I think you dismiss knowledge-of way too quickly, or else mean something different from it than I usually do. If someone asked me if I know Kevin Bacon, I might say " I don't KNOW him, but I know OF him", meaning I am aware of his existence, I know that "Kevin Bacon is a thing" as people say, even if I may not know much ABOUT Kevin Bacon and haven't met him personally. That seems precisely what fame is about; many people know of famous things, they've heard of them, they're aware of their existence, or at least their nominal existence; fictional characters can still be famous, inasmuch as the untrue accounts of those characters are widely known-of, which solves the problem with Jesus as much as it solves the problem with, say, Darth Vader. Darth Vader is famous, many people know of him, in that they've heard of him and are aware that he "exists", as a fictional character ("...in those Star Trek movies or whatever I think?"), even if they know almost nothing about (the stories about) him.
Pfhorrest One problem though might be that there are famous people who you might not actually actually know with much surety to exist, like King Arthur. I doesn't seem like King Arthur's fame is conditional on whether or not he actually existed.
Actually this makes me think of a very simple clear-cut definition of fame: a thing is famous if its name signifies something to many people. The opposite of fame is when someone casually refers to someone or something by name and other people ask "who?" or "what is that?" because they don't have any referent for that name in mind. And that in turn highlights the "famous for being famous" phenomenon surrounding people like Kim Kardashian. I have almost no referent for that name in my head, other than as a name I have heard a lot. It's a name that I am familiar with as a name, but not as the name OF anything in particular. And apparently that's true of many people, which is how she ended up famous "for being famous".
Jonah that's exactly that I was talking about with Darth Vader etc. Wholly fictional characters widely known to be fictional can still be famous, because you've heard of them. "King Arthur" brings to mind some kind of referent, whether you think it's a real one or a fictional one, but you've heard of "King Arthur" either way.
Ahh it looks like I didn't see all of your comment at first--I'm on mobile so I probably just didn't notice the read more symbol--but yeah that might work well. Although characterizing "knowing about" famous figures as being aware that people have expectations, beliefs, stories about them (which I take to be how nominally knowing about a figure is supposed to work) seems like it might be equivalent to just knowing that a figure is famous. And if being famous is to be known for being famous, then we've ran into some circularity. But please let me know if I've misunderstood your points or missed something!!!
"Anonymous fame" is an interesting idea. Authors who use pseudonyms, their works are well known, but if they strolled around town, they wouldn't be recognized. Online gaming is an easier example. Having people you don't know contact you or think they know you because of your position within the community, but when you leave the community... you lose that fame.
In your point about recognition, you focus on being able to visually recognize. I see your point, but I feel like it leaves out all other avenues of recognition. I would not know Orson Welles by face, but I would definitely recognize him when I hear his voice. I would say that he is famous. Alternatively, there are people who are famous for whom I would hold no expectation, while their name I would still recognize. Within that segment, you list names of people with fame. I have to admit that I doubt I would recognize any of them on the street, and for at least a few, I do not know what expectations I would have for them. but I would say that I still recognize their names. Or maybe, does this imply different criteria for acquiring fame and for keeping it?
What about famous images, famous songs, famous ideas? We don't expect a painting to do anything rather then being a painting, how does it get famous then?
Vinicius Morais we might expect them to be better than they are. I remember this episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, where they saw the grand canyon and the expectation is, that it's supposed to be this big spiritual experience and erm, it's not.
@@celinak5062 I believe you're misremembering that episode. They never even make it to the canyon. Charlie bails on the idea and asks a hitchhiker to deliver the remaining group to the canyon, only for the hitchhiker to deposit them back at the bar and steal the car left in his charge. It is fair to say that expectations are not lived up to in that episode, though.
my favorite part in Infinite Jest talks about fame, how the reason we want to be famous because we look at famous folks and envy them and assume that there is some reciprocal feeling on the receiving side of envy, that as much as envy can be a fairly unpleasant feeling, the feeling of being envied must be nice in equal and opposite measure. this is what Wallace thinks is sort of the ultimate lie of fame
My interpretation of fame actually stems from one of your video series way back about names. I would consider George Orwell to be famous, but not Eric Blair. Additionally I would consider "Santa Claus" to be famous despite not being a real person. I consider "fame" to be the creation of a cultural identity that is separate from one's own personal identity, and the extent of that fame is how well that cultural identity is recognised.
Father Chirstmas is the universal spirit of giving with many different counterparts from different countries like the Christkind, Grandfather Frost Zwarte Peter.
I've always wanted to do a lot of creative things to be a modern day Renaissance man from Painting to Stand up, from making music to being a writer-director. *I've seemingly always had these ambitions* but never wanted the expectations, the Fame. I've never wanted to be a big fish in a small pond, I can see myself moving further from home, getting more industry friends but I want my work to speak for itself. I'd rather not be a name on a billboard because people have expectations & I don't think the expectations and reality could ever meet because it's like trying to know an actor judging by the Roles they play
I like your idea of expectation. It also explains infamy, or the opposite (in some sense) of fame. i.e., Hitler was famous, and infamous, because he acted in a much different sense than we expect a leader to act. Going further on that path, though, is someone/thing famous because of expectations, or are there expectations because of the fame?
5:50 now, the thing is I do recognise the _name_ and based on how attached fans can be to a pseudonym, there is certain things we expect to recognise with famous stuff, like for example a name in and of itself. Or a drawing style? idk where I was going with this. Isn't it enough that the name is famous.
Your reasoning for the claims in this video seemed... a little off, in a few places. First, you seem to define "knowledge-of" as familiarity, but why? Surely you can know of some thing's existence without further details - to know it exists is knowledge by itself, regardless of anything else. Unless I misunderstood your dismissal of knowledge-of, in which case I would be happy to have it further explained. Second, why is your criterion for recognition completely visual? That would suggest the core attribute of a person is his face. Aren't names, deeds, relations, opinions and others valid attributes as well? Can't you recognise someone as "the guy who did that thing"? And lastly, what expectations do you have of Jesus, Muhammad or fictional characters? Do you expect some further details to be discovered, or learned about by you? Also, I think it's a shame you talked about fame wholly in the context of people, without referring to famous works of art, sites, ideas, etc..
the definition of the word fame as expectation makes it applicable to most contexts in which it ends up being used. But it does not justify the popular connotation of the word fame as something desirable. And to justify that, I believe appreciative recognition is a fair enough definition of the word fame.
You may find this interesting. The answer it provides to your first question, to my delight, is Aristotle. pantheon.media.mit.edu/rankings/people/all/all/-4000/2010/H15
Really cool, but I would say religious figures are probably at a bit of a handicap there as it's not wikipedia where people go most often to read about them and it's not the arts and sciences where any specific religious figure had their largest impact :p
Will Mistretta I think you were ' first' if you care for such things. This rhyme certainly doesn't; _first's the worst, second's the same, last's the best of all the game._
but in most rural areas you, whoever you are, are expected to say hello and almost everybody expects you to do that so aren't we all famous by that definition? I don't intend to say or describe a better one I only wanted to point that out
Olly, I am a huge fan of your videos! I was wondering, is there any philosophy on our dreams? Perhaps even further, the interpretation of them? If so, I was hoping you could do a video or two about it! Thanks and keep up the great work!
