Are Greatness and Popularity poles apart?

1. 68

   wittywitposted 10 years ago

   Are Greatness and Popularity poles apart?
   
   Is it really necessary that all great people be popular and everyone who's popular be Great enough.......

   replyreport
2. 73

   Abby Campbellposted 10 years ago

   Absolutely! Anyone can be popular whether it be through their career or personality. This is especially true now-a-days with the use of the internet. If someone knows what she is doing, she can promote the heck out of herself and seem popular to the masses. That doesn't make her great though! Greatness occurs when a person has other people's interests at heart, and not just herself. Greatness will reach out to people and help them in their time of need. Greatness will always do with gladness and a smile, even when one doesn't feel good. Greatness will turn their back (not return stupidity) on someone who is jealous and attacks. Greatness takes responsibilities for mistakes. Greatness does much with love.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      midget38posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Fully agreed!

      replyreport
3. 91

   MarleneBposted 10 years ago

   Yes. I believe greatness and popularity are poles apart. A person who is active in doing great things has greatness. On the other hand, a person can be popular without doing a thing. All it takes is for a lot of people to know a person for that person to be popular.
   
   I do believe that a popular person can become great and a great person can become popular. For example, when Oprah Winfrey first started her talk show, she was popular - not necessarily a person of greatness. But, through time, Oprah Winfrey became a popular person who achieved greatness through her spectacular and wonderfully great deeds. Also, look at Dr. Oz - he was a person of greatness - doing great things that many people knew and appreciated, but he was not popular until his television show. So, Dr. Oz is an example of a person of greatness who also became popular.
   
   Greatness and popularity are two distinct characteristics, however, extraordinary people can possess both characteristics.

   replyreport
4. 45

   Ericdierkerposted 10 years ago

   My live in (for too long) nephew asked me this. And I said that the journey is longer than us.
   A star shines but how long does it take to reach my eyes?

   replyreport
5. 81

   pstraubie48posted 10 years ago

   No I would not say that is necessarily so. It may be true in some cases but I do not think it can be said as a blanket statement.
   There are some lives who reflect greatness that have been very popular.
   It does not seem to me that there is a dichotomy between these two terms.
   if someone has established greatness, true greatness. they may become very popular along the way, And that is a good thing. This has happened a few times in our history in the political arena and in the religious arena as well.
   For some, having someone to admire, idolize to an extent is important. When a generation can produce someone who is truly deserving of praise and the label great  it can have a lasting positive effect on those who are influenced by that person.

   replyreport
6. 78

   cebutouristspotposted 10 years ago

   Yes.  I believe so being popular doesn't mean you are automatically be one of the greats and being great doesnt automatically means you are popular
   
   Both of this must be earned separately.

   replyreport
7. 90

   Doc Snowposted 10 years ago

   In my opinion, no.
   
   I think the two are linked, or associated, but not tightly.  That is, greatness--in the senses of excellence, depth, originality, substance--is often associated with greatness because (some) people do recognize these things, and are drawn by them and inspired by them.  Many of the canonical 'greats' of the past enjoyed considerable popularity--Shakespeare, Beethoven, Dickens and Picasso might be cited as examples.
   
   But popularity can also arise from shallower or ephemeral causes, sometimes.  (I'm not naming any names here!)
   
   And sometimes, a 'great' can be largely unknown or unrecognized during life--Van Gogh, geneticist Gregor Mendel and poet/artist William Blake could be cited.  This is often the case where an artist (or scientist, even) is in some way not in sympathy with the mainstream of the day in his or her field.
   
   Mendel, for instance, did a very tight and elegant quantitative study of the heritability of various characteristics of pea plants, whereas biology in his day tended to be more verbal, descriptive and all-encompassing.  The precision and discernment of his work was missed.  Blake, similarly, was 'wild' and 'rough'--to his contemporaries, even 'mad.'  His originality and transcendent vision were much more congenial to his Romantic successors than to his contemporaries; the most glowing recommendation they had to offer him was probably Fuseli's accolade that he was "damned good to steal from."
   
   In my opinion, a true mediocrity rarely gains the heights of popularity--or not for long, anyway.

   replyreport
8. 59

   NiaLeeposted 10 years ago

   Often, because what we know, assume or are served about things and people (appearances and package is often not a reality.

   replyreport