Perhaps it would be wise for us aspiring SF writers to familarize ourselves with a wide swath of these theories that address fundemental questions of what-is-space, time, matter, and conciousness. When all the ideas from known and speculated science are used and reused, it could be WhatIfs based on these sometimes outlandish ideas could gleen new playgrounds.

One of the stories that is insisting I write it is almost entirely an exploration of philosophy. So far the response from readers has been positive.

I have seen the following sentence twice now and it got me thinking. I will post my own opinion too but first I would like to know what you good people think.

'He is a good man, maybe even a great one.'

There are also completely different approaches you could take to the question.

1. Is he a great soul? Is he a Saint?
2. Does he accomplish great things? (Possibly terrible things?)
3. Does he make a great sacrifice? (Possibly without anyone else knowing about either the sacrifice or the result of it.)
4. Is he great in knowledge? (Yet doesn't do a darn bit of good for anyone?)
5. Is he great in skill?
6. Is the greatness "measured" in recognition?
7. Is greatness an accident of being in the right place at the right time to "save the king?" (Or to stop the enemy; to put the finger in the dike; to lead men into a battle that just happens to wind up being a turning point?)

Seven approaches, so far, and I think I could keep going for a while. I also think there are many variables to "measuring" the man, and once you get past 3 variables, the "measurement" becomes intractable.

I don't think you can make any pat definition, and I don't think you can find a formula--yet, in spite of all that mystery, we can look at greatness and know it to some degree. Of course, as long as it is *man* that we are speaking of, greatness will only be one side of any person's fallen and sinful character. (Unless, of course, the man is sinless and divine, like Jesus Christ.)

I will spend a few days contemplating on this question and present my answer when it comes to me.

You said:
"As long as it is man that we are speaking of, greatness will only be one side of any person's fallen and sinful character. Unless, of course, the man is sinless and divine, like Jesus Christ."

To put it in Orsonic terms, a great person has the knack to notice when events require greatness and the knack to marshall resources, however slim, towards a favorable outcome, and the desire to do so.

A good person has a moral compass (with tight fittings) that guides his selection of solutions to problems that might be effective, and, I suppose, the will to do so.

A good and great person has the additional knack for discerning when even convoluted events challenge the moral compass and once discerned, has a better chance of finding a solution that is effective, but filters the set of all possible methods by the moral compass (and therefore is more constrained than one who is "merely" great).

A normal person's knacks do not burn as brightly, so they are not as effective at finding viable solutions or knowing that such solutions are needed.

quote:

---

There is no way to tell greatness from goodness?

---

If you are speaking of particular behaviors, they are either categorically good, or they are not. "Greatness" is far less of a categorical concept--as far as I can tell, it is purely subjective. In this case, the answer is yes, we can (usually) tell whether things are good, or not, but no, we cannot categorically attribute greatness to something. (I'm still mulling over these thoughts about "greatness.")

If you are speaking of people, the only way to discern things like "goodness" or "greatness" is to know their hearts, and only God has that kind of knowledge, so the answer is no--there is no way to tell greatness from goodness in a particular person.

quote:

---

That doesn't sound pretty philosophical to me. The whole magic of philosophy is to take the thing apart without actually destroying it and to see in its heart.

---

I don't think that is anything close to what philosophy truly is. Philosophy is about understanding and discernment, but that does not at all mean that understanding necessarily comes from this deconstruction of something. There are many things that defy being taken apart, but that doesn't prevent philosophy from saying anything about them.

quote:

---

To see its essence.

---

Philosophy can help us see certain essential natures of certain things, but philosophy cannot do this on its own. We can only know these essences through previous knowledge that we subject to philosophical applications. Philosophy doesn't help us "see" it at all. It helps us to understand it.

quote:

---

I asked you what is the essence of goodness and/or greatness.

---

With respect, that isn't what you asked me. You asked me:

quote:

---

My question is: what separates an ordinary person from a good person, and a great person from the previous two?

---

That doesn't ask me what its essence is.

quote:

---

You gave me examples. It's like I would ask you to tell me how a disease works and you would tell me the symptoms.

---

The examples I gave you demonstrate the subjective nature of "greatness," and the need for more specificity if you want to discuss what makes something "great." As things stand, I don't really have the slightest idea what you mean when you use the words "great" or "greatness."

quote:

---

Yes, they are all true, but they are effect of the disease, not the cause.

---

They aren't symptoms at all. They are questions in diverse contexts within which the meaning can radically change.

quote:

---

I will spend a few days contemplating on this question and present my answer when it comes to me.

---

I would mostly like some clarification on what you mean when you say "great" or "greatness." We may be able to understand your intended focus a little better that way. Also, if there was something in particular in writing or literature that provoked these thoughts, it could be interesting to know what those were.

quote:

---

Must every person be fallen and sinful?

---

Orthodox Christian approach (applied to the real world): Yes and no. Every human being, with the exception of Jesus Christ and His mother Mary, is fallen and bears the effects of Original Sin. (All human beings are saved--removed from--Original Sin through the grace of Christ, except for Mary who was saved--prevented from falling into--Original Sin by the grace of Christ.) In the present time, however, the answer is definitely yes--all human beings are fallen and sinful. (This isn't an argument. This is simply a statement of the Orthodox view.)

Applying this to "what could be" is another matter. Is it possible--other than the special case of Mary--for someone to be born sinless and live sinless? Until they ate the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve were, in fact, sinless and lived sinless. So--even from an Orthodox view--it is conceptually possible.

Protestant Christian approach: Yes. Every human being except for Christ is fallen.

Atheist approach: No such thing as sin.

quote:

---

Must every sinless person be neccesary divine?

---

Mary is not a god; she is human. Adam and Eve were not gods before they sinned. So the answer is no.

quote:

---

Better yet: what is sin? How do you define sin?

---

Sin is an offense against God, who is all Good. So sin is also evil that goes against objective Good. But I am not necessarily "defining" it. I am simply articulating some things that we know about it. A definition is merely an approximation that points to meaning--it does not encapsulate the complete existential nature or essence of something.

Great has many connotations. A person could be great in terms of power and prominence, like Julius Caeser, or great at some talent or feat, like Mozart, or perhaps they shook the world with thier discoveries, like Einstein. But peel back the layers on someone like, say Julius Caeser, and you find a bloodthirsty conqueror not so different from Hitler. Is that greatness?