Instead of linking fame to a particular person, I was wondering if events may be thought of in the terms Oliver described. Can you call an event famous? I'd assume so. If you were to asked to name three famous/infamous assassinations, elections, genocides or expeditions, I'm fairly confident many could provide responses off the cuff. Given the amount of popular command most folks have over big moments in history, what kind of knowledge might a person have about any particular event? From the example Oliver gave regarding knowledge "of", I figure unless one was at a particular event when it occurred, you would not have primary knowledge "of" the event. Knowledge "how" doesn't seem to make sense in for events either, so knowledge "that" would again be the only applicable type. Now we can ask how fame concerning events compares to fame concerning individuals. I think it's fairly obvious a famous event can also be negative or positive (Katrina vs the moon landing). But does the expectation theory hold true when applied to events? People don't seen to possess expectations of famous events like they do famous people. Any help on exploring this distinction would be welcome.
Expectations strike me as pretty essentially in the present/future which would raise problems with historical figures. I can't have any expectations for Queen Victoria, because she doesn't do anything anymore, but I think she'd still count as famous. Beliefs might work, as they're like knowledge but without the requirement of being true. And expectations tend to stem from beliefs, you expect someone to behave a way because of what kind of person you believe them to be.
Maybe we could think of "becoming famous" as a process by which a "icon" or "character" is created in the minds of a group, based on the actions and appearance of a real person. This widespread cognition can have the traits of the real person but isn't bound by the truth of that person it's based on. I think this model gives us enough flexibility to cover the way we talk about fame.
Jacques Ellul, I believe, wrote that celebrity is the opposite of what this society usually creates. That is, automatons, or the un-individuated person. So fame is when a person stands out from the crowd and doesn't follow technique, rather be a faceless cog in the machine. (he was a bit taken with sociology, so this is like the opposite of the Nietzschean way of thinking, for example. the celebrity is still just a piece in technological society)
I think in your dismissal of 'knowledge-of' is rested on a faulty assumption that the 'who' or the 'what' that the knowledge is of is some 'authentic' person that is only knowable, somehow immediately and unmediated by the concepts we have of them, in direct personal experience. Who is to say that this elusive in-itself is or should be identical to the idea that we as a culture have constructed for them, or in most cases, by Hollywood or media agencies. We 'know-of' this idea of them, the shared concepts *and* expectations, that is communicable across entire communities through a simple image-concept. Knowledge of one does not necessarily entail the other, and so we become surprised when we learn their connection with the other.
hmm i think this could be delved into way more. maybe a 2 part series? :) for example, how does one gain those expectations in order to become famous? who or what deems a person worthwhile enough to share with the masses in order to procure expectations for this thing that is about to become famous? i guess im just trying to say that nothing is famous from the moment they start existing. so im interested in the transition and formation of these expectations.... of a few individuals and later on to the masses..... also, we have expectation for the sun to rise again tomorrow. does that make the sun famous?
can we say famous is having your any kind of image in people's mind that leads them to consider you as being with quality. that way imaginary characters are also famous.
I would like to state the fame of not a person but rather of a product that is mostly known by mankind which is Coke which proves your theory or the mickey mouse face
I didn't read thru all the comments (I'm working my way through your video history) so someone else might have mentioned the line from Krull, where Torquil describes fame. Not philosophical, perhaps, but poetic. "Fame? Nah. It's an empty purse. Count it? Go broke. Eat it? Go hungry. Seek it, and go mad."
Very interesting video! It raises an also interesting equivalence. Whenever you substitute truth for plausibility, 'knowledge that' becomes fame. If you have a justified plausible belief about something, you're actually giving this something a specific fame. Because knowledge becomes expectation when truth is replaced with plausibility.
I would suggest taking more of a pragmatic approach towards language. It's not 'perfect' in the sense that it has blind spots and can sometimes cause confusion when used sloppily, but "it works...bitches!" to quote Richard Dawkins (referring to science). Language seems to evolve by a process similar to natural selection. There's a reason why we don't all have hawk-like eyesight, or dog-like hearing, or gorilla-like strength: because, although in some very specific situations these features might prove useful, they're simply not valuable enough to justify their existence. Of course in debates it's often useful to take an in-depth look at the precise meaning of relevant terms so that everyone knows exactly what they're talking about, and nobody can bluff their way through a discussion by modifying their definitions constantly like some sort of linguistic chameleon, but I don't see the use of analysing words such as "fame", which were never meant to be anything more than a vague description of a vague concept which most people loosely agree on. I really enjoy watching your videos BTW (even though I often write critical comments), so keep 'em coming.
A problem that crops up with using expectation to define fame: is Lady Di famous, or Lemmy Kilmister, or Steve Jobs, MLK, or Avicii? We can't exactly have expectations from the dead. They don't do anything from beyond the grave. These people _were_ famous, sure, but did that fame die the day they did?
On the 'expectations' point. (7:45 - 8:12) A nice example: The MSc degree of Rowan Atkinson was something i knew about, just not which one it was. I expected it was Electrical Engineering, based solely on the fact it showed up in your list of examples (before the reveal, that was 'a true example')
I like this video and I especially like the comment that "fame" is relative to socioeconomic standards. Although I don't think your definition of "fame" is entirely sound because having expectations of doesn't necessarily make someone "famous," however credibility (i.e. having expectations of) I agree is a building block of "fame." anecdotally i used to go to a starbucks where I joked I was "famous" because all of the workers knew me (and even had expectations of me) but i wasn't "famous" in anyway that popstars are "famous."
I disagree that ''fame" means that others have expectations of you. Because of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and socio-political contexts, many people have expectations of other people they don't 'know' (have never met before, have never heard of, etc.). For example, when many people meet me, a girl, they expect me to grow up and marry a man. (Whether that is true or not is up for debate).
Fame in the modern world is tautological, or as Daniel Boorstin wrote, "A celebrity is someone who is well-known for being well-known." The Kardashians, for example, trade fame for money, not vice versa.
Big fan here, but I do have to offer one criticism as a Spanish teacher. Che Guevara's name is pronounced as "they" but with a /ch/. (And if you're being super particular shorten the "y" at the end.) Love ya brotha. Keep up the hard work--it does not go unappreciated.
Is fame the same for living people as for dead and legendary people (who are also dead)? Dead famous people are not going to show up on the street anymore. Nobody can know of them anymore, except through records and stories told of them, which are poor substitutes. But living people live under their fame and impact it and experience it. I feel like there is a universal aspect of fame for loving and dead people but that once you’re dead, some great weight of fame is gone. Nobody is crushed under expectations anymore. But at the same time the public don’t need to know if you’re alive or dead, they have the same expectations either way; you WOULD be a certain way if they could meet you, when if that’s impossible now. Maybe fame is scarier when you’re dead; even in the undiscovered country people still have such expectations of you.
