they've read what they want to have read instead of what I actually wrote ;) :

SEEING yourself as great is constitutive of greatness and one cannot be great NOT without thinking they're great, but without SEEING they're great. There's a difference. You can think whatever you want, but when I say seeing, then I mean that you feel yourself as great on a level that is there prior to thinking. Greatness is simply integrated into your self-model. — Agustino

Ironically, you spend a lot of the comment talking about what shit-ass idiots the average normal person must be, while sensually massaging the geniuses — Wosret

To be honest, I've only done that because your post suggested that great people are fucked up and the normal and average are better. That said, I think that great people can also have a very serious difficulty to face, just like normal and average people do. The difficulty for the normal and average is not to be jealous, not to be petty, etc. The difficulty for the great men is not to disconsider or treat as inferior or be overly harsh, demanding, uncaring and insensitive towards the normal and average. Not to treat them as expendable or less worthy. To be compassionate and caring towards them. That's difficult for the great men simply because of the hatred, fear and jealousy the average and normal exert towards the great.

So you're saying either that thinking oneself to be great is constitutive of greatness, or identical with it, or that one cannot be great without thinking that they're great — Wosret

SEEING yourself as great is constitutive of greatness and one cannot be great NOT without thinking they're great, but without SEEING they're great. There's a difference. You can think whatever you want, but when I say seeing, then I mean that you feel yourself as great on a level that is there prior to thinking. Greatness is simply integrated into your self-model.

A lot of people are of two kinds. Those that see themselves as just average normal people, and those that see themselves as great, and everyone else idiots for not realizing it. — Wosret

I don't see it this way. All great people see themselves as great - it simply cannot be otherwise, they would never be great if they don't first of all see themselves as great. To dare for example to study anatomy all by yourself - like Da Vinci - and achieve his knowledge - that requires very big balls. You must see yourself as a genius - if you don't, you won't even begin. And to be able to achieve anything, you must first of all make the first step. This obviously has nothing to do with how you see other people. It's quite petty to think that others are idiots for not realising you're a genius. If you think that, the truth is, you're the fucking idiot for failing to make them realise it.

Now there's the other kind of people. Those people, who see themselves as average and normal as you call them. They are apparently nicer folks than the genius, with the only difference that they are the ones who always get jealous, who always want what someone else has, who always complain - the genius is never jealous, never complains, never wants what others have. They are the ones who resort to small and petty lies to get something, they are the ones who willingly accept to be guards at concentration camps - THEY are the ones. Not the genius. Not the great man. The great man will never bow his head to evil, will never accept to serve immorality or bat for the devil. And the man who doesn't see himself as great, but likes to THINK of himself as great - he is a special kind of these "normal and average" people, whose sole concern is the fact that others don't see him as great. There's many of those. So many! More than you'd realise - and many aren't even aware they are like this. For them it's not about BEING great, but about being SEEN as great by others.