I don't know if the conflation of fame and infamy is entirely justified. I think I wouldn't actually say that, for instance, Stalin is famous, but rather that he is infamous, which at least in some sense appears to be completely the opposite. I think that in that sense the difference between being famous and being *well-known* is exactly that to be famous, you must be admired. This might turn out to be a minor linguistic quibble (just replace 'famous' with 'well-known'), but maybe some of the issues with other accounts stem from the conflation of being widely known and being famous.
I am not satisfied with the take on recognition. I do think being recognized by a lot of people is a metric of fame, insofar as, people are aware of the famous person. Meaning... recognition does not necessitate physical recognition, does it? Does recognition require recognizing a face? I propose that recognizing a name, such as Ghengis Khan is sufficient criteria using recognition as a metric of fame. So perhaps it could be better stated as awareness. The more people are aware of your name, appearance, deeds the more famous you are. Similarly, what expectations would I have of Amelia Airheart is she showed up today? None really... I might just say hello and move on. Expectation seems to be more of a measure of others and their response to fame. Someone aware of Amelia Airheart might expect her to be in a flight suit or wearing goggles. Another might expect her to be forceful and willful (aka Amy Adams portrayal in Night at the Museum 2). Yet others may not have any preconceived expectations... but they are all aware of her.
did you call tessa violet "teresa"?! sorry, just made me laugh at the risk of over-simplifying greatly, i would say that fame is just recognition, but not necessarily recognising the face, just like if you say the name of, idk, ariana grande, and i'm like "yeah, i know that's a person who exists". that's fame to me. i don't think i have any particular expectations about what she's like - i've probably heard her music on the radio or something but never knowingly, i couldn't name any of her songs or tell you anything at all about her as a person, but i know she's a person who exists and that other people consider her worth thinking about. also - do you think fictional characters can be famous? or does your definition only apply to real people?
Why does recognition have to pertain to how people look? You can also recognise their voice, name or something they did/is attributed to them. If I say "the guy with the tongue and the math" a lot of people will probably recognise who I'm talking about even with that very minimalist (and kinda bad lol) desciption.
I wouldn't say that's an accurate description of why Jesus is famous. Either he is known for doing those things (by believers who do claim knowledge that he did them), or he is known for having all those stories written about him. I think if you look at it in the context of what a person is famous For, it then falls under the knowledge that definition. That being said, I think the idea of fame being based on expectations is completely valid as well. They don't really have to be mutually exclusive either, since many of those expectations are based on what a person is known for (ie how people used to think Hannah Hart was an alcoholic because of her My Drunk Kitchen series). In terms of height, for example, I think you might be a similar case to Conan O'Brien. You're both best known for single subject camera shots where we have nothing to judge your heights against (in his case adding in the shots where he's interviewing but sitting in a different chair from the guests on a raised platform behind a desk, so being equally unhelpful in this regard). With Conan we can make another distinction as well, because we do see him stand next to other people once in a while, but those instances aren't what we know him best for, so most people who see him in person still remark on him being taller than they'd expected. We can also see from his case that his biggest fans probably have a good idea of his actual height, but that can be explained both by their expectations simply being more accurate and by them knowing him for a wider variety of things. The two concepts seem like they could be looking at the same idea from different points of view.
Essentially, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that fame means being the subject of a story or stories that people have knowledge of. That way you get around the problem of actually having to know a person intimately, as stories can be either factual or fictional. So people can be famous/infamous for something they never did, e.g. Marie Antoinette and her supposed suggestion of having the people eat cake. Or did you mean something else with expectations? Anyway, I thought expectation to be an odd way of phrasing it, because it seems to be a little strange to have expectations of the dead, just from the use of language.
Somebody once said, "A celebrity is a person who is well-known for his well-knownness." I think it was Mark Twain or George Bernard Shaw, but I'm not sure.
Dolph Lundgren is a chemist and has various degrees he sort of defies expectation you would think that the blonde guy from Rocky 2 who fights Rocky in the movie is simply an actor portraying a boxer but the dude is a fucking chemist😂
It seems that using expectations as basis for fame would rule out "famous" dead people. If "expectation" is some belief about the future, there's nothing (reasonable) to expect from Henry Ford or Friedrich Nietzsche but for their corpse to rot someplace in the future (it would be absurd for using "rotting" as an expectation for fame, cause this would mean that every people who ever lived are "famous" as they are expected to rot). Well, there are different ways for the body to be preserved or decompose, but the point about expectations not for "famous" dead people still stands.
I think your use of the word recognition is too narrow. One can not only recognize looks, but also names, sounds, stories and other things. Julius Ceasar isn't famous for his looks. He's famous for being a roman emperor. If you went around and asked "Who was the roman emperor largely responsible for the end of the roman republic who got stabbed by Brutus and a bunch of other guys?", a lot of people would reconise Caesar in that, so he's famous.
Fame is just the fact that alot of people know something, the more they know about it, the more famous it is. Of course it happens in a context though, a "famous" philosopher like Heidegger might be known by name and ideas among philosophy nerds, but not by the general public.
My personal theory regarding fame- The Jerry Springer effect, people will trade anything to be famous, including money, time, self respect even friends or family. I imagine there is a biological imperative that explains the desire for people to strive for notoriety. The more people know about you the more/ better mates that will be available. Even being famous for something awful somehow increases the chances of meeting a mate.
I somehow don't get surprised (even slightly) when I found out that some famous people do/did things very different from what they are famous for. Yeah, it's a fun fact, but not really surprising to me .
Isn't expectations upon people reducible to recognition of their roles? I'm not expecting Che to always plan for proletarian internationalism or Earhart to always be flying, but I recognize strong aviatrixes and revolutionaries and the people are interchangeable.
I can't help but thinking that every time philosophy attempts to define a loaded term like "fame" it tries to find a common feature among various things that are described by that work (in this case, fame). But I don't see why it isn't possible all of those "things" don't actually share a common feature and that our use of language in describing those things under the same word isn't actually hinting at the existence of a common feature.
I dressage, i think the best way of explaining fame is way that can be set in the context of both people, things, ideas etc. Your expectations work great for people, but too me it seams a bit hacky, and also hard to explain fame of things other than people. What i think is a better explanation is simply "that many people have the knowledge-that something exists". This can be applied to things and ideas too, like for example an idea or ideology, like communism, being famous.
About people nowadays having more limited fields for being knowledgeable, I think this is because now we have much more to know in each field than a Greek philosopher had in all fields combined.
Knowledge-that is the first step, expectations are formed from the gaps in the knowledge-that. I know that you exist, I know that you make content I enjoy, but I have expectations based on that and other things I can’t be certain are true. But that’s to an extent always true I can be sure beyond reasonable doubt that a lot of things are true but probably the majority of things I think I know are things that I expect to be true.
Pretty sure his comments about Che are completely wrong: I may just be taking the comments of the authors of The Dictators Handbook too seriously, but I think they're right that had Che stayed in Cuba after Castro got into power, then Castro would have seen him as a competitor and culled him as he did to so many other key supporters during the revolution. Che was sent abroad to promote Castro and die.
i feel like the expectation thing can fit into other forms of.. fame isn't the right word, but, how do i say it. like.. if someone works in a physics lab or is a teacher, is also a sex worker, they can often really worry about being seen and figured out, because that's a combination people don't expect, and will try to punish, precisely because they believe that these expectations must be related, so obviously that person must be bringing sex into the situation.
I was wondering what about people who become posthumously famous? They never had anyone have expectations of them. Could it then be that fame is more of a social image based off a selfhood that bears resemblance to its orginator but has a life of its own? In fact enough to maybe severly detach the identity of the individual (say the possible actual individual that Jesus Christ is based on) from the public image of the individual over time. Maybe its better to say fame is a attribution and (usually positive) misattribution of characteristics many of which lead to expectations because we assume that that person has the ability and resources to see those expectations through(whether they do or not doesnt necessarily hurt their fame status)??
I don't think it's as much having expectations as having an idea of a person-it's not that we expect them to be something, we think we know they are something, made out of facts and assumptions. So fame would be a large amount of people having an idea of you. (it might not be the exact same idea, but it would have to have some common ground)
There is also the phenomenon of the cult of personality that has come to symbolise the postmodern era. Walter Benjamin talks about how the cult of the movie star artificially creates a "phony spell of personality" through the movie industry in order to compensate for the "shrivelling of the aura" in an age of mechanical reproduction.
I have one query. Is it abuse if the person being abused don't consider it to be abused. Like people say wearing hijab is oppressive towards woman but if woman say she is fine with it, should consider her a free willing person or under influence of culture norms to realize that it is abuse.
Why does knowledge necessarily have to be true? Does knowledge necessarily have to entail some relationship with the outside world, or could it be simply a statement about the mind of the knower?
Couldn't by recognition we mean familarity of the name? People may have heard the name of famous people but have no idea what they did. Also if we have no idea of who they are except for their name could we really have specific expectations of them?
I think another good definition of fame is that if someone occupys the public mind. So that communist guy occupies the mind of the public because his photo is so popular. and Amelia Airhart occupies the public mind because of her occomplishemnts in aviation. What I'm saying is that to be famous the person has to occupy the minds of many people in some way. So I think it doesn't matter what the expectations of famous people are. what matters is that the famous person has found some way to occupy the minds of the masses.
But what about Harry Potter, or Santa Claus, are they famous? They don't exists, but a lot of people know of the associations we make with them, all from their name to where they live etc.
A created archetype or character in an "continuing historical narrative" maybe? I see famous people as the role that they are acting of. Maybe this creates expectation from those who know of their fame, or role they play(ed) in society.
I think the reason why you don't see a lot of people who are extraordinarily good at more than one thing is that society tends to try to force us to go down only one path and, those of us who have skill at multiple things, either have to choose one of them or, like me, get lost adrift in interests that pull us in multiple directions but get us nowhere. I also think that prejudice plays a bigger role in the lives of people who are good at more than one thing. White males are more likely to be able to explore all of their interests, whereas women are more like to be considered flighty or indecisive if we find that we are good at more than one thing. For me, the worst part is that I just can't decide between my talents and I also have some disabilities that limit how much I actually can do. Society hasn't helped at all, either, because they want a person to promote themselves to an annoying degree in order to get anywhere in the world. Of all the things I'm good at, I'm terrible at self-promotion.
If you were to expect someone to do a certain thing, wouldn't you need a certain level of knowledge to do so? If so, wouldn't this mean that knowledge-of at least plays a part in fame. You can't expect me to do something because you don't know me. Furthermore, my teachers would be somewhat expectant of me to get certain grades, but does that mean I'm famous. I don't think you touch on who should be expectant in order to be famous. Is it societal expectation or is fame relative to the individual?
I would think the expectations argument would have similar ways of judging to the knowledge arguments in that it would depend largely on the number of people who have expectations, but wouldn't necessarily be proportional to the knowledge arguments in taking into account the size of the expectations and the surety that people have in them compared to the amount of knowledge that those things are based on. Expectations would certainly require some amount of "knowledge-that" about a person, but he's not claiming that knowledge is unnecessary, only that it's not the best metric. In terms of who it's relative to I'd say it's definitely relative to whatever group you're looking for it in. Richard Ayoade is definitely more famous in the UK than in North America, Prince Charles is by far more famous than Prime Minister Trudeau globally, and if you're only looking at Calgary's relatively tiny rave scene then DJs Double D and Eradik are way more famous than at least half of the bands on the Billboard Top 100.
I still hope that Serena Williams is Banksy.
I think if you included the recognition of one's name as well as one's image, then recognition works well a criteria for fame.
Everyone knows that fame is defined by the existence a Wikipedia page about you. Der! ;P
Good point!
I think you dismiss knowledge-of way too quickly, or else mean something different from it than I usually do. If someone asked me if I know Kevin Bacon, I might say " I don't KNOW him, but I know OF him", meaning I am aware of his existence, I know that "Kevin Bacon is a thing" as people say, even if I may not know much ABOUT Kevin Bacon and haven't met him personally. That seems precisely what fame is about; many people know of famous things, they've heard of them, they're aware of their existence, or at least their nominal existence; fictional characters can still be famous, inasmuch as the untrue accounts of those characters are widely known-of, which solves the problem with Jesus as much as it solves the problem with, say, Darth Vader. Darth Vader is famous, many people know of him, in that they've heard of him and are aware that he "exists", as a fictional character ("...in those Star Trek movies or whatever I think?"), even if they know almost nothing about (the stories about) him.
Pfhorrest One problem though might be that there are famous people who you might not actually actually know with much surety to exist, like King Arthur. I doesn't seem like King Arthur's fame is conditional on whether or not he actually existed.
Actually this makes me think of a very simple clear-cut definition of fame: a thing is famous if its name signifies something to many people.
The opposite of fame is when someone casually refers to someone or something by name and other people ask "who?" or "what is that?" because they don't have any referent for that name in mind.
And that in turn highlights the "famous for being famous" phenomenon surrounding people like Kim Kardashian. I have almost no referent for that name in my head, other than as a name I have heard a lot. It's a name that I am familiar with as a name, but not as the name OF anything in particular. And apparently that's true of many people, which is how she ended up famous "for being famous".
Jonah that's exactly that I was talking about with Darth Vader etc. Wholly fictional characters widely known to be fictional can still be famous, because you've heard of them. "King Arthur" brings to mind some kind of referent, whether you think it's a real one or a fictional one, but you've heard of "King Arthur" either way.
Pfhorrest Or even if you know someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows Kevin Bacon...
Ahh it looks like I didn't see all of your comment at first--I'm on mobile so I probably just didn't notice the read more symbol--but yeah that might work well. Although characterizing "knowing about" famous figures as being aware that people have expectations, beliefs, stories about them (which I take to be how nominally knowing about a figure is supposed to work) seems like it might be equivalent to just knowing that a figure is famous. And if being famous is to be known for being famous, then we've ran into some circularity.
But please let me know if I've misunderstood your points or missed something!!!
I know how to Owen Wilson! Borrow money from Wilson, and until its paid back you're owen' wilson😋
This is the best comment. Thank you
"Anonymous fame" is an interesting idea. Authors who use pseudonyms, their works are well known, but if they strolled around town, they wouldn't be recognized. Online gaming is an easier example. Having people you don't know contact you or think they know you because of your position within the community, but when you leave the community... you lose that fame.
"I don't know how to Owen Wilson"
Simple just say WOW for every word of your life
This comment section is basically a classroom discussion, I love it.
In your point about recognition, you focus on being able to visually recognize. I see your point, but I feel like it leaves out all other avenues of recognition.
I would not know Orson Welles by face, but I would definitely recognize him when I hear his voice. I would say that he is famous.
Alternatively, there are people who are famous for whom I would hold no expectation, while their name I would still recognize.
Within that segment, you list names of people with fame. I have to admit that I doubt I would recognize any of them on the street, and for at least a few, I do not know what expectations I would have for them. but I would say that I still recognize their names.
Or maybe, does this imply different criteria for acquiring fame and for keeping it?
What about famous images, famous songs, famous ideas? We don't expect a painting to do anything rather then being a painting, how does it get famous then?
One might say that we have expectations on how we are to perceive/experience the painting. Or, to say it colloquially: We expect it to be 'good'.
So the expectation in this case, is about the influence caused by the famous thing then? That actually answer it, thanks.
Vinicius Morais we might expect them to be better than they are.
I remember this episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, where they saw the grand canyon and the expectation is, that it's supposed to be this big spiritual experience and erm, it's not.
@@celinak5062 I believe you're misremembering that episode. They never even make it to the canyon. Charlie bails on the idea and asks a hitchhiker to deliver the remaining group to the canyon, only for the hitchhiker to deposit them back at the bar and steal the car left in his charge. It is fair to say that expectations are not lived up to in that episode, though.
my favorite part in Infinite Jest talks about fame, how the reason we want to be famous because we look at famous folks and envy them and assume that there is some reciprocal feeling on the receiving side of envy, that as much as envy can be a fairly unpleasant feeling, the feeling of being envied must be nice in equal and opposite measure. this is what Wallace thinks is sort of the ultimate lie of fame
what about Poe and Galileo and Van Goh all became famous after they died
And we have expectations about how their lives were, how their works were, etc.
sometimes people are not realised worthwile until their gone
My interpretation of fame actually stems from one of your video series way back about names. I would consider George Orwell to be famous, but not Eric Blair. Additionally I would consider "Santa Claus" to be famous despite not being a real person. I consider "fame" to be the creation of a cultural identity that is separate from one's own personal identity, and the extent of that fame is how well that cultural identity is recognised.
Father Chirstmas is the universal spirit of giving with many different counterparts from different countries like the Christkind, Grandfather Frost Zwarte Peter.
Hmm... That would make them different cultural identities with their own fame then.
it depends on the level of awareness
I've always wanted to do a lot of creative things to be a modern day Renaissance man from Painting to Stand up, from making music to being a writer-director. *I've seemingly always had these ambitions* but never wanted the expectations, the Fame. I've never wanted to be a big fish in a small pond, I can see myself moving further from home, getting more industry friends but I want my work to speak for itself. I'd rather not be a name on a billboard because people have expectations & I don't think the expectations and reality could ever meet because it's like trying to know an actor judging by the Roles they play
I like your idea of expectation. It also explains infamy, or the opposite (in some sense) of fame. i.e., Hitler was famous, and infamous, because he acted in a much different sense than we expect a leader to act.
Going further on that path, though, is someone/thing famous because of expectations, or are there expectations because of the fame?
5:50 now, the thing is I do recognise the _name_ and based on how attached fans can be to a pseudonym, there is certain things we expect to recognise with famous stuff, like for example a name in and of itself.
Or a drawing style? idk where I was going with this. Isn't it enough that the name is famous.
Your reasoning for the claims in this video seemed... a little off, in a few places.
First, you seem to define "knowledge-of" as familiarity, but why? Surely you can know of some thing's existence without further details - to know it exists is knowledge by itself, regardless of anything else. Unless I misunderstood your dismissal of knowledge-of, in which case I would be happy to have it further explained.
Second, why is your criterion for recognition completely visual? That would suggest the core attribute of a person is his face. Aren't names, deeds, relations, opinions and others valid attributes as well? Can't you recognise someone as "the guy who did that thing"?
And lastly, what expectations do you have of Jesus, Muhammad or fictional characters? Do you expect some further details to be discovered, or learned about by you?
Also, I think it's a shame you talked about fame wholly in the context of people, without referring to famous works of art, sites, ideas, etc..
the definition of the word fame as expectation makes it applicable to most contexts in which it ends up being used. But it does not justify the popular connotation of the word fame as something desirable. And to justify that, I believe appreciative recognition is a fair enough definition of the word fame.
The Compiler +
You may find this interesting. The answer it provides to your first question, to my delight, is Aristotle.
pantheon.media.mit.edu/rankings/people/all/all/-4000/2010/H15
Paul Kennedy +
Really cool, but I would say religious figures are probably at a bit of a handicap there as it's not wikipedia where people go most often to read about them and it's not the arts and sciences where any specific religious figure had their largest impact :p
Talking about Rowan Atkinson having an electrical engineering degree reminds me of how in real life Dolph Lundgren is a chemical engineer.
I've never considered the word "expectation" to be used yup define fame but it really works.
Lao Tzu and other Taoists also have a lot to say about the true sage not wishing to stand out.
Will Mistretta I think you were ' first' if you care for such things.
This rhyme certainly doesn't; _first's the worst, second's the same, last's the best of all the game._
but in most rural areas you, whoever you are, are expected to say hello and almost everybody expects you to do that so aren't we all famous by that definition?
I don't intend to say or describe a better one I only wanted to point that out
Olly, I am a huge fan of your videos! I was wondering, is there any philosophy on our dreams? Perhaps even further, the interpretation of them? If so, I was hoping you could do a video or two about it! Thanks and keep up the great work!
Instead of linking fame to a particular person, I was wondering if events may be thought of in the terms Oliver described. Can you call an event famous? I'd assume so. If you were to asked to name three famous/infamous assassinations, elections, genocides or expeditions, I'm fairly confident many could provide responses off the cuff. Given the amount of popular command most folks have over big moments in history, what kind of knowledge might a person have about any particular event? From the example Oliver gave regarding knowledge "of", I figure unless one was at a particular event when it occurred, you would not have primary knowledge "of" the event. Knowledge "how" doesn't seem to make sense in for events either, so knowledge "that" would again be the only applicable type.
Now we can ask how fame concerning events compares to fame concerning individuals. I think it's fairly obvious a famous event can also be negative or positive (Katrina vs the moon landing). But does the expectation theory hold true when applied to events? People don't seen to possess expectations of famous events like they do famous people. Any help on exploring this distinction would be welcome.
The height thing happens t a lot of youtubers, it has something to do with the way youtubers film themselves.
you could argue that Julius Caesar and that chap are not quite famous but their names are thats why you wouldn't recognize em on the street
Expectations strike me as pretty essentially in the present/future which would raise problems with historical figures. I can't have any expectations for Queen Victoria, because she doesn't do anything anymore, but I think she'd still count as famous.
Beliefs might work, as they're like knowledge but without the requirement of being true. And expectations tend to stem from beliefs, you expect someone to behave a way because of what kind of person you believe them to be.
Maybe we could think of "becoming famous" as a process by which a "icon" or "character" is created in the minds of a group, based on the actions and appearance of a real person. This widespread cognition can have the traits of the real person but isn't bound by the truth of that person it's based on. I think this model gives us enough flexibility to cover the way we talk about fame.
Jacques Ellul, I believe, wrote that celebrity is the opposite of what this society usually creates. That is, automatons, or the un-individuated person. So fame is when a person stands out from the crowd and doesn't follow technique, rather be a faceless cog in the machine. (he was a bit taken with sociology, so this is like the opposite of the Nietzschean way of thinking, for example. the celebrity is still just a piece in technological society)
I know of jesus,
I know that jesus is real,
I know how to do jesus.
I Jesus every sunday
from behind, I imagine
No you don't.
I think in your dismissal of 'knowledge-of' is rested on a faulty assumption that the 'who' or the 'what' that the knowledge is of is some 'authentic' person that is only knowable, somehow immediately and unmediated by the concepts we have of them, in direct personal experience. Who is to say that this elusive in-itself is or should be identical to the idea that we as a culture have constructed for them, or in most cases, by Hollywood or media agencies. We 'know-of' this idea of them, the shared concepts *and* expectations, that is communicable across entire communities through a simple image-concept. Knowledge of one does not necessarily entail the other, and so we become surprised when we learn their connection with the other.
hmm i think this could be delved into way more. maybe a 2 part series? :)
for example, how does one gain those expectations in order to become famous? who or what deems a person worthwhile enough to share with the masses in order to procure expectations for this thing that is about to become famous?
i guess im just trying to say that nothing is famous from the moment they start existing. so im interested in the transition and formation of these expectations.... of a few individuals and later on to the masses.....
also, we have expectation for the sun to rise again tomorrow. does that make the sun famous?
Yes, I believe it does make the sun famous. Also, I am pretty sure that (almost) everyone recognizes (the existence of) the sun.
Awh thanks for the mention in this on, I've been thinking about this one a lot recently ^_^
For one to know about Fame, one must study the meme that lies beyond...
Imagine if you found out...that Brian May (the guitarist of Queen) is actually an astrophysicist.
I wonder how the criteria of expectations works for the deceased??
Exactly the same way. You probably won't meet most famous people so the expectations are about what they would do/be (or would have done/been)
judging by how the catholic church treated relics of the corpse of jesus, exactly the same
@@TaylorjAdams same comment ;^)
can we say famous is having your any kind of image in people's mind that leads them to consider you as being with quality.
that way imaginary characters are also famous.
Serena Williams is Banksy ? Makes sense.
I would like to state the fame of not a person but rather of a product that is mostly known by mankind which is Coke which proves your theory or the mickey mouse face
I didn't read thru all the comments (I'm working my way through your video history) so someone else might have mentioned the line from Krull, where Torquil describes fame. Not philosophical, perhaps, but poetic.
"Fame? Nah. It's an empty purse. Count it? Go broke. Eat it? Go hungry. Seek it, and go mad."
Very interesting video!
It raises an also interesting equivalence. Whenever you substitute truth for plausibility, 'knowledge that' becomes fame.
If you have a justified plausible belief about something, you're actually giving this something a specific fame.
Because knowledge becomes expectation when truth is replaced with plausibility.
Pretty good video, Olly :)
Would you consider making a series on Kripke's Naming and Necessity's core concepts?
I would suggest taking more of a pragmatic approach towards language. It's not 'perfect' in the sense that it has blind spots and can sometimes cause confusion when used sloppily, but "it works...bitches!" to quote Richard Dawkins (referring to science). Language seems to evolve by a process similar to natural selection. There's a reason why we don't all have hawk-like eyesight, or dog-like hearing, or gorilla-like strength: because, although in some very specific situations these features might prove useful, they're simply not valuable enough to justify their existence.
Of course in debates it's often useful to take an in-depth look at the precise meaning of relevant terms so that everyone knows exactly what they're talking about, and nobody can bluff their way through a discussion by modifying their definitions constantly like some sort of linguistic chameleon, but I don't see the use of analysing words such as "fame", which were never meant to be anything more than a vague description of a vague concept which most people loosely agree on.
I really enjoy watching your videos BTW (even though I often write critical comments), so keep 'em coming.
A problem that crops up with using expectation to define fame: is Lady Di famous, or Lemmy Kilmister, or Steve Jobs, MLK, or Avicii? We can't exactly have expectations from the dead. They don't do anything from beyond the grave. These people _were_ famous, sure, but did that fame die the day they did?
You should speak about the philosophy of love
On the 'expectations' point. (7:45 - 8:12)
A nice example:
The MSc degree of Rowan Atkinson was something i knew about, just not which one it was.
I expected it was Electrical Engineering, based solely on the fact it showed up in your list of examples (before the reveal, that was 'a true example')
I like this video and I especially like the comment that "fame" is relative to socioeconomic standards. Although I don't think your definition of "fame" is entirely sound because having expectations of doesn't necessarily make someone "famous," however credibility (i.e. having expectations of) I agree is a building block of "fame."
anecdotally i used to go to a starbucks where I joked I was "famous" because all of the workers knew me (and even had expectations of me) but i wasn't "famous" in anyway that popstars are "famous."
I disagree that ''fame" means that others have expectations of you. Because of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and socio-political contexts, many people have expectations of other people they don't 'know' (have never met before, have never heard of, etc.). For example, when many people meet me, a girl, they expect me to grow up and marry a man. (Whether that is true or not is up for debate).
Fame in the modern world is tautological, or as Daniel Boorstin wrote, "A celebrity is someone who is well-known for being well-known." The Kardashians, for example, trade fame for money, not vice versa.
Big fan here, but I do have to offer one criticism as a Spanish teacher. Che Guevara's name is pronounced as "they" but with a /ch/. (And if you're being super particular shorten the "y" at the end.) Love ya brotha. Keep up the hard work--it does not go unappreciated.
Is fame the same for living people as for dead and legendary people (who are also dead)?
Dead famous people are not going to show up on the street anymore. Nobody can know of them anymore, except through records and stories told of them, which are poor substitutes.
But living people live under their fame and impact it and experience it. I feel like there is a universal aspect of fame for loving and dead people but that once you’re dead, some great weight of fame is gone. Nobody is crushed under expectations anymore. But at the same time the public don’t need to know if you’re alive or dead, they have the same expectations either way; you WOULD be a certain way if they could meet you, when if that’s impossible now. Maybe fame is scarier when you’re dead; even in the undiscovered country people still have such expectations of you.
I don't know if the conflation of fame and infamy is entirely justified. I think I wouldn't actually say that, for instance, Stalin is famous, but rather that he is infamous, which at least in some sense appears to be completely the opposite. I think that in that sense the difference between being famous and being *well-known* is exactly that to be famous, you must be admired. This might turn out to be a minor linguistic quibble (just replace 'famous' with 'well-known'), but maybe some of the issues with other accounts stem from the conflation of being widely known and being famous.
I am not satisfied with the take on recognition. I do think being recognized by a lot of people is a metric of fame, insofar as, people are aware of the famous person.
Meaning... recognition does not necessitate physical recognition, does it? Does recognition require recognizing a face? I propose that recognizing a name, such as Ghengis Khan is sufficient criteria using recognition as a metric of fame. So perhaps it could be better stated as awareness. The more people are aware of your name, appearance, deeds the more famous you are.
Similarly, what expectations would I have of Amelia Airheart is she showed up today? None really... I might just say hello and move on.
Expectation seems to be more of a measure of others and their response to fame. Someone aware of Amelia Airheart might expect her to be in a flight suit or wearing goggles. Another might expect her to be forceful and willful (aka Amy Adams portrayal in Night at the Museum 2). Yet others may not have any preconceived expectations... but they are all aware of her.
did you call tessa violet "teresa"?! sorry, just made me laugh
at the risk of over-simplifying greatly, i would say that fame is just recognition, but not necessarily recognising the face, just like if you say the name of, idk, ariana grande, and i'm like "yeah, i know that's a person who exists". that's fame to me. i don't think i have any particular expectations about what she's like - i've probably heard her music on the radio or something but never knowingly, i couldn't name any of her songs or tell you anything at all about her as a person, but i know she's a person who exists and that other people consider her worth thinking about.
also - do you think fictional characters can be famous? or does your definition only apply to real people?
Why does recognition have to pertain to how people look? You can also recognise their voice, name or something they did/is attributed to them. If I say "the guy with the tongue and the math" a lot of people will probably recognise who I'm talking about even with that very minimalist (and kinda bad lol) desciption.
I wouldn't say that's an accurate description of why Jesus is famous. Either he is known for doing those things (by believers who do claim knowledge that he did them), or he is known for having all those stories written about him. I think if you look at it in the context of what a person is famous For, it then falls under the knowledge that definition. That being said, I think the idea of fame being based on expectations is completely valid as well. They don't really have to be mutually exclusive either, since many of those expectations are based on what a person is known for (ie how people used to think Hannah Hart was an alcoholic because of her My Drunk Kitchen series).
In terms of height, for example, I think you might be a similar case to Conan O'Brien. You're both best known for single subject camera shots where we have nothing to judge your heights against (in his case adding in the shots where he's interviewing but sitting in a different chair from the guests on a raised platform behind a desk, so being equally unhelpful in this regard). With Conan we can make another distinction as well, because we do see him stand next to other people once in a while, but those instances aren't what we know him best for, so most people who see him in person still remark on him being taller than they'd expected. We can also see from his case that his biggest fans probably have a good idea of his actual height, but that can be explained both by their expectations simply being more accurate and by them knowing him for a wider variety of things. The two concepts seem like they could be looking at the same idea from different points of view.
Essentially, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that fame means being the subject of a story or stories that people have knowledge of. That way you get around the problem of actually having to know a person intimately, as stories can be either factual or fictional. So people can be famous/infamous for something they never did, e.g. Marie Antoinette and her supposed suggestion of having the people eat cake. Or did you mean something else with expectations? Anyway, I thought expectation to be an odd way of phrasing it, because it seems to be a little strange to have expectations of the dead, just from the use of language.
Somebody once said, "A celebrity is a person who is well-known for his well-knownness." I think it was Mark Twain or George Bernard Shaw, but I'm not sure.
Dolph Lundgren is a chemist and has various degrees he sort of defies expectation you would think that the blonde guy from Rocky 2 who fights Rocky in the movie is simply an actor portraying a boxer but the dude is a fucking chemist😂
It seems that using expectations as basis for fame would rule out "famous" dead people. If "expectation" is some belief about the future, there's nothing (reasonable) to expect from Henry Ford or Friedrich Nietzsche but for their corpse to rot someplace in the future (it would be absurd for using "rotting" as an expectation for fame, cause this would mean that every people who ever lived are "famous" as they are expected to rot). Well, there are different ways for the body to be preserved or decompose, but the point about expectations not for "famous" dead people still stands.
I think your use of the word recognition is too narrow. One can not only recognize looks, but also names, sounds, stories and other things.
Julius Ceasar isn't famous for his looks. He's famous for being a roman emperor. If you went around and asked "Who was the roman emperor largely responsible for the end of the roman republic who got stabbed by Brutus and a bunch of other guys?", a lot of people would reconise Caesar in that, so he's famous.
Fame is just the fact that alot of people know something, the more they know about it, the more famous it is.
Of course it happens in a context though, a "famous" philosopher like Heidegger might be known by name and ideas among philosophy nerds, but not by the general public.
“Say the line Bart”
Feels like that episode of the simpsons was onto something.
I have watched a LOT of your videos, this is the only one where it seems like you're providing your own philosophy rather than teaching others'.
So good amazing, I like the expectation theory, but then, every one is famous then, because we all have expectations right
My personal theory regarding fame- The Jerry Springer effect, people will trade anything to be famous, including money, time, self respect even friends or family. I imagine there is a biological imperative that explains the desire for people to strive for notoriety. The more people know about you the more/ better mates that will be available. Even being famous for something awful somehow increases the chances of meeting a mate.
"Hitler is very famous, but not so many people admire him"
*Glances at 2022 kanye west*
Yeah
I somehow don't get surprised (even slightly) when I found out that some famous people do/did things very different from what they are famous for. Yeah, it's a fun fact, but not really surprising to me .
Isn't expectations upon people reducible to recognition of their roles? I'm not expecting Che to always plan for proletarian internationalism or Earhart to always be flying, but I recognize strong aviatrixes and revolutionaries and the people are interchangeable.
I can't help but thinking that every time philosophy attempts to define a loaded term like "fame" it tries to find a common feature among various things that are described by that work (in this case, fame). But I don't see why it isn't possible all of those "things" don't actually share a common feature and that our use of language in describing those things under the same word isn't actually hinting at the existence of a common feature.
I dressage, i think the best way of explaining fame is way that can be set in the context of both people, things, ideas etc. Your expectations work great for people, but too me it seams a bit hacky, and also hard to explain fame of things other than people. What i think is a better explanation is simply "that many people have the knowledge-that something exists". This can be applied to things and ideas too, like for example an idea or ideology, like communism, being famous.
About people nowadays having more limited fields for being knowledgeable, I think this is because now we have much more to know in each field than a Greek philosopher had in all fields combined.
Knowledge-that is the first step, expectations are formed from the gaps in the knowledge-that. I know that you exist, I know that you make content I enjoy, but I have expectations based on that and other things I can’t be certain are true. But that’s to an extent always true I can be sure beyond reasonable doubt that a lot of things are true but probably the majority of things I think I know are things that I expect to be true.
Pretty sure his comments about Che are completely wrong: I may just be taking the comments of the authors of The Dictators Handbook too seriously, but I think they're right that had Che stayed in Cuba after Castro got into power, then Castro would have seen him as a competitor and culled him as he did to so many other key supporters during the revolution. Che was sent abroad to promote Castro and die.
i feel like the expectation thing can fit into other forms of.. fame isn't the right word, but, how do i say it. like.. if someone works in a physics lab or is a teacher, is also a sex worker, they can often really worry about being seen and figured out, because that's a combination people don't expect, and will try to punish, precisely because they believe that these expectations must be related, so obviously that person must be bringing sex into the situation.
I was wondering what about people who become posthumously famous? They never had anyone have expectations of them. Could it then be that fame is more of a social image based off a selfhood that bears resemblance to its orginator but has a life of its own? In fact enough to maybe severly detach the identity of the individual (say the possible actual individual that Jesus Christ is based on) from the public image of the individual over time. Maybe its better to say fame is a attribution and (usually positive) misattribution of characteristics many of which lead to expectations because we assume that that person has the ability and resources to see those expectations through(whether they do or not doesnt necessarily hurt their fame status)??
I don't think it's as much having expectations as having an idea of a person-it's not that we expect them to be something, we think we know they are something, made out of facts and assumptions. So fame would be a large amount of people having an idea of you. (it might not be the exact same idea, but it would have to have some common ground)
There is also the phenomenon of the cult of personality that has come to symbolise the postmodern era. Walter Benjamin talks about how the cult of the movie star artificially creates a "phony spell of personality" through the movie industry in order to compensate for the "shrivelling of the aura" in an age of mechanical reproduction.
I have one query. Is it abuse if the person being abused don't consider it to be abused. Like people say wearing hijab is oppressive towards woman but if woman say she is fine with it, should consider her a free willing person or under influence of culture norms to realize that it is abuse.
But what about the Spanish Inquisition? It's famous but no one expects it! ;)
Also, Donald Glover might be considered a modern day polymath. He's an actor, a comedian and a musician!
I'd put Elon Musk on the list, too.
Why does knowledge necessarily have to be true? Does knowledge necessarily have to entail some relationship with the outside world, or could it be simply a statement about the mind of the knower?
Couldn't by recognition we mean familarity of the name? People may have heard the name of famous people but have no idea what they did. Also if we have no idea of who they are except for their name could we really have specific expectations of them?
I think another good definition of fame is that if someone occupys the public mind. So that communist guy occupies the mind of the public because his photo is so popular. and Amelia Airhart occupies the public mind because of her occomplishemnts in aviation. What I'm saying is that to be famous the person has to occupy the minds of many people in some way. So I think it doesn't matter what the expectations of famous people are. what matters is that the famous person has found some way to occupy the minds of the masses.
But what about Harry Potter, or Santa Claus, are they famous? They don't exists, but a lot of people know of the associations we make with them, all from their name to where they live etc.
A created archetype or character in an "continuing historical narrative" maybe? I see famous people as the role that they are acting of. Maybe this creates expectation from those who know of their fame, or role they play(ed) in society.
I think the reason why you don't see a lot of people who are extraordinarily good at more than one thing is that society tends to try to force us to go down only one path and, those of us who have skill at multiple things, either have to choose one of them or, like me, get lost adrift in interests that pull us in multiple directions but get us nowhere. I also think that prejudice plays a bigger role in the lives of people who are good at more than one thing. White males are more likely to be able to explore all of their interests, whereas women are more like to be considered flighty or indecisive if we find that we are good at more than one thing. For me, the worst part is that I just can't decide between my talents and I also have some disabilities that limit how much I actually can do. Society hasn't helped at all, either, because they want a person to promote themselves to an annoying degree in order to get anywhere in the world. Of all the things I'm good at, I'm terrible at self-promotion.
A perfect example of this is actually Brian May being an Astrophysicist
fame is recognition, maybe people don't know what muhammed or amelia earhart looked like, but we recognise the name.
"Everyone is always like 'you're so much taller and broader than I expected'"
“the last time i met jedward” implies that abigail has met jedward on multiple occasions
Why do we desire to be famous...dose it have to do anything with our desire to be immortal?
U know that Michael Jackson was existing famous person
Do you know Emile cioran ? If yes..... what do you think of him ?
Serena Williams is now the only person I *want* to be Banksy
If you were to expect someone to do a certain thing, wouldn't you need a certain level of knowledge to do so? If so, wouldn't this mean that knowledge-of at least plays a part in fame. You can't expect me to do something because you don't know me. Furthermore, my teachers would be somewhat expectant of me to get certain grades, but does that mean I'm famous. I don't think you touch on who should be expectant in order to be famous. Is it societal expectation or is fame relative to the individual?
I would think the expectations argument would have similar ways of judging to the knowledge arguments in that it would depend largely on the number of people who have expectations, but wouldn't necessarily be proportional to the knowledge arguments in taking into account the size of the expectations and the surety that people have in them compared to the amount of knowledge that those things are based on.
Expectations would certainly require some amount of "knowledge-that" about a person, but he's not claiming that knowledge is unnecessary, only that it's not the best metric.
In terms of who it's relative to I'd say it's definitely relative to whatever group you're looking for it in. Richard Ayoade is definitely more famous in the UK than in North America, Prince Charles is by far more famous than Prime Minister Trudeau globally, and if you're only looking at Calgary's relatively tiny rave scene then DJs Double D and Eradik are way more famous than at least half of the bands on the Billboard Top 100.
What expectations fo past things/people have?
I just have to say this tie is perfectly matched to this shirt. Sorry, I cant stand it)
I knew Kim Kardashian was going to come up at some point in this video.
Paul Robeson. Polymath, sadly not famous anymore.